Great Schafer Interview (Topher Scott confirmed as 2nd Assistant)

[billhoward]

As Dale Carnegie would say, nobody is a born public speaker, it's a skill that must be developed.  ... I don't know why we would expect anything else.

... and can be developed. The weekend before, at our nephew's graduation from a small Christian HS, the commencement speaker was a spellbinding orator (other than his message that the grads now entered a world hostile to their beliefs and so, keep the faith, baby) but so were the half-dozen seniors who spoke. Fabulously poised except for one senior whose speech was off-the-wall-stream-of-consciousness but it's okay, he's headed to Carnegie-Mellon as an engineer. It may be their HS prepares them well for the most important mission in their lives, to be well-spoken and convince others to adopt their brand of Jesus.

Maybe Harvard's freshman seminar requirement to take a Life Skills course steers too many into Personal Finance: Offshore Banking.

[Trotsky]

Maybe Harvard's freshman seminar requirement to take a Life Skills course steers too many into Personal Finance: Offshore Banking.

"Motivational speaking to inspire your chauffeur to bury a hooker."

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

[Swampy]

From the previously mentioned link "How it this possible?", provided by David Harding:

To fund the initiative, Cornell is reallocating funds, increasing its endowment payout [emphasis JTW's], and seeking new scholarship gifts for domestic and international students. An additional $125 million for scholarships has been added to the campaign goal.

As you can see this is an additional amount of money for this program. They have been actively pursuing Alumni support for this. They use the argument that this is needed to compete, and they are getting extra money. I haven't looked for a link, but I believe that Athletics is being asked to do fundraising to pay for the extra money that the U provides.

From that quote, it seems both things are true: "reallocating funds" means that money that might have funded some other part of the University's activities (among which is presumably general financial aid) will be used for this initiative.  Likewise, dipping into the endowment means less return will be available to fund everything in the future.  The fundraising explanation indicates that the whole cost of the initiative won't be borne by the rest of the budget.  But reallocating funds and spending endowments tells me the net cost is not zero.

BTW, my personal experience echos kaelistus's impression that Cornell didn't use to give merit scholarships.  After my freshman financial aid offer had come in the mail, I received a small merit scholarship from the State of New York, and my Cornell grant was reduced by exactly that amount.

"Merit" scholarships have a long history at Cornell. When the NY legislature approved formation of the university (not yet named "Cornell) as the state's land grant institution, Andy White added an amendment that would create a state-funded scholarship giving free tuition at Cornell to the top public school graduates in each of the state's congressional districts. Since the public schools at the time were largely the province of working-class kids, this was a "merit-on-top-of-need" system.

This system was modified over the years, but it's still in place. In the mid-sixties (when I went to Cornell) NY State had, in increasing difficulty of winning, a "Scholar Incentive Award," "Regents Scholarship," and "Senatorial Scholarship at Cornell University," with the latter being awarded to the two (public?) high school graduates with the highest scores on regents exams in each district. The amounts of each need-based and ranged from a minimum of $100 (Scholar Incentive with high income) to $800 or so (Senatorial). Since someone who won the Cornell scholarship also must have won the other two, the total package equaled full tuition, which was about $1,800 back then, for someone from a poor family.

This was still in the day of the Ivy "cartel," so the other Ivies might have matched the package. But having the state pick up the tab, the what was still the most populous state in the country, gave Cornell a considerable advantage.

Today the NY-funded scholarship specifically for Cornell is only a couple of thousand dollars. So I suppose it's up to Cornell to find other ways to allow smart poor kids to afford the Rolls Royce price tag. Still, I'm very proud to hear Shaffer say Cornell's demographics more closely reflects those of the entire country than any other Ivy. And as a hockey fan, I'm glad he says this is actually an advantage in recruiting.

Sometime even we Cornell grads don't appreciate the ideals and contribution of "America's first university."

[TimV]

Look, I try not to be a pedantic a-hole on this forum.

What???  You're not even TRYING???;-)

Actually, I fully agree.  With both points.

[kaelistus]

At Cornell, recruited athletes graduate at the equivalent rate of the overall student population [92-93%].

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at all. The question is simply why does a person who gets into Harvard deserve more financial aid than a person who doesn't bother to apply?

But umm, while I was there almost all of the Hockey team was in the, reputed to be very easy, ARME major. So I'm pretty sure graduation rate doesn't say the full story.

[KeithK]

At Cornell, recruited athletes graduate at the equivalent rate of the overall student population [92-93%].

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at all. The question is simply why does a person who gets into Harvard deserve more financial aid than a person who doesn't bother to apply?

It's not a question of merit at all. I understand your characterization of it as such, but it's really just about increasing the probability that accepted students will matriculate. If HYP are giving more aid and we don't match then we are going to matriculate a lower caliber student for financial reasons.  The whole idea of need blind admissions is to take finances out of the equation.  The matching policy furthers this ambition.

[Jim Hyla]

At Cornell, recruited athletes graduate at the equivalent rate of the overall student population [92-93%].

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at all. The question is simply why does a person who gets into Harvard deserve more financial aid than a person who doesn't bother to apply?

It's not a question of merit at all. I understand your characterization of it as such, but it's really just about increasing the probability that accepted students will matriculate. If HYP are giving more aid and we don't match then we are going to matriculate a lower caliber student for financial reasons.  The whole idea of need blind admissions is to take finances out of the equation.  The matching policy furthers this ambition.

And, as has been said before, the matching policy was something all the Ivys did, before the government ruled it illegal. As Keith said, it's about need blind admissions. Many colleges will adjust your aid if another school gives you more.