I agree having only half read the post. If wealthy donors want to contribute to society they can give money for scholarships for brilliant people who could not otherwise afford or think about a high-quality university. Please also read Michelle Goldberg on last week's hearing every word of which I agree with. (Marginally related I have learned an hour ago how good the University of Sao Paulo really is.)
I still give money to my school (which has a large endowment and admits lots of rich kids) because they gave me very generous financial aid that allowed me to attend way back when. Most of the kids I hung out with back then also had big aid packages (sometimes they were so poor they got living stipends as well). I got a good education there (yes- I know I could have gotten the same nearly anywhere if I selected the right courses and profs) and I feel it is only fair that I sponsor modest scholarships for students today (but there is no way I would give them a building- even if I had the money to do so).
One thing the large schools still do is give large grants to poorer students. Some of this is due to discriminatory pricing - charging rich kids a high price so that it can be nearly free for the middle class and the poor, but for many of the top schools nearly half of the entering classes are receiving substantial financial aid. This is a good thing. One of the aid recipients I helped sponsor was the son of an illegal immigrant from S Korea. The dad owned a convenience store and had two kids. The deal was he could only afford to pay for one tuition at a time, so the kids took turns going to school for a year and then working at the store for a year (until they were able to transfer into schools that gave them big aid packages - most state schools do not- maybe that supports Noah’s argument for bigger gifts to state schools).
As to that list of state and community schools giving the most bang for the buck, I am guessing that for the NY and CA schools it is Asian kids that are responsible for the outperformance rather than the school itself. The Asian kids who would have been able to get into better schools if they still admitted students based upon test scores. The ones the Ivies discriminate against. Probably immigrant kids (Latinos) driving the Texas results as well.
Maybe the best bang for the charity buck in education is not at the university level but in primary and secondary education- providing a safe environment focused on learning and preparation for the middle class and poor kids with high potential.
I attended two public universities for my degrees. I contribute modestly to each of them on a yearly basis to the departments I studied in and the general alumni scholarship funds. Not being mega-wealthy there will never be an endowed chair or building in my name. However, I will feel good that some students will be able to study at each university with a bit of financial aid that came from my contributions.
You are right about the Cal State in the abstract, of course, but I have little faith in most campuses using financial gifts wisely under the current leadership (in the Chancellor's Office or any of the campuses). There is almost no quality control on faculty and the legislative mandate to teach ethnic studies includes a mandate (a requirement for all students, starting in 2025) to "Analyze and articulate concepts such as race and racism, racialization, ethnicity, equity, ethno-centrism, eurocentrism, white supremacy, self-determination, liberation, decolonization, sovereignty, imperialism, settler colonialism, and anti-racism as analyzed in any one or more of the following: Native American Studies, African American Studies, Asian American Studies, and Latina and Latino American Studies." Note the absence of Jewish Studies, Islamic Studies, or anything about Armenians, a huge population in CA.
Whether you give money to an elite institution is a function of your objectives. Universities serve two very different purposes.... education and research. On education, all your points are very valid... the elite institutions touch a very small part of the student population, and the actual pedagogy is marginally better (if at all). Interestingly, even here, the elite institutions tend to have an outsized impact because the rest of educational establishment mimics these institutions. This needs to change as there is a need to build inexpensive scalable educational capability for skills development. The current model is a little like taking a private chef model (elite education) and trying to feed the masses with it. It is not affordable and just does not make sense.
On research and its associated impact on economic development, elite institutions play a very outsized role. Research is a unique capability game. not an accumulated numbers game. American elite research institutions very effectively accumulate the world's best talent, arm them with resources, and the results are a disproportionate impact on invention/economic development. This is infact a significant chunk of the unique growth story of the American system. The alumni economic model is part of the elite university economic model. You need a funding source to support 3-sigma talent, and this gets amplified by government funding.
Getting back to your philanthropic objectives, if you have a modest amount of money, the leverage in an elite institution is very poor...so is the waste by the way. Your local community college is much better, and of course international donations are even better from an ability to maximize making a direct difference. However, if you are in the league where you have significant resources, the elite institutions offer a unique opportunity to fund break-through research which truly impacts mankind. This is the reason they are landing these very large donations.
If graduates of the top colleges aren't emotionally committed to giving to their alma maters, though, why should they give to state universities instead? There are so many charities that do far more to improve human well-being.
I think the Effective Altruism people often use donations to colleges as a good example of how *not* to make the world a better place. Without taking sides on Israel-Palestine, shouldn't there be a way for the EA movement to exploit the current fuss by reminding people that this was never a good choice in the first place?
(stolen from a recent Yglesias tweet, but hopefully with some value added)
I dunno. I mean, I agree that elite schools are not a great target for philanthropy. I am not sure I agree about the rest of it. Legacy admissions make sense to me - at least as an element that reduces the risk of being one of the many who are qualified but not admitted. Isn’t one of the main value propositions of, like, Yale to someone of small social capital that it will connect that student to people (many of them, yes, legacy admits) with high social capital? I always thought that was kind of the point? Does anyone think it is actually a substantially “better” education?
Having gone to an elite school and having seen the admissions process from the inside, there is no reasonable ability to select only the “most” qualified kids anyway. The tools for evaluation are pretty blunt! And there are far more applicants who score at the top with those blunt evaluation tools than there are slots. It is not by any means a meritocracy except in the sense that it requires merit to get into the pool from which a pretty random selection is made. This may be a silly analogy - but it’s a little like the scores of some of those Olympic races that measure down to the thousandth or ten thousandth of a second... Diminishing meaning/value in selecting based on very marginal distinctions in our academic measuring tools.
I would go even further and say you should not give any higher Ed institution any money until they dissolve their DIE departments and fully commit to Enlightenment values.
Instead of limiting supply and hoarding endowment funding, these high-demand institutions should be making room for more qualified students that want to pay to go there. Raise their billions that way, instead of through these contributions that end up in the hands of shady Private Equity firms. That's how everything else works. We are stuck in a diamond model for higher education when we should be using an iPhone one. Getting rid of the tax deduction for those contributions would be a good start. Ultimately, Warren Buffet and I should have the same standard deduction on our 1040EZ forms.
If elite colleges relied on tuition then they would increase enrollment, but that would reduce their exclusivity. That's essential because they sell prestige to donors, parents, and students at a high price. It is a brilliant tactic for what are often fronts for tax-exempt private equity firms. Want a good education? Go to a flagship state school and work hard. Want prestige? Go to a psychologist.
There might be some parts of the world where it makes sense to give money to higher education; which is after all, an important public good. For example, I cannot fault George Soros for using his wealth to bolster the institutions resisting Hungary's abandonment of democracy. It's only the specific context of American higher education that makes donations such a waste of resources.
The problem with elite institutions is that the exclusivity is the entire point. If Harvard or Yale were to be fundraising to open a second campus or something, I could see some benefit to contributing. Expanding an elite brand is not the same type of social benefit as giving to a lower-tier school but it's more in line of what you'd want an elite institution to do (I.e., maximize the output of your best) as opposed to just raising the bar of what "the best" is.
I give to Berkeley, but specifically to a program that builds pipelines to science and medical fields for disadvantaged students (racially or economically). I'll likely bequeath a significant amount to that program after I pass because it supports many of my values and ensures Berkeley (and its prestige) will support them too.
Henry Rowan made a huge donation to a small public college rather than his alma mater of MIT. Rowan University has become a highly excellent engineering university that continues to educate more students while keeping tuition low. It's a great case study.
I agree having only half read the post. If wealthy donors want to contribute to society they can give money for scholarships for brilliant people who could not otherwise afford or think about a high-quality university. Please also read Michelle Goldberg on last week's hearing every word of which I agree with. (Marginally related I have learned an hour ago how good the University of Sao Paulo really is.)
I still give money to my school (which has a large endowment and admits lots of rich kids) because they gave me very generous financial aid that allowed me to attend way back when. Most of the kids I hung out with back then also had big aid packages (sometimes they were so poor they got living stipends as well). I got a good education there (yes- I know I could have gotten the same nearly anywhere if I selected the right courses and profs) and I feel it is only fair that I sponsor modest scholarships for students today (but there is no way I would give them a building- even if I had the money to do so).
One thing the large schools still do is give large grants to poorer students. Some of this is due to discriminatory pricing - charging rich kids a high price so that it can be nearly free for the middle class and the poor, but for many of the top schools nearly half of the entering classes are receiving substantial financial aid. This is a good thing. One of the aid recipients I helped sponsor was the son of an illegal immigrant from S Korea. The dad owned a convenience store and had two kids. The deal was he could only afford to pay for one tuition at a time, so the kids took turns going to school for a year and then working at the store for a year (until they were able to transfer into schools that gave them big aid packages - most state schools do not- maybe that supports Noah’s argument for bigger gifts to state schools).
As to that list of state and community schools giving the most bang for the buck, I am guessing that for the NY and CA schools it is Asian kids that are responsible for the outperformance rather than the school itself. The Asian kids who would have been able to get into better schools if they still admitted students based upon test scores. The ones the Ivies discriminate against. Probably immigrant kids (Latinos) driving the Texas results as well.
Maybe the best bang for the charity buck in education is not at the university level but in primary and secondary education- providing a safe environment focused on learning and preparation for the middle class and poor kids with high potential.
I attended two public universities for my degrees. I contribute modestly to each of them on a yearly basis to the departments I studied in and the general alumni scholarship funds. Not being mega-wealthy there will never be an endowed chair or building in my name. However, I will feel good that some students will be able to study at each university with a bit of financial aid that came from my contributions.
You are right about the Cal State in the abstract, of course, but I have little faith in most campuses using financial gifts wisely under the current leadership (in the Chancellor's Office or any of the campuses). There is almost no quality control on faculty and the legislative mandate to teach ethnic studies includes a mandate (a requirement for all students, starting in 2025) to "Analyze and articulate concepts such as race and racism, racialization, ethnicity, equity, ethno-centrism, eurocentrism, white supremacy, self-determination, liberation, decolonization, sovereignty, imperialism, settler colonialism, and anti-racism as analyzed in any one or more of the following: Native American Studies, African American Studies, Asian American Studies, and Latina and Latino American Studies." Note the absence of Jewish Studies, Islamic Studies, or anything about Armenians, a huge population in CA.
Whether you give money to an elite institution is a function of your objectives. Universities serve two very different purposes.... education and research. On education, all your points are very valid... the elite institutions touch a very small part of the student population, and the actual pedagogy is marginally better (if at all). Interestingly, even here, the elite institutions tend to have an outsized impact because the rest of educational establishment mimics these institutions. This needs to change as there is a need to build inexpensive scalable educational capability for skills development. The current model is a little like taking a private chef model (elite education) and trying to feed the masses with it. It is not affordable and just does not make sense.
On research and its associated impact on economic development, elite institutions play a very outsized role. Research is a unique capability game. not an accumulated numbers game. American elite research institutions very effectively accumulate the world's best talent, arm them with resources, and the results are a disproportionate impact on invention/economic development. This is infact a significant chunk of the unique growth story of the American system. The alumni economic model is part of the elite university economic model. You need a funding source to support 3-sigma talent, and this gets amplified by government funding.
Getting back to your philanthropic objectives, if you have a modest amount of money, the leverage in an elite institution is very poor...so is the waste by the way. Your local community college is much better, and of course international donations are even better from an ability to maximize making a direct difference. However, if you are in the league where you have significant resources, the elite institutions offer a unique opportunity to fund break-through research which truly impacts mankind. This is the reason they are landing these very large donations.
If graduates of the top colleges aren't emotionally committed to giving to their alma maters, though, why should they give to state universities instead? There are so many charities that do far more to improve human well-being.
I think the Effective Altruism people often use donations to colleges as a good example of how *not* to make the world a better place. Without taking sides on Israel-Palestine, shouldn't there be a way for the EA movement to exploit the current fuss by reminding people that this was never a good choice in the first place?
(stolen from a recent Yglesias tweet, but hopefully with some value added)
I dunno. I mean, I agree that elite schools are not a great target for philanthropy. I am not sure I agree about the rest of it. Legacy admissions make sense to me - at least as an element that reduces the risk of being one of the many who are qualified but not admitted. Isn’t one of the main value propositions of, like, Yale to someone of small social capital that it will connect that student to people (many of them, yes, legacy admits) with high social capital? I always thought that was kind of the point? Does anyone think it is actually a substantially “better” education?
Having gone to an elite school and having seen the admissions process from the inside, there is no reasonable ability to select only the “most” qualified kids anyway. The tools for evaluation are pretty blunt! And there are far more applicants who score at the top with those blunt evaluation tools than there are slots. It is not by any means a meritocracy except in the sense that it requires merit to get into the pool from which a pretty random selection is made. This may be a silly analogy - but it’s a little like the scores of some of those Olympic races that measure down to the thousandth or ten thousandth of a second... Diminishing meaning/value in selecting based on very marginal distinctions in our academic measuring tools.
I would go even further and say you should not give any higher Ed institution any money until they dissolve their DIE departments and fully commit to Enlightenment values.
I'm glad I read all the way to the footnote. You should have led with that.
Instead of limiting supply and hoarding endowment funding, these high-demand institutions should be making room for more qualified students that want to pay to go there. Raise their billions that way, instead of through these contributions that end up in the hands of shady Private Equity firms. That's how everything else works. We are stuck in a diamond model for higher education when we should be using an iPhone one. Getting rid of the tax deduction for those contributions would be a good start. Ultimately, Warren Buffet and I should have the same standard deduction on our 1040EZ forms.
If elite colleges relied on tuition then they would increase enrollment, but that would reduce their exclusivity. That's essential because they sell prestige to donors, parents, and students at a high price. It is a brilliant tactic for what are often fronts for tax-exempt private equity firms. Want a good education? Go to a flagship state school and work hard. Want prestige? Go to a psychologist.
Do you have thoughts on Malcom Gladwell’s idea that we should use the tax treatment of universities to force them to take more disadvantaged students?
He was the first public intellectual I recall beating this drum.
There might be some parts of the world where it makes sense to give money to higher education; which is after all, an important public good. For example, I cannot fault George Soros for using his wealth to bolster the institutions resisting Hungary's abandonment of democracy. It's only the specific context of American higher education that makes donations such a waste of resources.
But if you want to influence the titanx (pronounced tit-tanks) of American ideas, donating to the elite colleges is how to get some influence.
The problem with elite institutions is that the exclusivity is the entire point. If Harvard or Yale were to be fundraising to open a second campus or something, I could see some benefit to contributing. Expanding an elite brand is not the same type of social benefit as giving to a lower-tier school but it's more in line of what you'd want an elite institution to do (I.e., maximize the output of your best) as opposed to just raising the bar of what "the best" is.
I give to Berkeley, but specifically to a program that builds pipelines to science and medical fields for disadvantaged students (racially or economically). I'll likely bequeath a significant amount to that program after I pass because it supports many of my values and ensures Berkeley (and its prestige) will support them too.
Henry Rowan made a huge donation to a small public college rather than his alma mater of MIT. Rowan University has become a highly excellent engineering university that continues to educate more students while keeping tuition low. It's a great case study.