5 ms·

This is awesome. I just don't understand why we need to donate to OCW. Why can't MIT with its mega endowment fund OCW? Why do ordinary people need to donate to

This is awesome. I just don't understand why we need to donate to OCW. Why can't MIT with its mega endowment fund OCW? Why do ordinary people need to donate to these mega institutions to fund things that mega endowed entities (the government, these mega universities) should be paying for. It's not like OWC is Wikipedia. OCW is associated with MIT. Seems unfair to crowdfund something and then let MIT get the brand recognition. Especially since MIT is so rich.

PrimHelios 9y ago
Wikipedia also has a huge amount of money. I get what you're saying, but the comparison doesn't really work =P
- burkaman 9y ago
  Isn't 100% of Wikipedia's money from donations? Maybe they don't need to raise money every year, but eventually they do need people to donate. MIT doesn't, they have other sources of funding. That was the point of the comparison.
  - throwaway7645 9y ago
    The problem with Wikipedia is that even though they're getting 10x more money than ever, their operating costs are always growing, and they're constantly increasing the amount of money they spend like a runaway train....or so I've read.
- rocgf 9y ago
  Wikipedia is part of a non-profit whose purpose is to spread free information in the world, while MIT is also (supposedly) a non-profit which takes thousands of hundreds of dollars from its students. Not sure if Wikipedia has any other sources of income, but whatever they may be, they're not even close to the potency of MIT.
enknamel 9y ago
I believe a lot of endowments have only specific uses. You can't just spend as much as you want on whatever you want. It also gets buy-in from the community. Even if you can afford to run something for free, accepting donations is a great way to measure your impact.
- linkmotif 9y ago
  This is true, too. But OCW really cannot cost more than several or several tens of millions of dollars per year, and MIT gets the brand recognition.
  - sushid 9y ago
    Right, but as the parent comment states, it makes sense to run it while also asking for donations.
johnsonjo 9y ago
True. I agree with you for the most part, but we can't forget that this OCW thing is something MIT never had to do. It's probably also quite a money pit, that is besides the donations, which might make adminstrators wonder why they do OCW if it's not atleast self sufficient.
- linkmotif 9y ago
  You'd think MIT would be all about educating the world as its mission. But its mission is to remain elite and unattainable for the masses so that it ranks high in US News and World Report. OCW can't really be that much of a money pit considering the resources at this university's disposal.
  - johnsonjo 9y ago
    > You'd think MIT would be all about educating the world as its mission. Though that sounds like a great mission statement I feel MIT's core mission is probably more along the lines of giving their students a world class education and of course producing world class research from their staff. Although your mission statement fits perfectly with OCW's purpose. > OCW can't really be that much of a money pit considering the resources at this university's disposal. It's true it might not be that big of a money pit relative to their total resources, but I figure a money pit is still a money pit and if they are looking to cut something it is likely to be a money pit. Honestly I just hope they never cut the program. I've thoroughly enjoyed MIT OCW courses and they have prepared me for some of my university classes.
  - toren 9y ago
    Yeah! That's why it provides an absolute ton of its courses and lecture material online for free! ...
julian_1 9y ago
> (the government, [...]) should be paying for. If someone can use OCW to advance their knowledge and opportunity in society, and then later in their career voluntarily contribute back something, that is a good model for some people. Contrast this with the government's role in creating a vocational structure that saddles students with enormous debt right at the start of their working life. Also, the arguably opportunistic behavior of the lending market and universities and the devaluing of education via diploma mills.
- imron 9y ago
  > Contrast this with the government's role in creating a vocational structure that saddles students with enormous debt right at the start of their working life And contrast that with how it was a few decades ago when the government funded universities and a summer job was enough to pay your yearly tuition. The current loan system is an awful mess of perverse incentives. When people talk about what the government should be doing, they're not talking about the current system.
  - chronic940 9y ago
    The solution is that not everyone needs to go to college. Just look at the thread here. You have unqualified restaurant waiters wanting to get an engineering job at Google and think a CS degree is the only way.

PrimHelios 9y ago

Wikipedia also has a huge amount of money. I get what you're saying, but the comparison doesn't really work =P

burkaman 9y ago
Isn't 100% of Wikipedia's money from donations? Maybe they don't need to raise money every year, but eventually they do need people to donate. MIT doesn't, they have other sources of funding. That was the point of the comparison.
- throwaway7645 9y ago
  The problem with Wikipedia is that even though they're getting 10x more money than ever, their operating costs are always growing, and they're constantly increasing the amount of money they spend like a runaway train....or so I've read.
rocgf 9y ago
Wikipedia is part of a non-profit whose purpose is to spread free information in the world, while MIT is also (supposedly) a non-profit which takes thousands of hundreds of dollars from its students. Not sure if Wikipedia has any other sources of income, but whatever they may be, they're not even close to the potency of MIT.

enknamel 9y ago

I believe a lot of endowments have only specific uses. You can't just spend as much as you want on whatever you want. It also gets buy-in from the community. Even if you can afford to run something for free, accepting donations is a great way to measure your impact.

linkmotif 9y ago
This is true, too. But OCW really cannot cost more than several or several tens of millions of dollars per year, and MIT gets the brand recognition.
- sushid 9y ago
  Right, but as the parent comment states, it makes sense to run it while also asking for donations.

johnsonjo 9y ago

True. I agree with you for the most part, but we can't forget that this OCW thing is something MIT never had to do. It's probably also quite a money pit, that is besides the donations, which might make adminstrators wonder why they do OCW if it's not atleast self sufficient.

linkmotif 9y ago
You'd think MIT would be all about educating the world as its mission. But its mission is to remain elite and unattainable for the masses so that it ranks high in US News and World Report. OCW can't really be that much of a money pit considering the resources at this university's disposal.
- johnsonjo 9y ago
  > You'd think MIT would be all about educating the world as its mission. Though that sounds like a great mission statement I feel MIT's core mission is probably more along the lines of giving their students a world class education and of course producing world class research from their staff. Although your mission statement fits perfectly with OCW's purpose. > OCW can't really be that much of a money pit considering the resources at this university's disposal. It's true it might not be that big of a money pit relative to their total resources, but I figure a money pit is still a money pit and if they are looking to cut something it is likely to be a money pit. Honestly I just hope they never cut the program. I've thoroughly enjoyed MIT OCW courses and they have prepared me for some of my university classes.
- toren 9y ago
  Yeah! That's why it provides an absolute ton of its courses and lecture material online for free! ...

julian_1 9y ago

> (the government, [...]) should be paying for. If someone can use OCW to advance their knowledge and opportunity in society, and then later in their career voluntarily contribute back something, that is a good model for some people. Contrast this with the government's role in creating a vocational structure that saddles students with enormous debt right at the start of their working life. Also, the arguably opportunistic behavior of the lending market and universities and the devaluing of education via diploma mills.

imron 9y ago
> Contrast this with the government's role in creating a vocational structure that saddles students with enormous debt right at the start of their working life And contrast that with how it was a few decades ago when the government funded universities and a summer job was enough to pay your yearly tuition. The current loan system is an awful mess of perverse incentives. When people talk about what the government should be doing, they're not talking about the current system.
- chronic940 9y ago
  The solution is that not everyone needs to go to college. Just look at the thread here. You have unqualified restaurant waiters wanting to get an engineering job at Google and think a CS degree is the only way.