Overdue Aid for Students

Brown University’s announcement last week that it will adopt a “need-blind” admissions policy was an important but long-awaited decision. Starting in 2003, Brown will no longer weigh an applicant’s ability to pay for college during admissions decisions. Brown is the last of the Ivy League universities to become need-blind; this switch means that students from all economic backgrounds applying to elite universities will finally be evaluated solely on their merit—not their money.

One goal of education is to place people of different socioeconomic backgrounds on a common footing. Admissions decisions that take into account applicants’ ability to pay run contrary to the entire philosophy of giving people equal economic opportunity to pursue higher education.

Brown, realizing this, also declared that first-year students eligible for work-study would receive extra grant money, eliminating the need for them to take on-campus jobs. For the same reasons that students should not be judged on their ability to pay in the admissions process, they should not be forced to work during the term. Brown’s innovative idea allows all first-years, regardless of their economic circumstances, time to adjust to the academic, social and emotional rigors of college without the added pressure of a term-time job.

Loans, the other traditional option available to students on financial aid, have their own problems. The prospect of a mountain of debt often coerces students to apply to more affordable schools. Debt can also curtail students’ career choices; for those who have thousands of dollars worth of debt, a career in education or public service becomes far less affordable and thus acceptable than one in law or investment banking.

In light of Brown’s recent policy change, Harvard should go a step further and eliminate both required term-time jobs and loans and give direct grants instead. This may sound idealistic or impossible, but at least one institution has managed to try completely eliminating student loans—Princeton University last year announced that, beginning with the class of 2003, it would replace all loans with direct grants.

Harvard should follow the examples of Princeton and Brown by replacing all loans and required jobs with grants. Grants alleviate the considerable burdens posed by both loans and term-time jobs, giving students precious time to pursue academic endeavors

Of course, any increase in aid would draw from the University’s financial reserves. But Harvard’s endowment exists to further the academic cause of the University, and allowing students to pursue their education unhindered by loans or work during college should be a major priority for the administration. Indeed, there is no sense in Harvard having an endowment at all if it cannot be drawn upon in order to attract the most talented students in the world, regardless of their financial situations. Once these students arrive they should be able to focus on their studies and extracurriculars, unhindered by the need to work or the threat of having to pay off a substantial loan.

This would be a great step towards allowing students to spend more time on arguably the most beneficial aspects of college life—academic and extracurricular activities. No Harvard student should be forced to work during the term or take out loans; our four years in college are too precious.