Big Money Woes

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Several articles in The Crimson of late have shown an unfortunately big-money attitude riding high at our dear, beloved alma mater. Harvard, it seems, isn't winning the research grant sweepstakes in the Boston area; this could be a potential cause for concern. After all, the more research money available at an institution, the more attractive it is to prospective faculty members. Why can't the prestige of Fair Harvard pull down the big bucks? Mavbe they should try playing the Lottery, or go on TV game shows--after all, those researchers must be wicked smart. Just imagine them on Jeopardy!...

Following this tale of woe came another piece which showed the depth of Harvard's commitment to education. Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences A. Michael Spence, it seems, has finally realized the negative effects of long-term faculty raiding and has proposed bettering the chance junior faculty members have of receiving tenure (he could have looked at the Yankees; how many World Series have they won without a farm system, just throwing money at free agents?). While it shouldn't be hard to imporve junior members' chances--you can't do worse than zero--he has proposed making their positions more attractive by decreasing their teaching load.

Economically, this makes sense. Why secure the finest faculty in the land if not to liberate them from the troublesome burden of teaching, thereby giving them the time for more research and the landing of bigger and better research grants? Both the faculty and the University benfit. But what about the students? Who will pick up the slack if junior members are freed from classroom responsibilities? The senior faculty, even if they could be found within state lines, have probably forgotten how. Maybe they could hire baby-sitters....

But then, when you come down to it, what do students really matter? Their main function is to grow up into rich alumni but while in school they're too poor to contribute much. They take too much time from the professor's research, they're messy and demanding, and their credit ratings are still low. They simply act as a drag on the furthering of knowledge. If every student disappeared tomorrow, the University would not only survive, it could finally get some work done. Who knows--maybe the students could teach themselves, in their spare time?

The third and clinching article came on Monday about the endowment. Here is Harvard's crowning glory, a $3.5 billion bankroll that represents 10 percent of all money held by colleges in the country and grows so fast the interest could pay off everyone's tuition in a month. Imagine the dream-vision: Harvard, the oldest institution in the United States, made absolutely free to all students. No one, no matter how poor, is intimidated from applying; nearly everyone even remotely qualified tries. Getting in certifies one's standing as the very best the country has to offer. Prestige has never been higher, diversity never greater, a Harvard diploma never more an indication of excellence: "they're so good, they get it free." A golden age of education--and it only costs one month's interest. The overall principle remains untouched and continues to grow.

Sadly, that scenario will never materialize. Despite record income and low fuel costs, tuition is still being raised next year by 6.9 percent, nearly twice the rate of inflation. Students will still be asked to accumulate five-figure debts, to work at jobs that pay well rather than those that benefit the community or enrich the mind. Those without the courtesy to be truly poor or very rich will continue to have difficulties. It seems almost obscene that this goes on when so much money is around, but then, that's big bucks education. The commitment to students is so deep, you could almost get your knees wet. Andrew Mastin '87