The tax revenues from the $1.3T company that arose from their online yearbook?

Lawyers? Doctors? Medical research? Thousands of highly educated graduates annually? 161 Nobel prize winners?

Its not clear what the effect no Harvard would be on those metrics. And all of those are necessarily in Harvards best interest to maintain too.

This is compared to a direct payment to sustain operations which the government is saying they may not be in favor of. But its not like Harvard would say ”it may not be in our interest to produce successful people anymore.”

Harvard isn't the first to be targeted, nor will they be the last.

The American university system is undeniably impactful on American success over the last century. It would be tough to put any sort of exact number on it, but we can absolutely say "a shitload".

>The American university system is undeniably impactful on American success over the last century.

Merit based reforms would only help. What kind of DEI programs did Harvard have 100 years ago?

> And merit based reforms would help continue this.

I look forward to some.

This ain't it.

Ill settle for agreeing in principle that Harvard should be merit based

> What kind of DEI programs did Harvard have 100 years ago?

Amongst others, legacy admissions and discrimination against Jews, Catholics and non-whites. Let’s not pretend that Harvard’s admissions process, or American society more generally, was some kind of perfect meritocracy in 1925.

Don't confuse the credential factory with the skills and quality of the underlying students. Harvard is little more than a toll booth for students who were already smart and over-achieving. It's not like the teaching is extraordinary.

Harvard does substantially more than teach undergrads.

Lawyers and doctors aren't undergrads.

Medical research depends heavily on faculty and postgraduate folks.

Only some of their thousands of annual graduates are undergrads - about 1/3 of them, per Wiki.

I am confused. Who says credentials only apply to undergrads?

I said they do more than teach undergrads, to which you re-quoted me questioningly.

Include postgraduate folks and they're still doing a lot more than just teaching and credentialing. Places like Harvard output research, too.

A university research lab is controlled by usually one professor or a very small number of professors. They can decide to move to another university and take the lab with them.

One may expect that the funding is paying for research, such that the government finds the trade to have positive expected value.

Until recently, the US brand was where exceptional people wanted to go study and work. If you want to send the world's best and brightest to other countries that's fine, but it will have negative long term impacts on the US.

I wonder how many Harvard graduates work for either Trump or the federal government.

Most if not all of his cabinet (surprisingly) have an Ivy League background. Not sure if that's an endorsement on them, or an indictment on Ivy League schools