3 ms·

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 inter

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.
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    According to the article, Bowdoin was spending marginal dollars on making their food non-toxic. Not luxury spending. Does morally upstanding Vassar lack fancy architecture and highly-paid administrators?

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.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  According to the article, Bowdoin was spending marginal dollars on making their food non-toxic. Not luxury spending. Does morally upstanding Vassar lack fancy architecture and highly-paid administrators?