4 ms·

It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade

by Tycho 6y ago

It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade-off are we going to get?

Klinky 6y ago
It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public institutions to not be reliant on magic philanthropists or rich people with dumb kids. Just tax rich people more and build the needed buildings from public funds.
- Tycho 6y ago
  Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.
  - Klinky 6y ago
    Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?
      - Klinky 6y ago
        This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.
        dodobirdlord 6y ago
        I don't think this is a thing at public institutions for exactly that reason.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        over time the entirety of the state apparatus (and business as well) who recruit out of these institutions because excellence and merit are replaced by legacy more and more and the quality of government and leadership continues to decline. I mean you can literally witness it with your own eyes right now when you look at the US on the world stage. Compare the quality of governance and selection of candidates to a country like Singapore, or hell even China whose ruthless political apparatus weeds out people who don't perform quite effectively.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Do you foresee a future where rich and powerful people don't routinely get what they want? That would involve redefining what it means to be rich and powerful. The US's strategy of funnelling the power through visible, legal channels with some levels of consistency is by far the best. If they want their kids in prestigious universities then that is what will happen. There isn't an alternative where the powerful shrug sheepishly and let their position erode.
      - Applejinx 6y ago
        At one point, a thing called the Magna Carta was arrived at for just such a purpose. One might say that redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, is normal.
      - Klinky 6y ago
        Again, the argument is that rich people should be allowed to be corrupt and there is no way to stop them, which is garbage. Firstly, stop stating it's "best" or like OP noting it as "success". Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education, even the playing field out. Yes you can redefine what rich means, and what poor means, over time through policies. That last part sounds like almost a threat regarding what rich people might do if you block their corrupt behavior. That's already a sign there's a problem with the power dynamic here.
        roenxi 6y ago
        > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... Someone getting in by buying the institution a new building isn't denying anyone access to higher education. In fact, since the institution has a new building it is likely it is increasing access to either education or research opportunities. > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... 30% of the US does get a degree, so higher education isn't exactly an elite marker. [2-4 years of time] X [70% of the US that doesn't have a degree] is an enormous number of hours. If someone is not going to use it then they have better things to do than academics. The risk of most of that 70% just looking back at a couple of wasted years is pretty high. I suppose in fairness it might work out, but even now there are a lot of people getting degrees who havn't managed to parley it up into better outcomes. But it is likely to be a terrible plan, expensive and with marginal positive outcomes.
- vadym909 6y ago
  I agree it is benign. There are only a few Bill Gates level rich people donating buildings. Sure it is corrupt strictly speaking but would you rather a poor student compete with one Gates kid or 100 millionaire kids that have discovered other cheaper corrupt openings?
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    It’s definitely more common than Gates. Perhaps around 5% of Ivy League students - https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-help-college-applications https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-h...
thundergolfer 6y ago
It is highly contestable that millions of dollars ending up in the already mega-wealthy Ivy league colleges is a public good. Considering how this could possibly be a public good, the most obvious way is that money into these institutions produces knowledge that then produces benefits in wider society. This fits mostly with the definition: > In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be It is true that in some cases education produces knowledge which itself becomes non-excludable and non-rivalrous, or that knowledge produces some other good which is both those things, but the multi-million dollar donations to Ivy-league colleges made by the super-rich so that their children participate in elite networks is pretty tenuously tied to this mechanism of 'education as a public good'.
- Tycho 6y ago
  The universities produce knowledge, but also produce and preserve culture, and attract students from overseas, and dish out scholarships to students otherwise unable to afford tuition. Plus, you get beautiful campuses.
joejohnson 6y ago
I honestly can’t tell if you are joking or jokingly trying to be an example what the parent comment is describing: numb to corruption when an example is done through “legitimate” means right in front of your nose.
victor106 6y ago
Love this comment even though my instinct is to not agree with it.
PedroBatista 6y ago
First I thought you’re trolling but after seeing your replies you’re not. Your views are so simplistic and one-dimensional even an Hollywood executive wouldn’t buy it. There’s a spectrum of “rich successful” people, many are rich but not “successful” in the way you like to believe, spend 5 minutes around them and it’s easy to know. Also, what’s up with that “less-brilliant children” saving face statement?

by Tycho 6y ago

It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade-off are we going to get?

Klinky 6y ago

It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public institutions to not be reliant on magic philanthropists or rich people with dumb kids. Just tax rich people more and build the needed buildings from public funds.

Tycho 6y ago
Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?
    - Klinky 6y ago
      This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.
      - dodobirdlord 6y ago
        I don't think this is a thing at public institutions for exactly that reason.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      over time the entirety of the state apparatus (and business as well) who recruit out of these institutions because excellence and merit are replaced by legacy more and more and the quality of government and leadership continues to decline. I mean you can literally witness it with your own eyes right now when you look at the US on the world stage. Compare the quality of governance and selection of candidates to a country like Singapore, or hell even China whose ruthless political apparatus weeds out people who don't perform quite effectively.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Do you foresee a future where rich and powerful people don't routinely get what they want? That would involve redefining what it means to be rich and powerful. The US's strategy of funnelling the power through visible, legal channels with some levels of consistency is by far the best. If they want their kids in prestigious universities then that is what will happen. There isn't an alternative where the powerful shrug sheepishly and let their position erode.
    - Applejinx 6y ago
      At one point, a thing called the Magna Carta was arrived at for just such a purpose. One might say that redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, is normal.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      Again, the argument is that rich people should be allowed to be corrupt and there is no way to stop them, which is garbage. Firstly, stop stating it's "best" or like OP noting it as "success". Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education, even the playing field out. Yes you can redefine what rich means, and what poor means, over time through policies. That last part sounds like almost a threat regarding what rich people might do if you block their corrupt behavior. That's already a sign there's a problem with the power dynamic here.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... Someone getting in by buying the institution a new building isn't denying anyone access to higher education. In fact, since the institution has a new building it is likely it is increasing access to either education or research opportunities. > Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education... 30% of the US does get a degree, so higher education isn't exactly an elite marker. [2-4 years of time] X [70% of the US that doesn't have a degree] is an enormous number of hours. If someone is not going to use it then they have better things to do than academics. The risk of most of that 70% just looking back at a couple of wasted years is pretty high. I suppose in fairness it might work out, but even now there are a lot of people getting degrees who havn't managed to parley it up into better outcomes. But it is likely to be a terrible plan, expensive and with marginal positive outcomes.
vadym909 6y ago
I agree it is benign. There are only a few Bill Gates level rich people donating buildings. Sure it is corrupt strictly speaking but would you rather a poor student compete with one Gates kid or 100 millionaire kids that have discovered other cheaper corrupt openings?
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  It’s definitely more common than Gates. Perhaps around 5% of Ivy League students - https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-help-college-applications https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-h...

thundergolfer 6y ago

It is highly contestable that millions of dollars ending up in the already mega-wealthy Ivy league colleges is a public good. Considering how this could possibly be a public good, the most obvious way is that money into these institutions produces knowledge that then produces benefits in wider society. This fits mostly with the definition: > In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be It is true that in some cases education produces knowledge which itself becomes non-excludable and non-rivalrous, or that knowledge produces some other good which is both those things, but the multi-million dollar donations to Ivy-league colleges made by the super-rich so that their children participate in elite networks is pretty tenuously tied to this mechanism of 'education as a public good'.

Tycho 6y ago
The universities produce knowledge, but also produce and preserve culture, and attract students from overseas, and dish out scholarships to students otherwise unable to afford tuition. Plus, you get beautiful campuses.

joejohnson 6y ago

I honestly can’t tell if you are joking or jokingly trying to be an example what the parent comment is describing: numb to corruption when an example is done through “legitimate” means right in front of your nose.

victor106 6y ago

Love this comment even though my instinct is to not agree with it.

PedroBatista 6y ago

First I thought you’re trolling but after seeing your replies you’re not. Your views are so simplistic and one-dimensional even an Hollywood executive wouldn’t buy it. There’s a spectrum of “rich successful” people, many are rich but not “successful” in the way you like to believe, spend 5 minutes around them and it’s easy to know. Also, what’s up with that “less-brilliant children” saving face statement?