20 ms·

Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

185 points by wallflower 8y ago

jseliger 8y ago
This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At the moment, zero incentivizes colleges to reduce costs. If they can get a student in the door, the federal government will ensure that student loans are available and that the college gets paid no matter what happens to the student. Regulators, in the meantime, work hard to ensure that colleges and especially universities face little competition. So we get an array of problems: we are all, in a way, paying for the party: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-elizabeth-armstrong-and-laura-hamilton https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz.... Already prestigious schools like Hopkins compete primarily to raise their own prestige, rather than improve access. Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? While I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, I've been involved in post-secondary education for too long, and read too many books on it (Tyler Cowen's The Great Stagnation is recommended, as is his book The Complacent Class), to think that "more money, same system" is the answer. We need comprehensive, systemic reform, starting with the accreditation bodies, before we pour more money in.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Graduation rates as they are, college access is probably too high. Increasing selectivity would prevent the waste of time and money on programs people aren’t equipped to complete.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    You can't expect the edus to say no to easy money. And the students are raised to think they are entitled tto success, whether they are cut out for that path or not. It's PC to say "everybody gets a degree." The reality is, that's a very expensive empty promise.
    - sjg007 8y ago
      We should really improve K-12 education. The fact that kids are not qualified for college after 18 years in public school is a travesty.
      - cdoxsey 8y ago
        The fact that so many jobs require a college degree is a travesty. We should get teenagers into the workforce sooner and provide more relevant and on-the-job training.
        chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Thos jobs will be replaced by AI. But let me see a Roomba fix your broken toilet.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - chiefalchemist 8y ago
        It's not that they're not qualified. They're just not college material __and__ there's not enough mid / highend jobs for them. At the same time, the trades are hurting for good people. But the entitled are too good to be fully employed. They'd rather taken on debt. Given where AI is headed the higher edu route is not going to improve. Yet BHO, who knows better, kept beating the "higher edu for all" drum.
        lotsofpulp 8y ago
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "At the moment, zero incentivizes colleges to reduce costs. If they can get a student in the door" This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!! The market has been injected with cheap money and relatively under qualified candidates. The edus make out. The lenders make out. The students loose. And the public is completely clueless as to why. Most actuallt believe more / even cheaper loans are the solution.
  - docbrown 8y ago
    >This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!! Partially true but there are many other reasons why. Personally, I always thought it was administrative bloat which in turn put higher costs on the students. A 2015 study[0] shows that the real culprit could be as simple as less state support per research institution.[1] >more than half of core educational expenses at “public” 4-year universities are now funded through tuition, a private source of capital, they have effectively become subsidized private institutions. [0] https://www.demos.org/publication/pulling-higher-ed-ladder-myth-and-reality-crisis-college-affordability https://www.demos.org/publication/pulling-higher-ed-ladder-m... [1] https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/Pulling%20Up%20the%20Higher%20Ed%20Ladder%20Fig%205.png https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/Pulling%20Up%...
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      > "A 2015 study[0] shows that the real culprit could be as simple as less state support per research institution" But that's still a "because they can" reason.
      - cwbrandsma 8y ago
        Or have to. They built up with a certain amount of support from the government in mind, then the government dropped the ball. The schools then increase because they have too. But that doesn't explain the rising costs of private colleges. At the same time, as the father of a high school senior, you quickly find very few kids pay the sticker price.
- kristianp 8y ago
  It is just insane that 1.8B should be spent on just Johns Hopkins. This doesn't sound like anywhere near the most efficient way to help the most students who are missing out on places because the institution looks at their ability to pay. Does Bloomberg have an alterior motive to limit his donations to just his Alma Mater? Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something? I'm frustrated reading this article, it compares poorly to the Gates foundation model of trying to help the maximum number of people per dollar.
  - evanelias 8y ago
    > Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B. Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions. This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined. I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.
    - Retric 8y ago
      > it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.
      - joemi 8y ago
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >So we get an array of problems: we are all, in a way, paying for the party: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz... https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz.... Already prestigious schools like Hopkins compete primarily to raise their own prestige, rather than improve access. Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? Thanks for raising these issues, as a well-evidenced contrast to the "usual" complaint that our society provides too much access to higher education. I largely agree with your analysis. The question isn't too much or too little. It's: who gets how much of what? If some students are deprived of vocational opportunities while others are stuck in understaffed, lower-tier institutions than their abilities warrant, society is leaving productivity and human well-being on the table in both cases.
- evanelias 8y ago
  I understand you're referring to the broader picture, but in the specific case of Hopkins and Bloomberg's gift, the pattern-matching feels a bit off. > Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? This is just one data point, but I'm a Hopkins alum, and the current freshman class is 30% larger than my freshman class was in 2001. That exceeds the growth rate of the US population over the same time period, although I'm not sure about the equivalent growth rate of college-freshman-aged population specifically. Admissions growth requires new dorm construction, which typically involves a large donation for naming rights. > Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? I think this effect is more pronounced in the Ivy League, partially due to the schools being much older. I only ever met a handful of legacy students at Hopkins. Related to legacy admissions, from what I remember, the JHU alumni giving rate is a bit sub-par, which is a contributing factor to its endowment being smaller than peer schools'. There are even several cases of campus buildings going nameless for decades while awaiting a donor. One example, a building constructed in 1988 was called "New Engineering Building" until a donor was found in 2012. Another example, two dorms built in the early 80s are still called "Building A" and "Building B". (All the other dorms are named after alums...)
- ericmcer 8y ago
  Yeah it feels insane to me. Like if the price of milk went up to $50 a gallon the solution would be to increase supply, figure out alternative products, etc. A stupid solution would be to build a system of loans, government subsidies and other programs that allow people to pay the $50, but that seems to be our go to way to solve problems.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    I have yo agree. The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the $1.8B figure was "with that kind of cash why doesn't he just launch his own university?". I mean, that astronomical level of cash is more than enough to keep a lot of high-paying jobs for some decades without any revenue at all, not to mention building the infrastructure. I'm sure he would be more than welcomed in any midsized city if he reached out to any local government asking for help building a college campus.
- netcan 8y ago
  In this case it isn't "we," it's a specific person and it's a reflection of his take on the world. I don't think there's any doubt that I think he outline his own thinking pretty well. He wants elite colleges to stay as they are now, but more meritocratic in their admissions. Same elite institution, students from lower income backgrounds. It's an establishment-oriented donation, not a startup idea. He explains it pretty clearly.
- netcan 8y ago
  In this case it isn't "we," it's a specific person and it's a reflection of his take on the world. I think he outlined his own thinking pretty well. He wants elite colleges to stay as they are now, but more meritocratic in their admissions. Same elite institution, but with students from lower income backgrounds. It's obviously an establishment-oriented donation, not a "radically transform education" idea or an "effective altruism" oriented idea. He explains his own thinking pretty clearly.
master_yoda_1 8y ago
Until you won't fix hiring discrimination based on school name, you can't fix the problem. Just see around in silicon valley you can find the example.
- pickdenis 8y ago
  I don't buy that the probability of a new grad being successful is independent of the name of the school from which they received their degree. Sure, maybe the link isn't as strong as it's made out to be by hiring practices but it can't be nonexistent.
- gnulinux 8y ago
  This is bizarre I think. Are we supposed to pretend all CS degrees in the world (or US?) have the same value as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley et al?
  - User23 8y ago
    It's not any more silly than plenty of other things we are expected to pretend. Edit: HN downvotes tell me I'm supposed to pretend that I'm not supposed to pretend silly things. Neat really.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    For undergrad, yes. Having interviewed 500+ people at this point (and screened many many more resumes and github accounts), i'd there are rarely, if ever, meaningful differences in quality of candidate based on where they got their CS degree from. I see much greater variation in masters/graduate candidates than in undergrad.
    - synaesthesisx 8y ago
      Agreed - I've interviewed candidates with no CS degree that outperformed ones from Harvard etc. In fact many of the best ones were self-taught...
      - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 8y ago
First off, this is a great thing for Michael Bloomberg to do so props to him, but I think there needs to be a much broader discussion about moving away from college as a sort of 'eye of the needle' mechanism for upwards mobility in the United States. I'm German so my perspective may be biased, but over here you can pick up an apprenticeship, a dual university/work program and still earn comparable wages to college graduates, and if you enter a family business, potentially even more as they are starving for the next generation to take over. In the US there seems to be a huge gap between prestigious universities degrees and the fear of ending up working for Starbucks your entire life. Expanding access to universities is fine, but a university education is not for everyone, and should not be a prerequisite for a good shot at life.
- marsrover 8y ago
  You can enter a trade school in the US and earn more than many college graduates. I think it’s more of a mindset problem than anything. College degrees give a person a baseline social status whereas trade schools are looked down on as low class.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    Citation needed. This is one of those things that large swaths of the internet believe is true, but is filled with anecdotal evidence and not actual research.
  - foxyv 8y ago
    Most of the people I know who went to trade schools ended up with 7-10x as much student loan debt as I have for my BS and are now working in jobs that require only a High School diploma.
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  The US does have numerous vocational schools and training programs, and they result in placement in positions which do pay reasonably livable wages. They are pretty effective, the problem here is a class issue. Getting into the middle class in the US still means you are at the mercy of a variety of problems. Higher education is still the ticket to an upper middle class life, partly due to ingrained structures like larger cities lacking affordable housing, a tax system that favors capital classes, and high healthcare costs for the poor and middle classes. Containing/reducing medical costs, reducing housing costs and a fairer tax system might be the real answer here. The core issue is that, for example, the poor and middle classes can easily be bankrupted by a medical bill, whereas white collar software engineers are likely to have very good and cheap health insurance that covers much more.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
It's not for me to tell the wealthy & powerful how to redistribute their fruits. But... I would think it's more effective not to give so much to a single entity. Instead, provided grants that aren't tied to a particular school. Let students apply (or be nominated) and then decide. Yes, that adds some overhead. But the effect will now be ubiquitous and not limited to a single bottleneck.
- ggm 8y ago
  Actually, it is. -This is what democracy, and giving tax powers to the state is about. We get to tell them, by virtue of what we vote for and how that translates down into tax code. I welcome the donation, but I am suspicious of what ensues. Given the mix of public and private tertiary education and the mix of debt and grant funding, It's pretty complicated. If this levels-up Johns Hopkins against the ivy league, remember its still private education. It won't neccessarily redress all the imbalances inherent in university study. It might help, it might hinder. Its not clear (on an individual level, I am sure it will help enormously. I'm trying to draw a distinction between individual benefit, and societal benefit as a whole)
InTheArena 8y ago
There is more to the problem then just available capital. In fact during the Bush administration, the government vastly increased the amount of capital available under pell grants and financial aid. These loans had horrible conditions, which people didn't read, and worse were increased the supply of cash, while not changing the amount of supply of education. Basic economics worked out - college tuition rose to meet the additional availability of capital.
ohazi 8y ago
Rising tuition costs + more generous financial aid packages are a shell game for donor money. Money usually comes in from various donors with strings attached, so that it must get spent on the donors' pet projects. College administrators then go "oh no! tuition is so high, look at all these qualified students who won't get to attend," to convince these donors that financial aid is a worthwhile pet project. Administrators then raise the tuition to compensate for the new financial aid pool they just cooked up. Money earmarked for financial aid then gets "spent" by going right back to the college with the earmark removed. That money can now be spent on the administrators' pet projects, including higher salaries for themselves.
- dr_ 8y ago
  But do you really think Michael Bloomberg doesn’t get this? There’s money spent on research projects and there’s money spent on retaining high quality faculty who could probably do well in a corporate environment if they chose to.
bedhead 8y ago
He’s a good man for doing this but it’s addressing the symptom not the disease. The travesty of college tuition inflation will only be fixed with government regulation, there is simply no other mechanism to fix it.
gesman 8y ago
" ... The Credit Suisse report has an entire chapter devoted to “the unlucky Millennials” who have been hit by rising debt and poorer job prospects. And it’s true. Recent reports from the Treasury Department show that the US government owns nearly $1.5 trillion in student loans. That’s pretty sad when you think about it: the US government’s #1 financial asset is debt owed by tens of millions of its young people for university education that didn’t even necessarily qualify them for a real career..." -- Simon Black
- gammateam 8y ago
  The US has always been addicted to serfdom.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    This country was built by indentured servants before it was built by slaves.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > the US government’s #1 financial asset is debt owed by tens of millions of its young people This is an odd metric. Most financial assets held by the U.S. government, broadly defined, are in the hands of the Federal Reserve. The Fed owns close to $4 trillion in securities. Furthermore, given student loans held by the government aren’t really legally sellable, they’re more akin to federal lands than financial assets. Parcel in federally-owned energy and mineral rights and we’re talking about over $100 trillion [2]. Student debt holdings by the federal government are large. But they aren’t hyperbolically large. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm [2] http://business.time.com/2013/02/05/the-federal-governments-128-trillion-stockpile-the-answer-to-our-debt-problems/ http://business.time.com/2013/02/05/the-federal-governments-...
jeffdavis 8y ago
Is this a zero-sum game, where we are just changing who has the opportunity? Or does it actually increase the total amount of opportunity available?
esotericn 8y ago
Is it not the case that at a fundamental level certification is a funneling mechanism to filter people and set expectations at an early stage in life? It's quite arbitrary and probably not "fair" by any reasonable definition, but it seems to achieve that goal fairly well. I feel this is essentially why the UK idea of 'chuck 50% of the population in to University' failed. It created an expectation, in huge numbers of people, that they were going to have the good life. But our society is structured at a fundamental level around the class system. Our jobs, our homes, our cities, everything. There will still be millions of unskilled jobs with no respect afforded towards the workers. There will still be millions and millions of crappy prefab houses out there, far away from where the decent jobs are. There will still be sink estates. There will still be dead end towns. You could evacuate the streets of London and walk around and see, quite easily, that the entire city is built around our class system - even with the intentional mixing we've done geographically. I think it would take centuries to achieve a sensible level of equality even if such a thing were possible or desirable. It's something I think about often; social mobility is just shuffling the cards around; ultimately someone has to lose, not everyone gets the drawing room in Knightsbridge and lunches out on the town as they please.
brandnewlow 8y ago
I’m a biased investor in the company but if you’re looking for another way to attack the horrible student loan problem in the US check out Goodly. They’re making it easy for employers to offer loan repayment as a benefit. https://www.goodlyapp.com https://www.goodlyapp.com
spikels 8y ago
Actual Reason: Bloomberg is planning to announce his presidential candidacy soon.
- mmanfrin 8y ago
  The cynical part of me is in complete agreement. I hate that I assume ulterior motive to charity, but Bloomberg wants to be in politics, and this is a big move at the very beginning of the primary races.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    It makes his perpetual low tax burden unquestionable when he releases his returns :) Its a non-zero sum game, why worry about such binary events of completely charitable or not.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      " It makes his perpetual low tax burden unquestionable when he releases his returns :)" Trump has set the precedent that this is not necessary anymore.
      - gammateam 8y ago
        I’m happy about that and I hope others follow suit. Now for the political science: If you want to win brownie points with both the wage slaves and the “orange man bad” crowd that would be elated to see everything the opposite of Trump, you can jubilantly release your tax returns if they look good or relatable.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    You don't need to be overly cynical to question this. He did write a New York Times editorial about the three billion dollars he has donated to one university.
  - pi-victor 8y ago
    was about to same the exact same thing. however, as long as this helps, in the broader sense, i hope he buys all the popularity he can get :)
joefranklinsrs 8y ago
Good for Bloomberg; I'm sure it will also play nicely for his presidential campaign ;) But it would be interesting if Bloomberg were to win in 2020 - we would have back-to-back businessman turned chief in command. So far, Trump has been pretty good for US economy. Bloomberg might be even better.
mcny 8y ago
I think the real answer is: 1. Higher income tax across the board 2. Decreased wages for college and University staff. Fewer executive and bureaucratic positions. Just at one CUNY college there are about one hundred positions at or above the level of a department chair. It has fewer than 17k students enrolled. 3. Eliminate all competitive sports across all schools and colleges. This is just noise that nobody needs. 4. Reduce mandate of colleges and universities. No, a college is not supposed to decide whether an assault took place. Also, it makes no sense for a college to have to pay for campus police. Who came up with this nonsense idea? 5. Focus on reducing costs. Reduce if not eliminate most regulations state legislatures have forced on colleges and universities. Consider getting rid of freaking people soft to manage student records. Does it make sense that students have Employee ID numbers (EMPLID)? Who makes these decisions?
- gammateam 8y ago
  Greater passive revenues for the government is just a bandaid for a symptom.
- Fomite 8y ago
  A bigger factor than pretty much all of this, for state universities, has been that state support for universities has dropped through the floor. Washington State, for example, got state support cut by 50% during the 2008 recession. It's never come back. This also has an impact on one of HN's other favorite higher ed topics, the state of quality research. With state support cut, the two available levers are tuition and more federal research money. With the latter, the pool of money is - at best - stagnant, and there's increasing pressure to get grants, which means more people cutting corners.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  > 3. Eliminate all competitive sports across all schools and colleges. This is just noise that nobody needs. I wouldn't eliminate college sports entirely - it's useful for brand building, keeping alumni (ergo donors) and the local community engaged, school spirit etc. But the "student-athlete" concept seems like complete nonsense. They should pay the players proper wages, give them good health insurance etc. Right now it's scandalous the amount of money everyone makes in college sports, but none goes to players or cheerleaders. Ideally they'd license the college's image rights to a private organization that runs the team, and the players play on it full-time. Those who choose can study for a degree at the institution concurrently, or after they finish playing. Some players may get drafted into professional leagues and do so well they don't ever get their degree. The coaching staff are employees of the team's organization rather than the uni.
intralizee 8y ago
I can't imagine if you have that kind of money, you wouldn't have had a team of people calculating and rationalizing every scenario for the action taken. The thing that bothers me is how universities keep raising the cost for students to have an education. Nothing seems to prevent it and everything seems like a joint effort in having the new generation be worse off by having no real spending power for years compared to the previous.
- devoply 8y ago
  That money would be better spent lobbying government to fix the education cost disease in the US. A billion dollars can do a lot of lobbying.
- born_a_beetle 8y ago
  A lot of the top tier schools like Harvard provide a very fair financial aid package structure, so no, it isn't a joint effort. It is a myth that most students can't avoid high tuition costs. SUNY schools are very cheap for in state. There is always the route of spending 2 years in community college and then transferring to your state school. That is a very successful model in New Jersey. The problem is many kids want a luxurious college lifestyle where they do a little work, play a lot of beer pong, and live in nice dorms. Our student loan structure allows for some bad actors to take advantage of this.
  - intralizee 8y ago
    How very fair are these financial aid packages they offer? I went to a low tier university compared to the "elite" named ones and still think it was expensive compared to previously what my parents paid when going to school. The first years at a community college for two years before stepping into university wasn't really a well known thing like today when I started. I don't think people are living luxurious lifestyles at college unless they have rich parents. It wasn't even possible to take out loans that would cover everything if one would choose from my knowledge. Everywhere now a days for anything higher than min-wage requires a degree for an interview. I'm not even sure how med students manage to keep their mental health sane.
RickJWagner 8y ago
I disagree with much of what Michael Bloomberg says, but my hat's off to him for this. Thank you, Mr. Bloomberg.
hugh4life 8y ago
I'd like to see a retroactive rebate program for tuition paid for transferable community college credits that went towards a bachelors degree at a 4 year university. Make community college free for those who use it successfully to get a 4 year degree.
schimmy_changa 8y ago
I'll answer it for him: "So that I can get support (or at least not outright hostility) from the left wing of the democratic party when I'm running for president in 2020, who otherwise would be very unhappy with a billionaire as the candidate"
akulbe 8y ago
I realize I'm likely going to be a dissenting opinion here… but I'm not sure this is a good investment. Unless you're going to enter a field that requires the pedigree that starts with college (i.e. medicine, law, engineering), it's arguable that college isn't even worth the tuition you pay for it. Like another commenter says, they have no incentive to do anything that will reduce costs. The quality of the education seems to be on the decline too. It feels like colleges are turning into breeding grounds for social justice warriors more than they're turning out folks who are prepared to enter the workforce. It feels like the onus should be on the colleges to make costs more reasonable, rather than getting another handout from a rich benefactor (which will not last long).
- schimmy_changa 8y ago
  That may be true (but is arguable) if you see college as nothing but a vocational school, training you to be the best worker which society could ask for. A truly liberal (in the John Stuart Mill / Enlightenment sense of the word) education gives you the tools you need to engage with the world. How can you ever change society if you are only able to see the world in what makes money, and are never given the time and resources to think beyond what is today towards what could be? It is true that some people can learn some of these things on their own, but having 4 years to think surrounded by an environment where everyone else is focused on that same goal can really make a difference. If a pragmatic man like Bloomberg believes in the value of a liberal education (again the old sense of the word), you can bet it's not total hooey. (although see my other comment for what I believe is behind at least the timing of this announcement)
  - wernercd 8y ago
    > A truly liberal (in the John Stuart Mill / Enlightenment sense of the word) education gives you the tools you need to engage with the world. But the current education system doesn't give you either. You don't get tools to be useful - IE STEM related, engineering, math, etc. You also don't get the tools to "engage" with the world. Blocking traffic, needing safe places and being triggered by anything you disagree with isn't "engaging" the world.
schalab 8y ago
People are suffering from taking too many pay day loans. I think I will donate 2 billion dollars to my local pay day lender. There, problem solved. Now people dont need to be worried about paying it back. I am sure they wont use this guaranteed income to jack up the rates more.
- Flavius 8y ago
  I get what you're saying, but surely keeping the money for himself or invest them in luxury real estate wouldn't have done any better.
gboudrias 8y ago
Good to see philanthropy from up high. That said, I haven't seen the term "American dream" used unironically in years. I've never been shown it as something worth reviving, insofar as it's deeply intertwined with notions like savage capitalism. For you and ourselves I'd rather have a great American awakening. But maybe I'm arguing semantics.
virmundi 8y ago
First off, great for giving the money. > Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. Why are we pushing college? We don't need everyone to have a college degree. We need plumbers, general contractors, electricians. We need the society to not look down on laborers. We need to get high school students into training programs for these careers. We need them to actually think about what they're doing on the job. I went for a walk the other day. There is a woman on a ladder scrapping away at loose the paint. The house is about 100 years old. The wood was original. Even in places where a siding profile changed, the wood is probably 60 years old. She had no face mask. No 7mm plastic tarp 3 ft from the house. No water spray bottle. No paint remover that keeps the dust down. No low temp IR system to make peeling faster. I told her it was lead paint. I said if she kept that up, she'd die (perhaps a bit of an exaggeration on one house, but if she does that at all of them, it will add up). I told her to get a P100 face mask. She said she'd tell her boss. This is basic EPA lead abatement training. There are free videos from the EPA and States (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKJ6zuVvTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKJ6zuVvTY). Next day, lead chips on the ground. Her on the ladder as before. We need to train the next generation of intelligent laborers. We don't need more people walking out with Comm. degrees because society told them to go to college.
wallace_f 8y ago
Such a waste of money. The model needs change. Everyone across the world should have access to world-class lectures, books assignments, materials, and eventually, testing centers were students can demonstrate their education.
strikelaserclaw 8y ago
I wonder how giving to john's hopkins fixes the issue that lower income people don't generally have a good pipeline to know their options and realize it when it comes to higher education. I don't think it is just a money thing when it comes to lower income households sending their children to prestigious universities. Surely alot of top schools give out generous packages to these people. How do you fix a system to work for lower income households in which many children of the upper middle class and above (who are most likely to get into these top schools) are groomed from a younger age by parents with financial means to do so and good schooling (some of which is specifically designed to get its students into the top schools).

185 points by wallflower 8y ago

This is a fine thing to do with $1.8B and that amount could be used in worse ways. Still: Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. There may be no better investment that we can make in the future of the American dream — and the promise of equal opportunity for all. At the moment, zero incentivizes colleges to reduce costs. If they can get a student in the door, the federal government will ensure that student loans are available and that the college gets paid no matter what happens to the student. Regulators, in the meantime, work hard to ensure that colleges and especially universities face little competition. So we get an array of problems: we are all, in a way, paying for the party: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-elizabeth-armstrong-and-laura-hamilton https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz.... Already prestigious schools like Hopkins compete primarily to raise their own prestige, rather than improve access. Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? While I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, I've been involved in post-secondary education for too long, and read too many books on it (Tyler Cowen's The Great Stagnation is recommended, as is his book The Complacent Class), to think that "more money, same system" is the answer. We need comprehensive, systemic reform, starting with the accreditation bodies, before we pour more money in.

closeparen 8y ago
Graduation rates as they are, college access is probably too high. Increasing selectivity would prevent the waste of time and money on programs people aren’t equipped to complete.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  You can't expect the edus to say no to easy money. And the students are raised to think they are entitled tto success, whether they are cut out for that path or not. It's PC to say "everybody gets a degree." The reality is, that's a very expensive empty promise.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    We should really improve K-12 education. The fact that kids are not qualified for college after 18 years in public school is a travesty.
    - cdoxsey 8y ago
      The fact that so many jobs require a college degree is a travesty. We should get teenagers into the workforce sooner and provide more relevant and on-the-job training.
      - chiefalchemist 8y ago
        Thos jobs will be replaced by AI. But let me see a Roomba fix your broken toilet.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      It's not that they're not qualified. They're just not college material __and__ there's not enough mid / highend jobs for them. At the same time, the trades are hurting for good people. But the entitled are too good to be fully employed. They'd rather taken on debt. Given where AI is headed the higher edu route is not going to improve. Yet BHO, who knows better, kept beating the "higher edu for all" drum.
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "At the moment, zero incentivizes colleges to reduce costs. If they can get a student in the door" This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!! The market has been injected with cheap money and relatively under qualified candidates. The edus make out. The lenders make out. The students loose. And the public is completely clueless as to why. Most actuallt believe more / even cheaper loans are the solution.
- docbrown 8y ago
  >This has been the standard for a while now. Why does higher edu charge more? Because they can!!! Partially true but there are many other reasons why. Personally, I always thought it was administrative bloat which in turn put higher costs on the students. A 2015 study[0] shows that the real culprit could be as simple as less state support per research institution.[1] >more than half of core educational expenses at “public” 4-year universities are now funded through tuition, a private source of capital, they have effectively become subsidized private institutions. [0] https://www.demos.org/publication/pulling-higher-ed-ladder-myth-and-reality-crisis-college-affordability https://www.demos.org/publication/pulling-higher-ed-ladder-m... [1] https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/Pulling%20Up%20the%20Higher%20Ed%20Ladder%20Fig%205.png https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/imce/Pulling%20Up%...
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    > "A 2015 study[0] shows that the real culprit could be as simple as less state support per research institution" But that's still a "because they can" reason.
    - cwbrandsma 8y ago
      Or have to. They built up with a certain amount of support from the government in mind, then the government dropped the ball. The schools then increase because they have too. But that doesn't explain the rising costs of private colleges. At the same time, as the father of a high school senior, you quickly find very few kids pay the sticker price.
kristianp 8y ago
It is just insane that 1.8B should be spent on just Johns Hopkins. This doesn't sound like anywhere near the most efficient way to help the most students who are missing out on places because the institution looks at their ability to pay. Does Bloomberg have an alterior motive to limit his donations to just his Alma Mater? Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something? I'm frustrated reading this article, it compares poorly to the Gates foundation model of trying to help the maximum number of people per dollar.
- evanelias 8y ago
  > Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B. Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions. This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined. I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.
  - Retric 8y ago
    > it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.
    - joemi 8y ago
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>So we get an array of problems: we are all, in a way, paying for the party: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz... https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz.... Already prestigious schools like Hopkins compete primarily to raise their own prestige, rather than improve access. Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? Thanks for raising these issues, as a well-evidenced contrast to the "usual" complaint that our society provides too much access to higher education. I largely agree with your analysis. The question isn't too much or too little. It's: who gets how much of what? If some students are deprived of vocational opportunities while others are stuck in understaffed, lower-tier institutions than their abilities warrant, society is leaving productivity and human well-being on the table in both cases.
evanelias 8y ago
I understand you're referring to the broader picture, but in the specific case of Hopkins and Bloomberg's gift, the pattern-matching feels a bit off. > Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? This is just one data point, but I'm a Hopkins alum, and the current freshman class is 30% larger than my freshman class was in 2001. That exceeds the growth rate of the US population over the same time period, although I'm not sure about the equivalent growth rate of college-freshman-aged population specifically. Admissions growth requires new dorm construction, which typically involves a large donation for naming rights. > Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? I think this effect is more pronounced in the Ivy League, partially due to the schools being much older. I only ever met a handful of legacy students at Hopkins. Related to legacy admissions, from what I remember, the JHU alumni giving rate is a bit sub-par, which is a contributing factor to its endowment being smaller than peer schools'. There are even several cases of campus buildings going nameless for decades while awaiting a donor. One example, a building constructed in 1988 was called "New Engineering Building" until a donor was found in 2012. Another example, two dorms built in the early 80s are still called "Building A" and "Building B". (All the other dorms are named after alums...)
ericmcer 8y ago
Yeah it feels insane to me. Like if the price of milk went up to $50 a gallon the solution would be to increase supply, figure out alternative products, etc. A stupid solution would be to build a system of loans, government subsidies and other programs that allow people to pay the $50, but that seems to be our go to way to solve problems.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  I have yo agree. The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the $1.8B figure was "with that kind of cash why doesn't he just launch his own university?". I mean, that astronomical level of cash is more than enough to keep a lot of high-paying jobs for some decades without any revenue at all, not to mention building the infrastructure. I'm sure he would be more than welcomed in any midsized city if he reached out to any local government asking for help building a college campus.
netcan 8y ago
In this case it isn't "we," it's a specific person and it's a reflection of his take on the world. I don't think there's any doubt that I think he outline his own thinking pretty well. He wants elite colleges to stay as they are now, but more meritocratic in their admissions. Same elite institution, students from lower income backgrounds. It's an establishment-oriented donation, not a startup idea. He explains it pretty clearly.
netcan 8y ago
In this case it isn't "we," it's a specific person and it's a reflection of his take on the world. I think he outlined his own thinking pretty well. He wants elite colleges to stay as they are now, but more meritocratic in their admissions. Same elite institution, but with students from lower income backgrounds. It's obviously an establishment-oriented donation, not a "radically transform education" idea or an "effective altruism" oriented idea. He explains his own thinking pretty clearly.

master_yoda_1 8y ago

Until you won't fix hiring discrimination based on school name, you can't fix the problem. Just see around in silicon valley you can find the example.

pickdenis 8y ago
I don't buy that the probability of a new grad being successful is independent of the name of the school from which they received their degree. Sure, maybe the link isn't as strong as it's made out to be by hiring practices but it can't be nonexistent.
gnulinux 8y ago
This is bizarre I think. Are we supposed to pretend all CS degrees in the world (or US?) have the same value as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley et al?
- User23 8y ago
  It's not any more silly than plenty of other things we are expected to pretend. Edit: HN downvotes tell me I'm supposed to pretend that I'm not supposed to pretend silly things. Neat really.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  For undergrad, yes. Having interviewed 500+ people at this point (and screened many many more resumes and github accounts), i'd there are rarely, if ever, meaningful differences in quality of candidate based on where they got their CS degree from. I see much greater variation in masters/graduate candidates than in undergrad.
  - synaesthesisx 8y ago
    Agreed - I've interviewed candidates with no CS degree that outperformed ones from Harvard etc. In fact many of the best ones were self-taught...
    - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 8y ago

First off, this is a great thing for Michael Bloomberg to do so props to him, but I think there needs to be a much broader discussion about moving away from college as a sort of 'eye of the needle' mechanism for upwards mobility in the United States. I'm German so my perspective may be biased, but over here you can pick up an apprenticeship, a dual university/work program and still earn comparable wages to college graduates, and if you enter a family business, potentially even more as they are starving for the next generation to take over. In the US there seems to be a huge gap between prestigious universities degrees and the fear of ending up working for Starbucks your entire life. Expanding access to universities is fine, but a university education is not for everyone, and should not be a prerequisite for a good shot at life.

marsrover 8y ago
You can enter a trade school in the US and earn more than many college graduates. I think it’s more of a mindset problem than anything. College degrees give a person a baseline social status whereas trade schools are looked down on as low class.
- dlp211 8y ago
  Citation needed. This is one of those things that large swaths of the internet believe is true, but is filled with anecdotal evidence and not actual research.
- foxyv 8y ago
  Most of the people I know who went to trade schools ended up with 7-10x as much student loan debt as I have for my BS and are now working in jobs that require only a High School diploma.
jorblumesea 8y ago
The US does have numerous vocational schools and training programs, and they result in placement in positions which do pay reasonably livable wages. They are pretty effective, the problem here is a class issue. Getting into the middle class in the US still means you are at the mercy of a variety of problems. Higher education is still the ticket to an upper middle class life, partly due to ingrained structures like larger cities lacking affordable housing, a tax system that favors capital classes, and high healthcare costs for the poor and middle classes. Containing/reducing medical costs, reducing housing costs and a fairer tax system might be the real answer here. The core issue is that, for example, the poor and middle classes can easily be bankrupted by a medical bill, whereas white collar software engineers are likely to have very good and cheap health insurance that covers much more.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

It's not for me to tell the wealthy & powerful how to redistribute their fruits. But... I would think it's more effective not to give so much to a single entity. Instead, provided grants that aren't tied to a particular school. Let students apply (or be nominated) and then decide. Yes, that adds some overhead. But the effect will now be ubiquitous and not limited to a single bottleneck.

ggm 8y ago
Actually, it is. -This is what democracy, and giving tax powers to the state is about. We get to tell them, by virtue of what we vote for and how that translates down into tax code. I welcome the donation, but I am suspicious of what ensues. Given the mix of public and private tertiary education and the mix of debt and grant funding, It's pretty complicated. If this levels-up Johns Hopkins against the ivy league, remember its still private education. It won't neccessarily redress all the imbalances inherent in university study. It might help, it might hinder. Its not clear (on an individual level, I am sure it will help enormously. I'm trying to draw a distinction between individual benefit, and societal benefit as a whole)

InTheArena 8y ago

There is more to the problem then just available capital. In fact during the Bush administration, the government vastly increased the amount of capital available under pell grants and financial aid. These loans had horrible conditions, which people didn't read, and worse were increased the supply of cash, while not changing the amount of supply of education. Basic economics worked out - college tuition rose to meet the additional availability of capital.

ohazi 8y ago

Rising tuition costs + more generous financial aid packages are a shell game for donor money. Money usually comes in from various donors with strings attached, so that it must get spent on the donors' pet projects. College administrators then go "oh no! tuition is so high, look at all these qualified students who won't get to attend," to convince these donors that financial aid is a worthwhile pet project. Administrators then raise the tuition to compensate for the new financial aid pool they just cooked up. Money earmarked for financial aid then gets "spent" by going right back to the college with the earmark removed. That money can now be spent on the administrators' pet projects, including higher salaries for themselves.

dr_ 8y ago
But do you really think Michael Bloomberg doesn’t get this? There’s money spent on research projects and there’s money spent on retaining high quality faculty who could probably do well in a corporate environment if they chose to.

bedhead 8y ago

He’s a good man for doing this but it’s addressing the symptom not the disease. The travesty of college tuition inflation will only be fixed with government regulation, there is simply no other mechanism to fix it.

gesman 8y ago

" ... The Credit Suisse report has an entire chapter devoted to “the unlucky Millennials” who have been hit by rising debt and poorer job prospects. And it’s true. Recent reports from the Treasury Department show that the US government owns nearly $1.5 trillion in student loans. That’s pretty sad when you think about it: the US government’s #1 financial asset is debt owed by tens of millions of its young people for university education that didn’t even necessarily qualify them for a real career..." -- Simon Black

gammateam 8y ago
The US has always been addicted to serfdom.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  This country was built by indentured servants before it was built by slaves.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> the US government’s #1 financial asset is debt owed by tens of millions of its young people This is an odd metric. Most financial assets held by the U.S. government, broadly defined, are in the hands of the Federal Reserve. The Fed owns close to $4 trillion in securities. Furthermore, given student loans held by the government aren’t really legally sellable, they’re more akin to federal lands than financial assets. Parcel in federally-owned energy and mineral rights and we’re talking about over $100 trillion [2]. Student debt holdings by the federal government are large. But they aren’t hyperbolically large. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm [2] http://business.time.com/2013/02/05/the-federal-governments-128-trillion-stockpile-the-answer-to-our-debt-problems/ http://business.time.com/2013/02/05/the-federal-governments-...

jeffdavis 8y ago

Is this a zero-sum game, where we are just changing who has the opportunity? Or does it actually increase the total amount of opportunity available?

esotericn 8y ago

Is it not the case that at a fundamental level certification is a funneling mechanism to filter people and set expectations at an early stage in life? It's quite arbitrary and probably not "fair" by any reasonable definition, but it seems to achieve that goal fairly well. I feel this is essentially why the UK idea of 'chuck 50% of the population in to University' failed. It created an expectation, in huge numbers of people, that they were going to have the good life. But our society is structured at a fundamental level around the class system. Our jobs, our homes, our cities, everything. There will still be millions of unskilled jobs with no respect afforded towards the workers. There will still be millions and millions of crappy prefab houses out there, far away from where the decent jobs are. There will still be sink estates. There will still be dead end towns. You could evacuate the streets of London and walk around and see, quite easily, that the entire city is built around our class system - even with the intentional mixing we've done geographically. I think it would take centuries to achieve a sensible level of equality even if such a thing were possible or desirable. It's something I think about often; social mobility is just shuffling the cards around; ultimately someone has to lose, not everyone gets the drawing room in Knightsbridge and lunches out on the town as they please.

brandnewlow 8y ago

I’m a biased investor in the company but if you’re looking for another way to attack the horrible student loan problem in the US check out Goodly. They’re making it easy for employers to offer loan repayment as a benefit. https://www.goodlyapp.com https://www.goodlyapp.com

spikels 8y ago

Actual Reason: Bloomberg is planning to announce his presidential candidacy soon.

mmanfrin 8y ago
The cynical part of me is in complete agreement. I hate that I assume ulterior motive to charity, but Bloomberg wants to be in politics, and this is a big move at the very beginning of the primary races.
- gammateam 8y ago
  It makes his perpetual low tax burden unquestionable when he releases his returns :) Its a non-zero sum game, why worry about such binary events of completely charitable or not.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    " It makes his perpetual low tax burden unquestionable when he releases his returns :)" Trump has set the precedent that this is not necessary anymore.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      I’m happy about that and I hope others follow suit. Now for the political science: If you want to win brownie points with both the wage slaves and the “orange man bad” crowd that would be elated to see everything the opposite of Trump, you can jubilantly release your tax returns if they look good or relatable.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  You don't need to be overly cynical to question this. He did write a New York Times editorial about the three billion dollars he has donated to one university.
- pi-victor 8y ago
  was about to same the exact same thing. however, as long as this helps, in the broader sense, i hope he buys all the popularity he can get :)

joefranklinsrs 8y ago

Good for Bloomberg; I'm sure it will also play nicely for his presidential campaign ;) But it would be interesting if Bloomberg were to win in 2020 - we would have back-to-back businessman turned chief in command. So far, Trump has been pretty good for US economy. Bloomberg might be even better.

mcny 8y ago

I think the real answer is: 1. Higher income tax across the board 2. Decreased wages for college and University staff. Fewer executive and bureaucratic positions. Just at one CUNY college there are about one hundred positions at or above the level of a department chair. It has fewer than 17k students enrolled. 3. Eliminate all competitive sports across all schools and colleges. This is just noise that nobody needs. 4. Reduce mandate of colleges and universities. No, a college is not supposed to decide whether an assault took place. Also, it makes no sense for a college to have to pay for campus police. Who came up with this nonsense idea? 5. Focus on reducing costs. Reduce if not eliminate most regulations state legislatures have forced on colleges and universities. Consider getting rid of freaking people soft to manage student records. Does it make sense that students have Employee ID numbers (EMPLID)? Who makes these decisions?

gammateam 8y ago
Greater passive revenues for the government is just a bandaid for a symptom.
Fomite 8y ago
A bigger factor than pretty much all of this, for state universities, has been that state support for universities has dropped through the floor. Washington State, for example, got state support cut by 50% during the 2008 recession. It's never come back. This also has an impact on one of HN's other favorite higher ed topics, the state of quality research. With state support cut, the two available levers are tuition and more federal research money. With the latter, the pool of money is - at best - stagnant, and there's increasing pressure to get grants, which means more people cutting corners.
jogjayr 8y ago
> 3. Eliminate all competitive sports across all schools and colleges. This is just noise that nobody needs. I wouldn't eliminate college sports entirely - it's useful for brand building, keeping alumni (ergo donors) and the local community engaged, school spirit etc. But the "student-athlete" concept seems like complete nonsense. They should pay the players proper wages, give them good health insurance etc. Right now it's scandalous the amount of money everyone makes in college sports, but none goes to players or cheerleaders. Ideally they'd license the college's image rights to a private organization that runs the team, and the players play on it full-time. Those who choose can study for a degree at the institution concurrently, or after they finish playing. Some players may get drafted into professional leagues and do so well they don't ever get their degree. The coaching staff are employees of the team's organization rather than the uni.

intralizee 8y ago

I can't imagine if you have that kind of money, you wouldn't have had a team of people calculating and rationalizing every scenario for the action taken. The thing that bothers me is how universities keep raising the cost for students to have an education. Nothing seems to prevent it and everything seems like a joint effort in having the new generation be worse off by having no real spending power for years compared to the previous.

devoply 8y ago
That money would be better spent lobbying government to fix the education cost disease in the US. A billion dollars can do a lot of lobbying.
born_a_beetle 8y ago
A lot of the top tier schools like Harvard provide a very fair financial aid package structure, so no, it isn't a joint effort. It is a myth that most students can't avoid high tuition costs. SUNY schools are very cheap for in state. There is always the route of spending 2 years in community college and then transferring to your state school. That is a very successful model in New Jersey. The problem is many kids want a luxurious college lifestyle where they do a little work, play a lot of beer pong, and live in nice dorms. Our student loan structure allows for some bad actors to take advantage of this.
- intralizee 8y ago
  How very fair are these financial aid packages they offer? I went to a low tier university compared to the "elite" named ones and still think it was expensive compared to previously what my parents paid when going to school. The first years at a community college for two years before stepping into university wasn't really a well known thing like today when I started. I don't think people are living luxurious lifestyles at college unless they have rich parents. It wasn't even possible to take out loans that would cover everything if one would choose from my knowledge. Everywhere now a days for anything higher than min-wage requires a degree for an interview. I'm not even sure how med students manage to keep their mental health sane.

RickJWagner 8y ago

I disagree with much of what Michael Bloomberg says, but my hat's off to him for this. Thank you, Mr. Bloomberg.

hugh4life 8y ago

I'd like to see a retroactive rebate program for tuition paid for transferable community college credits that went towards a bachelors degree at a 4 year university. Make community college free for those who use it successfully to get a 4 year degree.

schimmy_changa 8y ago

I'll answer it for him: "So that I can get support (or at least not outright hostility) from the left wing of the democratic party when I'm running for president in 2020, who otherwise would be very unhappy with a billionaire as the candidate"

akulbe 8y ago

I realize I'm likely going to be a dissenting opinion here… but I'm not sure this is a good investment. Unless you're going to enter a field that requires the pedigree that starts with college (i.e. medicine, law, engineering), it's arguable that college isn't even worth the tuition you pay for it. Like another commenter says, they have no incentive to do anything that will reduce costs. The quality of the education seems to be on the decline too. It feels like colleges are turning into breeding grounds for social justice warriors more than they're turning out folks who are prepared to enter the workforce. It feels like the onus should be on the colleges to make costs more reasonable, rather than getting another handout from a rich benefactor (which will not last long).

schimmy_changa 8y ago
That may be true (but is arguable) if you see college as nothing but a vocational school, training you to be the best worker which society could ask for. A truly liberal (in the John Stuart Mill / Enlightenment sense of the word) education gives you the tools you need to engage with the world. How can you ever change society if you are only able to see the world in what makes money, and are never given the time and resources to think beyond what is today towards what could be? It is true that some people can learn some of these things on their own, but having 4 years to think surrounded by an environment where everyone else is focused on that same goal can really make a difference. If a pragmatic man like Bloomberg believes in the value of a liberal education (again the old sense of the word), you can bet it's not total hooey. (although see my other comment for what I believe is behind at least the timing of this announcement)
- wernercd 8y ago
  > A truly liberal (in the John Stuart Mill / Enlightenment sense of the word) education gives you the tools you need to engage with the world. But the current education system doesn't give you either. You don't get tools to be useful - IE STEM related, engineering, math, etc. You also don't get the tools to "engage" with the world. Blocking traffic, needing safe places and being triggered by anything you disagree with isn't "engaging" the world.

schalab 8y ago

People are suffering from taking too many pay day loans. I think I will donate 2 billion dollars to my local pay day lender. There, problem solved. Now people dont need to be worried about paying it back. I am sure they wont use this guaranteed income to jack up the rates more.

Flavius 8y ago
I get what you're saying, but surely keeping the money for himself or invest them in luxury real estate wouldn't have done any better.

gboudrias 8y ago

Good to see philanthropy from up high. That said, I haven't seen the term "American dream" used unironically in years. I've never been shown it as something worth reviving, insofar as it's deeply intertwined with notions like savage capitalism. For you and ourselves I'd rather have a great American awakening. But maybe I'm arguing semantics.

virmundi 8y ago

First off, great for giving the money. > Together, the federal and state governments should make a new commitment to improving access to college and reducing the often prohibitive burdens debt places on so many students and families. Why are we pushing college? We don't need everyone to have a college degree. We need plumbers, general contractors, electricians. We need the society to not look down on laborers. We need to get high school students into training programs for these careers. We need them to actually think about what they're doing on the job. I went for a walk the other day. There is a woman on a ladder scrapping away at loose the paint. The house is about 100 years old. The wood was original. Even in places where a siding profile changed, the wood is probably 60 years old. She had no face mask. No 7mm plastic tarp 3 ft from the house. No water spray bottle. No paint remover that keeps the dust down. No low temp IR system to make peeling faster. I told her it was lead paint. I said if she kept that up, she'd die (perhaps a bit of an exaggeration on one house, but if she does that at all of them, it will add up). I told her to get a P100 face mask. She said she'd tell her boss. This is basic EPA lead abatement training. There are free videos from the EPA and States (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKJ6zuVvTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKJ6zuVvTY). Next day, lead chips on the ground. Her on the ladder as before. We need to train the next generation of intelligent laborers. We don't need more people walking out with Comm. degrees because society told them to go to college.

wallace_f 8y ago

Such a waste of money. The model needs change. Everyone across the world should have access to world-class lectures, books assignments, materials, and eventually, testing centers were students can demonstrate their education.

strikelaserclaw 8y ago

I wonder how giving to john's hopkins fixes the issue that lower income people don't generally have a good pipeline to know their options and realize it when it comes to higher education. I don't think it is just a money thing when it comes to lower income households sending their children to prestigious universities. Surely alot of top schools give out generous packages to these people. How do you fix a system to work for lower income households in which many children of the upper middle class and above (who are most likely to get into these top schools) are groomed from a younger age by parents with financial means to do so and good schooling (some of which is specifically designed to get its students into the top schools).