6 ms·

This is a very fair concern. First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment. The concentration of mega-gifts at

This is a very fair concern. First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment. The concentration of mega-gifts at the top has very perverse impacts. Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year. Philanthropy combines prestige, PR, and “legacy” in a way that massively overvalued those three vs. any kind of measurable impact. The alternative you are suggesting is badly, badly needed in the non-profit world. But the “brand” game has won vs the execution game, esp. in higher Ed.

Invictus0 4y ago
> Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year. Which building is that? Not doubting you, just curious.
devoutsalsa 4y ago
John wanted his name on the Doerr.
- jayzalowitz 4y ago
  Words cannot describe, should have sent a poet.
  - asciii 4y ago
    Ho Doerr?
ramesh31 4y ago
>But the “brand” game has won vs the execution game, esp. in higher Ed. I can remember seeing this in action at Stanford. Companies will fall over themselves and pay anything to have their name associated with absolutely anything that has the name Stanford on it. And the students know this, so they play the game. Every student group, organization, club, etc. no matter how small or meaningless is heavily sponsored by relevant corporate donors as a result.
rayiner 4y ago
> First off, most of this funding will go to a building. What a waste.
- geodel 4y ago
  Some time back I read a line in article "Government has deluded itself into thinking that building institutions is same as institution buildings" This seems to apply here.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Link?
- lofatdairy 4y ago
  Upvoted because I agree but it's not always this cut and dry. I can't speak for climate research (I imagine it's mostly computer sims so maybe a building is a waste), but for bio research lab space is nearly as important as personnel.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    The waste is they hire architects to build elaborate buildings with plenty of affectations that make universities and donors feel important, but that often put functionality far behind form. While the inside of lab space is quite functional and "luxury" in lab space goes is actually lab equipment, sq. ft, and having a window that looks out on something pleasant. Much less impressive looking buildings could be built which facilitated far more science. Universities have degenerated somewhat into being professional sports teams and professional fundraisers. "Attracting top talent" is nonsense, universities are already full of people so desperate for positions they work nearly for free. If I had a billion dollars I'd build a university out the best equipment, the cheapest buildings, and a minimum wage for anyone doing academic work of $100k and see how far that got me.
codekilla 4y ago
I worked in the Broad building at Caltech (Eli Broad), and I watched for 2 years as they demoed the parking lot outside my office to build the 200 million dollar Chen neuroscience building. It is a complete and total waste of money, and I say that cognizant of arguments like 'attracting talent'...etc. At one point we calculated the number of neuroscience postdocs we could hire for that money and easily came to the conclusion that we could have pulled off a Manhattan project of neuroscience with that kind of money. It's pathetic that donors delude themselves into thinking that projects like this do ANY good. Edit: link: https://www.henselphelps.com/project/chen-neuroscience-research-building/ https://www.henselphelps.com/project/chen-neuroscience-resea...
- valarauko 4y ago
  wait, is the 200 million just for the building, or for the entire facility (new equipment, etc)? Building a new facility in itself seems a worthwhile enterprise - though as a postdoc myself I'd rather have pay bumps for the postdocs :)
  - codekilla 4y ago
    I believe at least 170 million was slated initially for construction costs, which may have run over. I don't know how much was for new equipment, but I can't imagine it was a significant fraction (and likely it was an additional expense over those numbers).
    - valarauko 4y ago
      170+ million for a BUILDING?! That doesn't make sense to me at all - as someone who spends his waking hours in research laboratories in a newish building of comparable size to the Chen building, I can't see where the money would go.
      - stanford_labrat 4y ago
        here's a guess, our fancy new stem cell research building has 3 pieces of chihuly glass about each about the size of a mini cooper...
jjulius 4y ago
>First off, most of this funding will go to a building. Gross.
acchow 4y ago
> Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year. Which building is this?
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
>First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment. Academic institutions are also tax-exempt, therefore don't pay any tax on the profits of any endowment or real-estate investment gains. The rise of the ivy-league schools becoming glorified tax-free holding companies, with education side-gigs, corresponds with the bloat in academic administration. https://observer.com/2006/05/nyu-columbia-make-a-mint-on-real-estate/ https://observer.com/2006/05/nyu-columbia-make-a-mint-on-rea... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/higher-ed-administrators-growth_n_4738584 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/higher-ed-administrators-grow...
- metadat 4y ago
  Stanford is really a real estate venture masquerading as an academic institution. Why? For tax purposes. Upon first hearing this I was shocked and disappointed. Over time I've lowered my hopes and expectations, and come to accept it for what it is: Old, elite, uber-wealthy white men at the top, who want it to stay that way. https://www.google.com/search?q=Stanford+president https://www.google.com/search?q=Stanford+president https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marc_Tessier-Lavigne_at_Rally_for_Medical_Research.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marc_Tessier-Lavigne_at... References: "The Stanford Empire", by Mercury News > Stanford's vast holdings. Stanford, Silicon Valley's largest property owner, controls more than 5,000 acres in Palo Alto and unincorporated Santa Clara County. On that land are the university's sprawling campus, a shopping center, tech offices, apartment buildings and entire residential neighborhoods. > The value of Stanford’s empire is larger than those of Google, Apple and Intel combined. https://extras.mercurynews.com/whoowns/stanford.html https://extras.mercurynews.com/whoowns/stanford.html "How Stanford Came to Dominate the Landscape in Silicon Valley", by KQED > The value of Stanford's real estate empire is greater than the holdings of Google, Apple and Cisco combined. https://www.kqed.org/news/11781771/how-stanford-became-the-largest-landowner-in-silicon-valley https://www.kqed.org/news/11781771/how-stanford-became-the-l...

Invictus0 4y ago

> Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year. Which building is that? Not doubting you, just curious.

devoutsalsa 4y ago

John wanted his name on the Doerr.

jayzalowitz 4y ago
Words cannot describe, should have sent a poet.
- asciii 4y ago
  Ho Doerr?

ramesh31 4y ago

>But the “brand” game has won vs the execution game, esp. in higher Ed. I can remember seeing this in action at Stanford. Companies will fall over themselves and pay anything to have their name associated with absolutely anything that has the name Stanford on it. And the students know this, so they play the game. Every student group, organization, club, etc. no matter how small or meaningless is heavily sponsored by relevant corporate donors as a result.

rayiner 4y ago

> First off, most of this funding will go to a building. What a waste.

geodel 4y ago
Some time back I read a line in article "Government has deluded itself into thinking that building institutions is same as institution buildings" This seems to apply here.
- metadat 4y ago
  Link?
lofatdairy 4y ago
Upvoted because I agree but it's not always this cut and dry. I can't speak for climate research (I imagine it's mostly computer sims so maybe a building is a waste), but for bio research lab space is nearly as important as personnel.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  The waste is they hire architects to build elaborate buildings with plenty of affectations that make universities and donors feel important, but that often put functionality far behind form. While the inside of lab space is quite functional and "luxury" in lab space goes is actually lab equipment, sq. ft, and having a window that looks out on something pleasant. Much less impressive looking buildings could be built which facilitated far more science. Universities have degenerated somewhat into being professional sports teams and professional fundraisers. "Attracting top talent" is nonsense, universities are already full of people so desperate for positions they work nearly for free. If I had a billion dollars I'd build a university out the best equipment, the cheapest buildings, and a minimum wage for anyone doing academic work of $100k and see how far that got me.

codekilla 4y ago

I worked in the Broad building at Caltech (Eli Broad), and I watched for 2 years as they demoed the parking lot outside my office to build the 200 million dollar Chen neuroscience building. It is a complete and total waste of money, and I say that cognizant of arguments like 'attracting talent'...etc. At one point we calculated the number of neuroscience postdocs we could hire for that money and easily came to the conclusion that we could have pulled off a Manhattan project of neuroscience with that kind of money. It's pathetic that donors delude themselves into thinking that projects like this do ANY good. Edit: link: https://www.henselphelps.com/project/chen-neuroscience-research-building/ https://www.henselphelps.com/project/chen-neuroscience-resea...

valarauko 4y ago
wait, is the 200 million just for the building, or for the entire facility (new equipment, etc)? Building a new facility in itself seems a worthwhile enterprise - though as a postdoc myself I'd rather have pay bumps for the postdocs :)
- codekilla 4y ago
  I believe at least 170 million was slated initially for construction costs, which may have run over. I don't know how much was for new equipment, but I can't imagine it was a significant fraction (and likely it was an additional expense over those numbers).
  - valarauko 4y ago
    170+ million for a BUILDING?! That doesn't make sense to me at all - as someone who spends his waking hours in research laboratories in a newish building of comparable size to the Chen building, I can't see where the money would go.
    - stanford_labrat 4y ago
      here's a guess, our fancy new stem cell research building has 3 pieces of chihuly glass about each about the size of a mini cooper...

jjulius 4y ago

>First off, most of this funding will go to a building. Gross.

acchow 4y ago

> Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year. Which building is this?

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

>First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment. Academic institutions are also tax-exempt, therefore don't pay any tax on the profits of any endowment or real-estate investment gains. The rise of the ivy-league schools becoming glorified tax-free holding companies, with education side-gigs, corresponds with the bloat in academic administration. https://observer.com/2006/05/nyu-columbia-make-a-mint-on-real-estate/ https://observer.com/2006/05/nyu-columbia-make-a-mint-on-rea... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/higher-ed-administrators-growth_n_4738584 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/higher-ed-administrators-grow...

metadat 4y ago
Stanford is really a real estate venture masquerading as an academic institution. Why? For tax purposes. Upon first hearing this I was shocked and disappointed. Over time I've lowered my hopes and expectations, and come to accept it for what it is: Old, elite, uber-wealthy white men at the top, who want it to stay that way. https://www.google.com/search?q=Stanford+president https://www.google.com/search?q=Stanford+president https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marc_Tessier-Lavigne_at_Rally_for_Medical_Research.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marc_Tessier-Lavigne_at... References: "The Stanford Empire", by Mercury News > Stanford's vast holdings. Stanford, Silicon Valley's largest property owner, controls more than 5,000 acres in Palo Alto and unincorporated Santa Clara County. On that land are the university's sprawling campus, a shopping center, tech offices, apartment buildings and entire residential neighborhoods. > The value of Stanford’s empire is larger than those of Google, Apple and Intel combined. https://extras.mercurynews.com/whoowns/stanford.html https://extras.mercurynews.com/whoowns/stanford.html "How Stanford Came to Dominate the Landscape in Silicon Valley", by KQED > The value of Stanford's real estate empire is greater than the holdings of Google, Apple and Cisco combined. https://www.kqed.org/news/11781771/how-stanford-became-the-largest-landowner-in-silicon-valley https://www.kqed.org/news/11781771/how-stanford-became-the-l...