Financially it also means they have strict quotas on the required wealth of a specific portion of the incoming class, no? They must have a certain number of the incoming freshman class be from families making more than $150,000 a year in order to be solvent.
Like many rich schools, Harvard has had a need-blind admissions policy for decades. This means admissions decisions are decoupled from decisions about who can pay, basically guaranteeing the opposite of your supposition.
Harvard's endowment is ~$40 billion right now. They're solvent.
In this specific case of making a donation large enough to build classroom space / hire professors , the person is increasing the teaching capacity of the school by more than 1, allowing them to attend in exchange helps everyone.
Need blind (probably) works the opposite way people think it does. Instead of putting a quota on low income applicants, it means that the only people who meet the standards are high income students whose parents have the cash for all of the extra curricular activities and tutors etc. My alma mater just moved to a system where they consider income, so they could do affirmative action based on income.
What university is that? It's a good policy, much better than controversial race-based admissions, but still promoting increased admissions among both minorities and poor white students.
Case Western did this, or was considering it. There was backlash from the alumni though - from appearances and description it sounded like it would function as a cap on students with financial need, rather than an avenue for affirmative action.
Yeah it was Case I was talking about. IIRC this was right as I was graduating (2013), and what I said was the line from the administration. The problem is there's no real way to verify what would happen until it's implemented.
