Future of Division III

[Ron Boerger]

And I choose to applaud schools for doing the right thing, like Harvard just did in giving back the money.

I think you misunderstood my original point ... Harvard gave back the money under pressure that was based on the wrong pretenses. The "small business loans" story had gained traction for a number of not-so-small businesses like Ruth Chris' Steakhouse that had gotten significant loans from a system not designed for them (due to lots of problems, loopholes, and lack of proper details on both sides of the entire thing). In that "story," many started looking around and found other anomalies and one that people "found" and conflated into the story was Harvard. As if they had gotten a loan from the same small business set-up. Even when it was discovered where their loan had really come from (the one set-up to help students who were suddenly in a tough spot), no one wanted to correct the point (or at least no one anyone wanted to listen to ... but I won't get started on that).

So my point was it was unfortunate that Harvard felt pressured into a decision based on a completely different system, story, and premise, instead of there being a legit convo on the merits of the system they actually got the money from and what the purpose was.

Thus ... I don't want to attack or knock them necessarily because I don't feel the entire scenario was all that fair or forthright towards them.

Plus the government crafted a formula, applied it to all colleges, and said "here you go, $X thousand/million to help with COVID expenses, of which half must go to students" and published a list of recipients.  Harvard, Princeton, etc. didn't seek out that money, unlike the large publicly-traded companies who deliberately took advantage of a loophole in the "small-business" program.  But they were subjected to outrage as if they had. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah ... I also forgot that part. SMH

[Gregory Sager]

And I choose to applaud schools for doing the right thing, like Harvard just did in giving back the money.

I think you misunderstood my original point ... Harvard gave back the money under pressure that was based on the wrong pretenses. The "small business loans" story had gained traction for a number of not-so-small businesses like Ruth Chris' Steakhouse that had gotten significant loans from a system not designed for them (due to lots of problems, loopholes, and lack of proper details on both sides of the entire thing). In that "story," many started looking around and found other anomalies and one that people "found" and conflated into the story was Harvard. As if they had gotten a loan from the same small business set-up. Even when it was discovered where their loan had really come from (the one set-up to help students who were suddenly in a tough spot), no one wanted to correct the point (or at least no one anyone wanted to listen to ... but I won't get started on that).

As I pointed out in my previous post, the money was (and is) available for more than just to "help students who were suddenly in a tight spot." It's the priority purpose, as I said, since at least 50% of the money has to go to that purpose, but the rest of it can go right into a school's coffers for whatever purpose it sees fit, excluding the salaries of administrators. And I'm sorry, but Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc., do not need that money, no way, no how.

So my point was it was unfortunate that Harvard felt pressured into a decision based on a completely different system, story, and premise, instead of there being a legit convo on the merits of the system they actually got the money from and what the purpose was.

I absolutely agree that the actual system, story, and premise under which Harvard got the money deserves a legit convo on the merits of the system they got the money from and what the purpose was. And we are having that legit convo right now. And I am saying that Harvard should not get the money, because it doesn't need it.

Thus ... I don't want to attack or knock them necessarily because I don't feel the entire scenario was all that fair or forthright towards them.

OK, so some media outlets mistakenly conflated the academic-institutions-bailout story with the small-businesses-bailout story. That's certainly something that needs to be clarified. But, again, that's not what I've been discussing. I'm discussing Harvard, Stanford, etc. getting CARES Act money through the same program that Bethany Lutheran, Otterbein, UMPI, and Agnes Scott are getting theirs.

Plus the government crafted a formula, applied it to all colleges, and said "here you go, $X thousand/million to help with COVID expenses, of which half must go to students" and published a list of recipients.  Harvard, Princeton, etc. didn't seek out that money, unlike the large publicly-traded companies who deliberately took advantage of a loophole in the "small-business" program.  But they were subjected to outrage as if they had. 

Agreed. It was a slapdash, makeshift, all-encompassing government program thrown together in what seemed to be a matter of hours, and it obviously wasn't clearly thought through well enough. Kudos to the federal government for acting with alacrity for a change, but a little more time spent putting the package together would've allowed some common sense to sink in regarding the fact that certain premium universities that are already awash in available funds don't need the money at all, while other institutions are desperate to get it (and in at least one case, MacMurray, couldn't hang on long enough to get it, although who knows if MacMurray would've survived another school year even if the bailout money had showed up on the doorstep in Jacksonville, IL in the nick of time).

Yeah, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and their ilk got a PR black eye. Princeton apparently never said that it would take the money, so I'd say that Princeton's black eye was undeserved. But, whether Harvard asked for the money or not in the first place, it was going to take the money, regardless. Here's the key quote from the article below:

As recently as Tuesday, Harvard officials said they planned to direct the entirety of the funds to students in financial crisis because of the pandemic.

"Harvard has committed that 100% of these emergency higher education funds will be used to provide direct assistance to students facing urgent financial needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic," Jonathan Swain, spokesman for Harvard, said in a statement.

Whether Swain's statement was accurate or not -- call me skeptical that Harvard has so many indigent students that need short-term financial aid that it would take all of $8.6 million to meet their needs -- the fact of the matter is that Harvard was going to take that money, until it was shamed into doing an about-face.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-04-22/harvard-caves-to-trump-demand-to-return-coronavirus-stimulus-money

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

I was JUST reading this today (and I know Ryan was reading the same thing). To my point earlier: endowments can have a lot of restrictions. Harvard has 80% of it's endowment tied up to specifics of what the donor(s) placed for restrictions on the money's use.

It is interesting and honestly something I have to re-read again: https://abc7news.com/why-coronavirus-battered-universities-may-not-be-able-to-use-their-endowments/6129316/

[jknezek]

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

I was JUST reading this today (and I know Ryan was reading the same thing). To my point earlier: endowments can have a lot of restrictions. Harvard has 80% of it's endowment tied up to specifics of what the donor(s) placed for restrictions on the money's use.

It is interesting and honestly something I have to re-read again: https://abc7news.com/why-coronavirus-battered-universities-may-not-be-able-to-use-their-endowments/6129316/

Yeah well. 80% of $40 billion still leaves $8 billion more. At 5% interest, that's $400 million. So at 8000 students that's $50,000 per student.

We all get it. They can't tap the majority of the endowment for whatever they want, but a school like Harvard floats in money. They handed it back, so good for them. They took some flack? Well... when you are top dog, you get the most shots. That's part of being top dog. Maybe it wasn't fair, but originally it seemed like they were going to keep it and the pressure helped them make the right decision.

[Gregory Sager]

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

I was JUST reading this today (and I know Ryan was reading the same thing). To my point earlier: endowments can have a lot of restrictions. Harvard has 80% of it's endowment tied up to specifics of what the donor(s) placed for restrictions on the money's use.

It is interesting and honestly something I have to re-read again: https://abc7news.com/why-coronavirus-battered-universities-may-not-be-able-to-use-their-endowments/6129316/

Yeah well. 80% of $40 billion still leaves $8 billion more. At 5% interest, that's $400 million. So at 8000 students that's $50,000 per student.

We all get it. They can't tap the majority of the endowment for whatever they want, but a school like Harvard floats in money. They handed it back, so good for them. They took some flack? Well... when you are top dog, you get the most shots. That's part of being top dog. Maybe it wasn't fair, but originally it seemed like they were going to keep it and the pressure helped them make the right decision.

And as pointed out ... they didn't necessarily ask for it.

[Gray Fox]

I got money I didn't ask for, and I'm not giving it back.

[Gregory Sager]

I got money I didn't ask for, and I'm not giving it back.

LOL. Yep!

[cciw83]

A really interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on Coronavirus Pushes Colleges to the Breaking Point. I don't think the link will share except to paid subscribers.

I did not realize until I saw the article that MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Il was closing. The article quotes the author of the "The College Stress Test" that 200 of the nation's 1,000 private, liberal arts colleges could close in the next year. It is a lengthy article on multiple issues and mentions a number of D-3 schools.  It is a worthwhile read.

[Pat Coleman]

We have a very D-III knowledgeable higher ed expert on the new D3football.com podcast to talk about similar things.
https://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2020/04/30/atn-podcast-274-who-knows-whats-next/

(Last month, in Podcast 273, we have MacMurray's coach talking about the news of the closure.)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

A really interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on Coronavirus Pushes Colleges to the Breaking Point. I don't think the link will share except to paid subscribers.

I did not realize until I saw the article that MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Il was closing. The article quotes the author of the "The College Stress Test" that 200 of the nation's 1,000 private, liberal arts colleges could close in the next year. It is a lengthy article on multiple issues and mentions a number of D-3 schools.  It is a worthwhile read.

I'm pretty surprised the WSJ didn't include that story as part of their free reads per their Coronavirus category.

[Mr. Ypsi]

My take (NO insider info, but lots of reading) is that any colleges that go under in the next sixth months were probably doomed within the next few years anyway.  However, IF COVID-19 is not faced with effective treatments and/or vaccines within a year, I think MANY schools will buckle under. 

Who is going to pay private-school prices to have online teaching?  Community Colleges will steal HUGE amounts of private school  moneys if colleges can't re-open for face-to-face instruction.  If colleges are still shut down in 2021, it may be chaos.

The problem, of course, is that dorms are total vectors for infection.  Testing MUST be drastically ramped up or D3 schools are in deep doo-doo.

[Pat Coleman]

Agreed that there are plenty of stressed colleges already and those are the ones that are likely to go first.