3 ms·

Yes but "bribing" the college directly with donations subsidizes the cost of tuition for everyone else. Students don't benefit if the donations go to middlemen

Yes but "bribing" the college directly with donations subsidizes the cost of tuition for everyone else. Students don't benefit if the donations go to middlemen instead.

microtherion 6y ago
USC had, as of last year, a $5.7B endowment. I suspect they don't really adjust their tuition based on the level of donations they get.
- HaloZero 6y ago
  Actually, they do. USC will give you full ride your parents make under $80,000.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  How do you think they got that endowment? :-)
  - sumedh 6y ago
    By investing students fees in the stock market?
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      Definitely not. Student fees have never left a surplus to invest. It's from investing donations.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Not in the sense of accounting balance, no. But at elite schools, elimination of tuition need is absolutely a core goal of finance and fundraising. I think there's way too much cynicism in the comments here. These schools really do take their social responsibilities seriously and really do offer and prioritize student aid. And to the extent they can't, it's because they simply don't have the cash available. Giving to universities is a good thing (well, usually -- maybe there's an argument that the super-elite schools with outrageous endowments don't need this, I guess). Should universities be "selling" spots for this purpose? I don't know. But it's not correct to imply that they don't have a good use for that money.
  - sirspacey 6y ago
    Having worked with university foundations for many years, you are right - they do aspire to this. The rank and file believe it. But it’s not altruistic, they are getting paid. They prefer donations because, in our gilded age, they are a more reliable source of tuition dollars. Higher ed today fails a very basic test - they have no practice around student success. Startups like SkillShare started with that in mind. Many universities have launched initiatives and programs in the past few years to drive “student success,” but they are entirely dependent on outside providers - whose recommendations they actively resist. It is bananas. Universities’ measure of student success? Do students drop out. Once again, entirely self-serving. Talk to veteran higher ed faculty & staff - they all know it. Universities don’t actually know what their value is, so they just keep trying to pretend to offer what people wanted in times past in an era that has no use for any of it. They are a brutal application of enlightenment thinking in a world that does not play by those rules. They know they are playing a smoke & mirrors game. The average student is 27 and has a kid, yet they still sell the “college experience,” mostly to foreign nationals with rich parents. It is corrupt from beginning to end. Do not pay for college, kids. Read “DIY University.”

Yes but "bribing" the college directly with donations subsidizes the cost of tuition for everyone else. Students don't benefit if the donations go to middlemen instead.

microtherion 6y ago

USC had, as of last year, a $5.7B endowment. I suspect they don't really adjust their tuition based on the level of donations they get.

HaloZero 6y ago
Actually, they do. USC will give you full ride your parents make under $80,000.
WalterBright 6y ago
How do you think they got that endowment? :-)
- sumedh 6y ago
  By investing students fees in the stock market?
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    Definitely not. Student fees have never left a surplus to invest. It's from investing donations.
newacct583 6y ago
Not in the sense of accounting balance, no. But at elite schools, elimination of tuition need is absolutely a core goal of finance and fundraising. I think there's way too much cynicism in the comments here. These schools really do take their social responsibilities seriously and really do offer and prioritize student aid. And to the extent they can't, it's because they simply don't have the cash available. Giving to universities is a good thing (well, usually -- maybe there's an argument that the super-elite schools with outrageous endowments don't need this, I guess). Should universities be "selling" spots for this purpose? I don't know. But it's not correct to imply that they don't have a good use for that money.
- sirspacey 6y ago
  Having worked with university foundations for many years, you are right - they do aspire to this. The rank and file believe it. But it’s not altruistic, they are getting paid. They prefer donations because, in our gilded age, they are a more reliable source of tuition dollars. Higher ed today fails a very basic test - they have no practice around student success. Startups like SkillShare started with that in mind. Many universities have launched initiatives and programs in the past few years to drive “student success,” but they are entirely dependent on outside providers - whose recommendations they actively resist. It is bananas. Universities’ measure of student success? Do students drop out. Once again, entirely self-serving. Talk to veteran higher ed faculty & staff - they all know it. Universities don’t actually know what their value is, so they just keep trying to pretend to offer what people wanted in times past in an era that has no use for any of it. They are a brutal application of enlightenment thinking in a world that does not play by those rules. They know they are playing a smoke & mirrors game. The average student is 27 and has a kid, yet they still sell the “college experience,” mostly to foreign nationals with rich parents. It is corrupt from beginning to end. Do not pay for college, kids. Read “DIY University.”