Harvard officials reverse course on financial aid policy

and James Stern The Harvard Crimson CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (U-WIRE) -- One week ago, both Harvard's president and its director of financial aid committed the University to a "blanket set of policy changes" in undergraduate financial aid, ending a semester of near-silence on the subject. But yesterday, in a stunning administrative flip-flop, Harvard officials backed away from that pledge -- and what could have been millions of dollars in formal aid increases. Instead, officials simply re-affirmed their standing commitment to a summer of aid review. This unexpected reversal suggests what could be a jurisdictional conflict between President Neil Rudenstine and Dean of the Faculty Jeremy Knowles, with the cost of thousands of College educations at stake. Despite the increases in student aid sweeping other top universities, Knowles has maintained that formal change at Harvard is not guaranteed. Sources say he has stifled aid change all semester, while Rudenstine has pushed for greater outlays since January. But last Wednesday, Harvard seemed to change its tack. Rudenstine said that after a semester of making case-by-case adjustments while other schools instituted reforms, the University was now prepared to make formal changes to aid policy. "We are going to have a different set of principles for packaging [financial aid] next year," Rudenstine said, adding that after considering reforms made by other schools, the new policies "would fit our situation." "We're going to be there," he added. Rudenstine told The Crimson the changes would require three to five months of study and would be announced by late September or early October. And three hours after Rudenstine's interview, Director of Financial Aid James Miller appeared to be on the same page. "We certainly expect something by the end of the summer," Miller said at that time. He described the coming reforms as "a blanket set of policy changes." Miller said the changes would likely include an adjustment in the amount of self-help contributions required of students and change in the way the University weighs outside scholarships. "It will probably be more in line with where we are now anyway," he said, referring to the additional aid spending this semester as a result of case-by-case review, estimated between $750,000 and $1.5 million. "Down the road it's important that you have a message: 'Harvard has announced the following changes in its financial aid programs,'" Miller said. But all semester long Knowles has been echoing something completely different from University Hall. Officials say Rudenstine had wanted to follow Princeton into greater aid generosity in January, but the budget-conscious dean refused. "Rudenstine wanted to move more aggressively," one Mass. Hall official told The Crimson. "Knowles said, 'wait and see'." Knowles, whose administrative fiefdom must pay for any aid increases, would still not commit last week to anything beyond a review of aid options by a committee over the summer. The review was promised in March, when it became apparent that aid policies would not formally change during the spring term. But even after Rudenstine and Miller effectively guaranteed the summer review would produce formal aid changes last week, Knowles refused to promise anything more. Rudenstine, who took office with a pledge to unify Harvard's "fiendishly decentralized" administration, has won more power by relying on a consensus system. But Rudenstine's persuasive power sometimes breaks down when his subordinates rebel, which appeared to happen yesterday afternoon. In what may become an important test case for Rudenstine's authority in high-profile conflicts, Knowles' competing approach to financial aid appeared yesterday to win out over the president's. In an early-afternoon e-mail, Miller said "whatever we do will be clear." Pressed for clarification, his predictions -- which had matched Rudenstine's one week earlier -- fell exactly in line with those given by Knowles. "To state 'we're committed to an aid change' is premature," Miller said in another e-mail. "It would be more accurate? to focus on a review process, rather than on an outcome." Miller explained his reversal by saying that, while he had personal convictions about the best direction for aid change -- "clearly, we think self-help levels should be looked at" -- he "could not commit FAS" to any particular outcome. Reached for comment last night, Knowles repeated the line he has held since March. "I am establishing a committee to look at the shape of our financial aid packages," Knowles said. "As a result of the study, we will make any changes which would improve the nature of our financial aid support," he said.