3 ms·

Well for one, the numbers don't work. The idea that if Bowdoin just served students the same crap food as Vassar their financial aid programs would be equalize

Well for one, the numbers don't work. The idea that if Bowdoin just served students the same crap food as Vassar their financial aid programs would be equalized doesn't hold water. Also, the notion that cutting student services back to the point that many of Vassarh interviewees spoke of a laxative effect is somehow humanitarian doesn't hold water. The idea that if Bowdoin, which has one of the more generous financial aid systems of the elite schools, has to hit a certain percentage of aid or is somehow immoral, also doesn't hold water. They pretended to the Bowdoin interviewees -- which did not include anyone who could have rebutted -- that this was only about food, while Vassar's highest officials were interviewed about their humanitarian goals. You can see a response from Bowdoin officials here. https://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/07/15/bowdoin-college-malcolm-gladwell https://www.boston.com/news/education/2016/07/15/bowdoin-col... [FIXED LINK] Bowdoin's financial aid approach is certainly different. For instance, they tend to give 100% of the gap for any student who qualifies, and this has been going on for some time. Vassar doesn't do it this way, but increasing financial aid somewhat for students who were only partially qualifying was touted by Gladwell as some kind of revolution. By the way, the State school based in Portland, ME also gives surf and turf dinners...

morgante 10y ago
> Well for one, the numbers don't work. How not? If you're claiming that the numbers don't work, please explain how reducing expenditures on luxury services couldn't free up additional money for financial aid. You're nitpicking. Obviously, by itself serving better food is not by itself exclusive evidence of "evil." Princeton serves better food than either Vassar or Bowdoin, but also does an even better job with financial aid. I don't think Bowdoin is "immoral" any more than I think someone who only donates 20% of their income (vs. 30) is "immoral." The point is that, at the margin, spending a dollar on financial aid is more moral than spending a dollar on fantastic food. The specifics of Bowdoin food vs. Vassar food really don't matter to me. The general point is totally valid though: spending on luxury services absolutely takes dollars away from financial aid. In fact, the podcast actually got me thinking about whether the most moral thing would be for super-rich universities (ex. Princeton) to switch to need-aware admissions in reverse, with a goal of 100% of students qualifying for financial aid.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  I didn't say that cutting the quality of the food wouldn't "free up resources" that could go do financial aid. Did you go to Vassar or something? Are you going to ignore the various other point I made regarding the poor level of journalism here? e.g. is it "nitpicking" to point out that Gladwell gave the two college vastly different levels of research and opportunity to address his concerns? Direct quote from Gladwell. "The food at Bowdoin is actually a problem. A moral problem." I'm sorry I don't see the caveat he made about how this really wansn't his point.
  - morgante 10y ago
    It's a moral problem to spend marginal dollars on food rather than financial aid. Do you disagree? I do agree that it was sloppy of him to not include an interview with financial aid people from Bowdoin. I actually would be interested to hear them explain why they have higher indebtedness than Vassar. > I didn't say that cutting the quality of the food wouldn't "free up resources" that could go do financial aid. Did you go to Vassar or something? No, I actually went to the horrible NYU (on a full ride, though). I just feel strongly that aggressively offering outreach and financial aid to low-income students is one of the primary moral responsibilities for elite universities.
    - threepipeproblm 10y ago
      "It's a moral problem to spend marginal dollars on food rather than financial aid. Do you disagree?" Of course I don't agree. At what point do you determine that you've gone far enough, with the above stated principle? It's a bankrupt line of reasoning, based on the reduction of a budget with thousands of line items to dumbed-down sound bytes. Does it even bother you that you have mentioned no rational basis for drawing the line anywhere?
      - morgante 10y ago
        Why does there have to be a clear line to make the marginal argument valid? For individuals, I will state: spending a marginal dollar on charity is more moral than spending a marginal dollar on luxuries. I don't have a clear answer to where the line lies, even for myself. I try to keep giving until the marginal luxuries which I give up have greater utility than the utility I gain from donations. Admittedly, this is not exact or imprecise. My giving is strongly affected by my mental health (one of the best ways I've found to get out of a depressive spiral is to go on a donation spree). However, I don't think this lack of precision undermines the notion that charitable giving is more moral than luxury spending.

morgante 10y ago

> Well for one, the numbers don't work. How not? If you're claiming that the numbers don't work, please explain how reducing expenditures on luxury services couldn't free up additional money for financial aid. You're nitpicking. Obviously, by itself serving better food is not by itself exclusive evidence of "evil." Princeton serves better food than either Vassar or Bowdoin, but also does an even better job with financial aid. I don't think Bowdoin is "immoral" any more than I think someone who only donates 20% of their income (vs. 30) is "immoral." The point is that, at the margin, spending a dollar on financial aid is more moral than spending a dollar on fantastic food. The specifics of Bowdoin food vs. Vassar food really don't matter to me. The general point is totally valid though: spending on luxury services absolutely takes dollars away from financial aid. In fact, the podcast actually got me thinking about whether the most moral thing would be for super-rich universities (ex. Princeton) to switch to need-aware admissions in reverse, with a goal of 100% of students qualifying for financial aid.

threepipeproblm 10y ago
I didn't say that cutting the quality of the food wouldn't "free up resources" that could go do financial aid. Did you go to Vassar or something? Are you going to ignore the various other point I made regarding the poor level of journalism here? e.g. is it "nitpicking" to point out that Gladwell gave the two college vastly different levels of research and opportunity to address his concerns? Direct quote from Gladwell. "The food at Bowdoin is actually a problem. A moral problem." I'm sorry I don't see the caveat he made about how this really wansn't his point.
- morgante 10y ago
  It's a moral problem to spend marginal dollars on food rather than financial aid. Do you disagree? I do agree that it was sloppy of him to not include an interview with financial aid people from Bowdoin. I actually would be interested to hear them explain why they have higher indebtedness than Vassar. > I didn't say that cutting the quality of the food wouldn't "free up resources" that could go do financial aid. Did you go to Vassar or something? No, I actually went to the horrible NYU (on a full ride, though). I just feel strongly that aggressively offering outreach and financial aid to low-income students is one of the primary moral responsibilities for elite universities.
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    "It's a moral problem to spend marginal dollars on food rather than financial aid. Do you disagree?" Of course I don't agree. At what point do you determine that you've gone far enough, with the above stated principle? It's a bankrupt line of reasoning, based on the reduction of a budget with thousands of line items to dumbed-down sound bytes. Does it even bother you that you have mentioned no rational basis for drawing the line anywhere?
    - morgante 10y ago
      Why does there have to be a clear line to make the marginal argument valid? For individuals, I will state: spending a marginal dollar on charity is more moral than spending a marginal dollar on luxuries. I don't have a clear answer to where the line lies, even for myself. I try to keep giving until the marginal luxuries which I give up have greater utility than the utility I gain from donations. Admittedly, this is not exact or imprecise. My giving is strongly affected by my mental health (one of the best ways I've found to get out of a depressive spiral is to go on a donation spree). However, I don't think this lack of precision undermines the notion that charitable giving is more moral than luxury spending.