Remember this stupid moment from April? If Congress doesn't fix the next relief bill, dubbed the HEROES Act (#RIPDavidBowie), we're going to have to do it again. The bill sends wealthy schools millions that could have more impact at public institutions.
Let's not do this again.
I put the great data @EduBenM shared on likely allocations for private universities & colleges together with @NACUBO's list of endowments.
The 40 wealthiest private universities in the country, whose combined endowments add up to $292B, are slated to receive $709M from HEROES.
Schools 1-10. As @EduBenM pointed out, institutions with lots of grad students get a larger benefit because grad students are being used in the headcount. Let's fix that to focus on undergrads.
Schools 11-20
Schools 21-30
Schools 31-40
All universities do have hard times ahead of them, BUT public institutions, particularly regional ones & community colleges that serve many more people than these 40 schools, are going to suffer much more. $709M would matter a lot more to them than to these rich schools.
So, let's fix the bill, Congress, to make sure the money goes where it will have the largest impact. What d'you say?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is such good reporting from the @harvardcrimeson:
There are about 27,000 high schools in the U.S.
Over the past 15 years, 1 in 11 students at Harvard have come from just 21 high schools.
So 9.1% of Harvard students come from 0.07% of US schools. @nytdavidbrooks
This is no accident. It's a stated priority of Harvard admissions.
The longtime dean of admissions said they're in the business of creating 100 year relationships with schools. He said this in a trial where Harvard was, believe it or not, trying to show it's fair.
Legacy, too, plays its role, as these are the kind of schools where wealthy alumni send their kids.
The most heavily weighted single factor in the Best Colleges rankings is Undergraduate Academic Reputation, which USN calls "Expert Opinion."
Here's the thing: there is absolutely no way the presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions they send the survey to can be qualified to answer the questions, let alone claim expertise.
Let's talk about some dumb stuff people say about test optional admissions. 🧵
This might take a sec, so here's the tl;dr:
TO policies, in and of themselves, are neither a cure-all for what's wrong with American higher ed nor the end of what's good about it, but the evidence points to their doing some good and no harm.
Let's define TO first.
A test-optional policy is one that allows applicants to decide whether they want their test score to be considered. It does not "get rid of tests" or "ban tests."
Almost every 4-yr college in the US is currently test optional.
For decades, colleges, med schools, and law schools have all made the point that standardized tests exist to show readiness to succeed in college or grad school.
Rankings were one of the incentives to focus on scores well beyond the readiness threshold and overemphasize tests. That emphasis has excluded lots of people who were highly qualified to become lawyers and doctors.