Harvard’s recent expansion of financial aid has sparked all sorts of interesting conversations, some of which, I think, the University might not have expected. First, in the Boston Globe, college consultant Steven Roy Goodman questions the university’s motives, saying that altruism had nothing to do with it.

Now the Crimson goes to the trouble of reprinting an article from last October in which it asks that question that one so often hears, Should Harvard just pay for all of its students?

For many the idea of a free private college education is a fantasy, as tuition rates around the country climb upwards at alarming speeds with no end to the rise in sight. According to “Making Harvard Modern” by Morton and Phyllis Keller, Harvard’s own tuition has skyrocketed from $2,600 in 1970 to $22,699 in 2000 and currently sits at $30,275, up 5.3 percent from last year. The 21st century has seen the introduction of several initiatives to address prohibitively high tuitions among elite institutions; some, including Harvard, have even moved to eliminate parental contributions from low-income students. But with an endowment larger than some countries’ GDPs, the question becomes: is Harvard doing enough? Why can’t Harvard be free for all students?

It’s an interesting question in a sort of, let’s-get-mildly-drunk-and-talk-of-wild-hypotheticals kind of way. But it’s actually a great question for the powers-that-be at the university to have kicking around, because it keeps the conversation from focusing on potentially more problematic issues. Such as:

Why does Harvard tuition consistently rise faster than the rate of inflation?

Given Harvard’s enormous wealth and profit-making ventures, should the university remain tax-free?

Should Harvard, as some in Congress are suggesting, be required to spend five percent of its endowment annually?

Harvard’s endowment will almost certainly pass $40 billion this year, and hit $50 billion in 2009. These questions are only going to get more pressing…..