Complex Link Between Federal Dollars and Aid

To the editors:

Your recent editorial, "Give Us Our Money" (Editorial, May 14), seriously misrepresents Harvard's financial aid policies and practices, as well the relationship between Harvard's aid programs and those offered by the federal government.

Twenty years ago federal scholarship aid, including Pell grants, represented nearly twenty percent of the College's scholarship budget. Today federal scholarship aid accounts for less than six percent of the College's scholarship program. In other words, as the needs of Harvard's scholarship students have risen, the College, not the federal government, has borne the full cost of meeting those increased needs.

During most of this decade the federal government faced substantial cost and budget constraints and Pell grant maximums actually decreased in real dollars, while decreasing even more when measured in constant dollars. From 1990 through 1995, for example, individual students received less Pell Grant assistance each year than they did the previous year--and the College bridged the gap using its own resources. I might gently remind the editors that during this extended period of Pell decreases there were no campus editorials calling for students to receive less scholarship money because of reduced Pell authorizations.

It is worth noting as well, and as your initial article on Pell funding correctly reported, there are complex, extensive and occasionally arcane federal regulations governing precisely how much financial aid individual students can receive. In most instances we are required to reduce institutional financial aid as students receive additional federal funds. The College could allow students next year to "benefit from the Pell grant increase," but it would be illegal in many cases.

This year's changes to the College's aid programs are unprecedented. The scholarship budget has been increased by more than twenty percent to $53 million annually, the entire increase funded by Harvard's resources. The initiatives announced by Dean Knowles in September accomplish precisely what your editorial calls for; substantially lower debt burdens, freedom and flexibility for students to pursue unpaid internships and time-consuming extracurriculars and opportunities for students to focus more on educational experiences and less on finances. If we had relied solely on increases in federal scholarship aid to fund the initiatives they simply would not exist.

Harvard continues to meet full need for all aided students--those receiving Pell grants and those who do not--in a world where few institutions are able to sustain the principle. And Harvard does so in spite of the uncertainties of federal appropriations for grant funding. The College's commitment to meeting full need will not waiver, and students and families have every right to expect constancy and predictability in that commitment. In return, it seems fair to assume that no single category of scholarship aid, i.e. Pell grants, be considered an "exempt" resource in a student's aid package, particularly if the College is asked, as it has been in the past (and may be in the future) to replace federal resources that may be reduced or eliminated by the vagaries of federal budgets and national politics.

James S. Miller

May 14, 1999

The writer is Director of Financial Aid for Harvard-Radcliffe.

Intelligence Follies

To the editors:

Your editorial on NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (Editorial, May 10) flippantly insists "that this whole episode must be taken into stride" while conceding that "such events would be more palatable if we had more confidence in NATO's operation overall." I beg to differ--the failure on the part of the CIA to distinguish between the address of a suspected Yugoslavian arms agency and the Chinese embassy down the street would be more palatable if we had more confidence in the CIA's intelligence.

Far from being anomalies, U.S. intelligence failures of this sort seem to be de rigeur. During the Gulf war scores of Iraqi civilian buildings hit by American bombs were later admitted by the US government to have been mistakenly identified as military installations. In May of 1998 India's nuclear tests caught US intelligence completely unawares--the CIA was later faulted for having overlooked information clearly indicating the approach of the tests. In August of 1998 the U.S. launched missiles on a Sudanese pharmaceuticals plant based on CIA reports whose linking of the plant to terrorist activities has since been revealed to be highly questionable. The list goes on and on.

What is required as a direct result of such blunders is not simply a review of NATO's strategy in the Balkans but a full and public disclosure of the "extensive process" by which the CIA's information is checked. Until the public of this supposed democracy has access to statistics and hard facts detailing the CIA's intelligence gathering mechanisms and the process by which they are put to use by government officials it is hard to have confidence in the claim that mistakes of this magnitude won't happen again.

Saadi Soudavar '00

May 10, 1999

Value in Single-Sex Schools

To the editors:

As a successful graduate of an all-girl's school, I would disagree with Andrew Chang's assessment of single-sex education (Column, May 10).

While Chang asserts that single-sex education "failed to prepare [him] for the world beyond," I would argue that, in many cases, such schooling provides the best preparation of all--the opportunity to develop as a mature, confident and assertive individual during pivotal years in one's development. This system is successful particularly for girls in middle and high school, a period when sexual tension first emerges and can become an obstacle to one's educational pursuits. This is especially true in subjects like math and science, where boys often dominate mixed-sex environments. If it weren't for my years at an all-girl's school, I doubt I would have developed so strong a preference for these fields nor such personal confidence in my abilities to work successfully in these subjects.

That's not to say single-sex education does not have it's drawbacks, notably the eventual period of readjustment to a mixed-sex environment. But I would argue that such pitfalls can be overcome, both with the "highly awkward social functions" mentioned by Chang and by integration later in life--interaction that is enhanced by the confidence and self-respect gained beforehand. The "self-esteem boost" provided by the single-sex environment is not a short-term benefit, as suggested by Chang. Rather, such self-assurance gained early in life can become a vibrant force for years to come, and, I believe, will remain a vital component of personality throughout life. As a result, I am both happy with and extremely grateful for my years at an all-girls high school.

Marisa L. Porges '00

May 11, 1999