4 ms·

I just don't see Munger's angle here. I mean, why not donate the money and let the university handle everything else? What is his line of thinking exactly? He t

by laydn 5y ago

I just don't see Munger's angle here. I mean, why not donate the money and let the university handle everything else? What is his line of thinking exactly? He thinks the university will waste the money or something?

everyone 5y ago
He's suffering from architecture dunning kruger effect.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Charitable interpretation is that you want to donate to help people, but you think you know better than administrators, who don’t always have the same goals as the people you’re trying to help. Wanting to donate to people in a poor country but not to the local regime, for example.
prepend 5y ago
I think his angle is he thinks this is an efficient design and the best use of his money. Keeping 4500 students in a single 11 storey building is pretty efficient. And using all the natural light space for common areas and classroom is pretty novel. It’s hard for me to know Munger’s mind, but I think his donation is intended to improve how dorms are designed beyond this single building and school. So his investment is not to just house these students, but to help colleges better house students.
- danaris 5y ago
  If it's hard for you to know Munger's mind, may I suggest you read the article, which describes his exact rationale for the stipulations?
  - prepend 5y ago
    Good point. I should clarify my comment by saying “After reading the article, it’s hard for me to know Munger’s mind as to the motivation he has in funding this building…”
- jk20 5y ago
  >Keeping 4500 students in a single 11 storey building is pretty efficient. About as efficient as a chicken farm. Also, $300k (the price tag for a single room) gets you a new house of 200 m2 in some countries.
kelseyfrog 5y ago
Donating with stipulations is such a weird thing to do. Either you trust the acceptor, or you find someone else to donate to. Why give money to someone if you don't trust them to use it wisely?
- vasilipupkin 5y ago
  Because he has thought deeply about building design and believes he knows the best way to do it. If the university thinks it knows better, it’s free to reject the money and he can donate it to some other worthy cause.
- endtime 5y ago
  In collusion with someone inside the institution, as a way to get around internal budgetary disputes? That said, I don't understand why even the boring version is confusing. Someone can want to help an institution achieve one of its goals, but not others of its goals.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Donating with stipulations is a very normal thing to do for entities with the money to do so. You give money to the organisation because they are best placed to do x in terms of other resources. You know that the organisation also does y and z, which are less important to you, so you ask them to use it for x. No different to hiring people really: just because you trust they can do a good job doesn't mean you let them work on whatever they want. Donating money with floorplan layout stipulations is weird though, especially when it's the recipient saying "no, that layout of the building that'll bear your name is so mean it'll reflect badly on us"
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    I agree with it being common. However, I can't stop referring back to http://paulgraham.com/donate.html http://paulgraham.com/donate.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rexreed 5y ago
In the Maimonides ladder of charity giving, giving charity with stipulations on how it can be used, while also acknowledging the giver and having the giver and receiver each knowing of each other and the nature of the gifts is actually one of the lowest forms of charity [0]. It's charity with strings attached and the inherent ego-centricity and guilt-tripping of the giver to the givee. There's no altruism in this "gift". It's all self-interest. [0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable-giving https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charita...
- memetomancer 5y ago
  This is a good thing to recognize, however I think in this case it's more along the lines of Munger having a novel vision for a specific dorm layout, and saying to the university "Hi. I got this idea for a dorm, I will foot the bill if you are up for doing it my way". This is hardly the same as "giving grudgingly"... In fact it feels wrong to cast the matter in this light. At worst it is more akin to Maimonides' concept of Utilitarian Friendship, and the current furor perhaps serving as the “When the benefit vanishes, love vanishes” moment.
snowwrestler 5y ago
Yes, tying the design demand to the donation is the core of the problem. It puts the university in a no-win situation of either foregoing the best practices of design review, or foregoing $200 million. If it’s actually a good design, it should stand up to scrutiny like any other building design does. The most famous buildings you’ve ever heard of passed through a design review and made revisions. It’s absurd to think that Frank Gehry gets design-reviewed but Charlie Munger does not. By exempting a design from review and revision, you get what they are getting now: a shitload of bad PR. If stakeholders can’t weigh in internally, they will attack externally. Left to fester, this could affect the university’s acceptance rate. Publicly disregarding the concerns of parents and students is not generally a great look in higher education.
- Majromax 5y ago
  > If it’s actually a good design, it should stand up to scrutiny like any other building design does. Well, define scrutiny? There's technical criticism from the standpoint of safety, for example. If it's not possible to evacuate this building in the event of a fire, that's an overriding concern. There's also criticism from the standpoint of tradition or aesthetic. If the building is ugly or nontraditional, then that's a social problem. The university will need to choose between the taste of the donor and its own aesthetic. The "natural light is necessary for mental health" argument is somewhere in between. A lot of the reaction seems to be a knee-jerk one about tradition and imagining life in a light-free (not just window-free) room, or rooms with poor ventilation. On the other hand, the article here at least alludes to studies on the matter. > By exempting a design from review and revision I think you're over-reading things? As I understand it, the building isn't exempt from review and revision, but Munger retains co-final approval with the university. It's not a one-shot "build these exact blueprints or nothing" deal. To reflect on your earlier example, Frank Gehry gets design-reviewed, but if the clients want him to do something unacceptable he can still walk away.

by laydn 5y ago

everyone 5y ago

He's suffering from architecture dunning kruger effect.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Charitable interpretation is that you want to donate to help people, but you think you know better than administrators, who don’t always have the same goals as the people you’re trying to help. Wanting to donate to people in a poor country but not to the local regime, for example.

prepend 5y ago

I think his angle is he thinks this is an efficient design and the best use of his money. Keeping 4500 students in a single 11 storey building is pretty efficient. And using all the natural light space for common areas and classroom is pretty novel. It’s hard for me to know Munger’s mind, but I think his donation is intended to improve how dorms are designed beyond this single building and school. So his investment is not to just house these students, but to help colleges better house students.

danaris 5y ago
If it's hard for you to know Munger's mind, may I suggest you read the article, which describes his exact rationale for the stipulations?
- prepend 5y ago
  Good point. I should clarify my comment by saying “After reading the article, it’s hard for me to know Munger’s mind as to the motivation he has in funding this building…”
jk20 5y ago
>Keeping 4500 students in a single 11 storey building is pretty efficient. About as efficient as a chicken farm. Also, $300k (the price tag for a single room) gets you a new house of 200 m2 in some countries.

kelseyfrog 5y ago

Donating with stipulations is such a weird thing to do. Either you trust the acceptor, or you find someone else to donate to. Why give money to someone if you don't trust them to use it wisely?

vasilipupkin 5y ago
Because he has thought deeply about building design and believes he knows the best way to do it. If the university thinks it knows better, it’s free to reject the money and he can donate it to some other worthy cause.
endtime 5y ago
In collusion with someone inside the institution, as a way to get around internal budgetary disputes? That said, I don't understand why even the boring version is confusing. Someone can want to help an institution achieve one of its goals, but not others of its goals.
notahacker 5y ago
Donating with stipulations is a very normal thing to do for entities with the money to do so. You give money to the organisation because they are best placed to do x in terms of other resources. You know that the organisation also does y and z, which are less important to you, so you ask them to use it for x. No different to hiring people really: just because you trust they can do a good job doesn't mean you let them work on whatever they want. Donating money with floorplan layout stipulations is weird though, especially when it's the recipient saying "no, that layout of the building that'll bear your name is so mean it'll reflect badly on us"
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  I agree with it being common. However, I can't stop referring back to http://paulgraham.com/donate.html http://paulgraham.com/donate.html

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rexreed 5y ago

In the Maimonides ladder of charity giving, giving charity with stipulations on how it can be used, while also acknowledging the giver and having the giver and receiver each knowing of each other and the nature of the gifts is actually one of the lowest forms of charity [0]. It's charity with strings attached and the inherent ego-centricity and guilt-tripping of the giver to the givee. There's no altruism in this "gift". It's all self-interest. [0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable-giving https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charita...

memetomancer 5y ago
This is a good thing to recognize, however I think in this case it's more along the lines of Munger having a novel vision for a specific dorm layout, and saying to the university "Hi. I got this idea for a dorm, I will foot the bill if you are up for doing it my way". This is hardly the same as "giving grudgingly"... In fact it feels wrong to cast the matter in this light. At worst it is more akin to Maimonides' concept of Utilitarian Friendship, and the current furor perhaps serving as the “When the benefit vanishes, love vanishes” moment.

snowwrestler 5y ago

Yes, tying the design demand to the donation is the core of the problem. It puts the university in a no-win situation of either foregoing the best practices of design review, or foregoing $200 million. If it’s actually a good design, it should stand up to scrutiny like any other building design does. The most famous buildings you’ve ever heard of passed through a design review and made revisions. It’s absurd to think that Frank Gehry gets design-reviewed but Charlie Munger does not. By exempting a design from review and revision, you get what they are getting now: a shitload of bad PR. If stakeholders can’t weigh in internally, they will attack externally. Left to fester, this could affect the university’s acceptance rate. Publicly disregarding the concerns of parents and students is not generally a great look in higher education.

Majromax 5y ago
> If it’s actually a good design, it should stand up to scrutiny like any other building design does. Well, define scrutiny? There's technical criticism from the standpoint of safety, for example. If it's not possible to evacuate this building in the event of a fire, that's an overriding concern. There's also criticism from the standpoint of tradition or aesthetic. If the building is ugly or nontraditional, then that's a social problem. The university will need to choose between the taste of the donor and its own aesthetic. The "natural light is necessary for mental health" argument is somewhere in between. A lot of the reaction seems to be a knee-jerk one about tradition and imagining life in a light-free (not just window-free) room, or rooms with poor ventilation. On the other hand, the article here at least alludes to studies on the matter. > By exempting a design from review and revision I think you're over-reading things? As I understand it, the building isn't exempt from review and revision, but Munger retains co-final approval with the university. It's not a one-shot "build these exact blueprints or nothing" deal. To reflect on your earlier example, Frank Gehry gets design-reviewed, but if the clients want him to do something unacceptable he can still walk away.