I started my college search during the Covid-19 pandemic. At that time, I was sure universities would find a way to survive. Now, as I prepare to apply for PhD programs, I feel uncertain about the academic path ahead.
It’s concerning to see institutions like Harvard, despite their vast resources, prioritize infrastructure over the education of future scholars. Across the country, many graduate programs are cutting back or freezing admissions. For example, Columbia University has proposed cutting up to 65% of its incoming PhD cohort. This is not an isolated case; Vanderbilt University and the University of Pennsylvania have also slowed or halted admissions. These decisions reflect bigger financial issues facing higher education today, especially after federal funding for research was reduced.
While Harvard hasn’t stopped admissions completely, it has made significant cuts in other areas. The university recently rejected its entire waitlist of graduate applicants and implemented a hiring freeze for faculty and staff positions. This raises important questions about its priorities.
Over the years, Harvard’s endowment has grown to $53 billion. The amount seems limitless, but Harvard faces complexities in its budget, especially with endowment restrictions and the need to balance infrastructure spending with everyday costs. Economist John Maynard Keynes once said, “in the long run we are all dead,” highlighting that long-term thinking can overlook urgent issues of the present.
Harvard is currently investing in over two million square feet of new property. While new buildings may enhance capacity for education, it’s essential to reflect on what this says about Harvard’s values. By focusing on infrastructure instead of expanding its academic community, the university risks sending a troubling message about the importance of faculty and student support.
Recent improvements in financial aid, such as providing free attendance for families earning less than $100,000, show some commitment to addressing student needs. However, this gesture doesn’t erase the damage caused by cutting graduate programs.
When Harvard makes decisions, the ripple effect is felt across the academic landscape. The university should lead by example and focus on nurturing the next generation of scholars. It’s crucial for departments to maintain strong faculty in core subjects to ensure quality education.
If Harvard treats essential academic programs as expendable, the implications extend far beyond its walls. The future of Harvard—much like any educational institution—depends on the students and faculty it nurtures. Buildings are important, but they need passionate individuals to fill them.
In conclusion, while it’s vital for Harvard to manage its finances wisely, it must also prioritize its educational mission at this critical juncture. The choices made today could have lasting consequences on the future of higher education.
Allison P. Farrell ’26 is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House, as noted in her editorial contributions.
Check out this related article: Former Ohio State Cheerleading Coach Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against University: Claims Racial and Gender Bias
Source link