12 ms·

Point foundations requirements: https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/ https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/ "A proven t

Point foundations requirements: https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/ https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/ "A proven track record of leadership and community involvement Strong academic achievement Working for the betterment of the LGBTQ community Financial need" These orgs don't actually research their target base. You can't show strong leadership without your parents having the funds to put you in programs to show that and get references. You're not going to get great marks at bad schools. And you're sure as hell not doing any of those when your parents disown you. It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. People like Mackenzie Scott are better served in making their own orgs if their intention is to help people in need and not give people a free ride they already could afford.

s5300 5y ago
> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. Dude… what?
- thisarticle 5y ago
  They’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    Alright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.
- dahart 5y ago
  The comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    I am not really sure how a scholarship could do otherwise, but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids who aren't in a position to be able to get the credentials to get a scholarship. Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education. Still waiting on that social safety net though.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > I am not really sure how to scholarship could do otherwise There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right? I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.
    - citizenpaul 5y ago
      > but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.
      - neltnerb 5y ago
        No, I made a comparison between two options. And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me? There's no need to pretend there's an argument.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Parents dictate these outcomes, not the teens. Those in the best position to meet these requirements fundamentally need them the least, because their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. If this org was for the betterment of LGBTQ individuals they would target those whom are disadvantaged and did not have these opportunities.
  - agar 5y ago
    I replied in a separate comment, but want to respond to this: > their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate. Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed. Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements." If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.
agar 5y ago
> it's a foundation to fund elitism This is a complete false dichotomy. You appear to be arguing that either an organization funds highly underprivileged or homeless youth from "bad schools" or they're funding elitism? "Giving people a free ride they already could afford?" I disagree. College expenses are so ridiculously high that a broad swath of the middle class can simply not afford to help their children pay for college. A University of California school costs over $35,000/year for California residents. Private schools and costs for out of state residents are far higher. Add in bare bones other expenses, and an almost-impossible-to-attain-in-4-years-4-year-degree can cost $150K+ for a public school. These people are not "elites." These are solid middle class families and the college cost problem is huge. Imagine making enough money to support your family, pay ridiculous rent/house prices, get your kids into decent programs, maybe save a bit for retirement...and are ineligible for almost all forms of financial aid, and 90% of scholarships, because that salary that barely pays the cost of living is considered excessive. Getting a second mortgage or raiding a retirement fund may not be an option. And what if you have 2 or 3 kids? This is assuming that these families still support their kids after they've come out. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people start their lives under a crushing debt burden that can't be lifted even through bankruptcy. Or, they simply skip college entirely. An organization that assists with college costs by looking at a student's complete picture (not just financial need) will help far more people than "elites." Not every LGBTQ student gets disowned by their families. Some do and still show strong leadership simply by continuing to strive for a college of their dreams. Some, tragically, suffer in immeasurable and innumerable ways and may need other kinds of support. All of these kids deserve a chance, and if this organization helps some of them then I think that's fantastic. The attitude of "if you're not helping this one segment that I deem most at risk then you're part of the problem" is corrosive and unnecessarily cynical.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- devwastaken 5y ago
  The people in need I am talking about are the middle class. The overwhelming majority of families don't have the time, money, or education necessary to do these things. This is especially true of those in poverty. That would be all fine and good if there was support systems that actually helped those whom needed it. FAFSA even at it's maximum amount doesn't cover that much, and it certainly won't cosign a private loan. These kinds of "merit based" scholarships are everywhere and overwhelmingly taken by those whom don't even need a college degree. The only thing different with this one is they plaster LGBTQ over it the same as Apple or Google will wave rainbows around. That doesn't actually target the community that needs it. What I'm interpreting from you here is: "these well off middle class kids deserve this more because they're well off middle class kids that can't afford the California schools.". That's elitism.

s5300 5y ago

> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. Dude… what?

thisarticle 5y ago
They’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Alright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.
dahart 5y ago
The comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...
- neltnerb 5y ago
  I am not really sure how a scholarship could do otherwise, but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids who aren't in a position to be able to get the credentials to get a scholarship. Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education. Still waiting on that social safety net though.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > I am not really sure how to scholarship could do otherwise There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right? I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    > but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      No, I made a comparison between two options. And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me? There's no need to pretend there's an argument.
devwastaken 5y ago
Parents dictate these outcomes, not the teens. Those in the best position to meet these requirements fundamentally need them the least, because their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. If this org was for the betterment of LGBTQ individuals they would target those whom are disadvantaged and did not have these opportunities.
- agar 5y ago
  I replied in a separate comment, but want to respond to this: > their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate. Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed. Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements." If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.

agar 5y ago

> it's a foundation to fund elitism This is a complete false dichotomy. You appear to be arguing that either an organization funds highly underprivileged or homeless youth from "bad schools" or they're funding elitism? "Giving people a free ride they already could afford?" I disagree. College expenses are so ridiculously high that a broad swath of the middle class can simply not afford to help their children pay for college. A University of California school costs over $35,000/year for California residents. Private schools and costs for out of state residents are far higher. Add in bare bones other expenses, and an almost-impossible-to-attain-in-4-years-4-year-degree can cost $150K+ for a public school. These people are not "elites." These are solid middle class families and the college cost problem is huge. Imagine making enough money to support your family, pay ridiculous rent/house prices, get your kids into decent programs, maybe save a bit for retirement...and are ineligible for almost all forms of financial aid, and 90% of scholarships, because that salary that barely pays the cost of living is considered excessive. Getting a second mortgage or raiding a retirement fund may not be an option. And what if you have 2 or 3 kids? This is assuming that these families still support their kids after they've come out. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people start their lives under a crushing debt burden that can't be lifted even through bankruptcy. Or, they simply skip college entirely. An organization that assists with college costs by looking at a student's complete picture (not just financial need) will help far more people than "elites." Not every LGBTQ student gets disowned by their families. Some do and still show strong leadership simply by continuing to strive for a college of their dreams. Some, tragically, suffer in immeasurable and innumerable ways and may need other kinds of support. All of these kids deserve a chance, and if this organization helps some of them then I think that's fantastic. The attitude of "if you're not helping this one segment that I deem most at risk then you're part of the problem" is corrosive and unnecessarily cynical.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
devwastaken 5y ago
The people in need I am talking about are the middle class. The overwhelming majority of families don't have the time, money, or education necessary to do these things. This is especially true of those in poverty. That would be all fine and good if there was support systems that actually helped those whom needed it. FAFSA even at it's maximum amount doesn't cover that much, and it certainly won't cosign a private loan. These kinds of "merit based" scholarships are everywhere and overwhelmingly taken by those whom don't even need a college degree. The only thing different with this one is they plaster LGBTQ over it the same as Apple or Google will wave rainbows around. That doesn't actually target the community that needs it. What I'm interpreting from you here is: "these well off middle class kids deserve this more because they're well off middle class kids that can't afford the California schools.". That's elitism.