3 ms·

The hallmark of a successful development program is to simultaneously convince you of two things (1) the school is of the highest quality and (2) it is drastica

by hullo 12y ago

The hallmark of a successful development program is to simultaneously convince you of two things (1) the school is of the highest quality and (2) it is drastically underfunded. Yes endowment funds are earmarked, but in most cases they're going to fund things that would need to be funded anyway (scholarships, professorships, center & department expenses). One of the strengths of a large endowment is that it increases the share of general funds that are discretionary, giving them room to do things that alumni don't get excited about, like cutting the grass and (yes) making campuses accessible to those with different physical capabilities. But, in any case leaving aside MIT's 5th largest endowment, it's only one of the factors in determining whether a school is well off. One could also look, say, at the budget. Or research funding. By just about any metric one could imagine, MIT is one of the richest schools in the nation.

hga 12y ago
As I said, inside viewpoint. I don't look at anything the development program produces besides the occasional headline. Instead, I actually worked at MIT job in 1980, and a job in the end of the '80s (IT). I keep up with contacts and friends from those jobs, plus I just plain hung around the campus for a dozen year period including those jobs, and I know how it is at "the sharp end of the spear". Like helping to allocate a fixed budget and running requisitions through the always skeptical procurement office. So I know MIT didn't switch from cleaning every bathroom every day to "frequent cleaning" because it had a large surplus of funds, and that it's been hurting as the Cold War ended, and now with the Great Recession. But you're in part moving the goalposts. No one is denying MIT doesn't have a lot of money, we're discussing whether it has such an unrestricted surplus it can all of a sudden properly caption all the video it formally publishes. In a legal regime that'll make that all the more expensive and time and energy consuming. And what will have to be sacrificed to do this, aside from all the videos that will go dark and stay dark. Especially in the case of the targeted OCW, which most certainly doesn't have the money to do this, and based on its ability to fund raise after it fulfilled its original mandate, would have trouble doing this, and would also certainly have to initially remove all its videos after an adverse outcome. Heck, is MIT going to have to institute policy of cost recovery to cover the expenses of making sure no video gets them into further trouble? Another thing to consider is that Harvard and MIT were chosen as the initial targets for the obvious reasons. Just how much will the world be enriched when this filters down to every college in the US? Like the one my family shares a property boundary with, which prides itself in providing a low cost education and rents out textbooks. Right now it's very cheap for them to put video on the web. If you're successful, that'll end.
- hullo 12y ago
  Luckily, folks who care about making things accessible for those with disabilities have already won (god forbid something like the ADA getting passed today), so I don't actually need to fight this battle. These videos will be captioned, MIT will not go broke (or stop putting up new things). Set up a tickle file, one year from today, see how it all looks.

by hullo 12y ago

hga 12y ago

As I said, inside viewpoint. I don't look at anything the development program produces besides the occasional headline. Instead, I actually worked at MIT job in 1980, and a job in the end of the '80s (IT). I keep up with contacts and friends from those jobs, plus I just plain hung around the campus for a dozen year period including those jobs, and I know how it is at "the sharp end of the spear". Like helping to allocate a fixed budget and running requisitions through the always skeptical procurement office. So I know MIT didn't switch from cleaning every bathroom every day to "frequent cleaning" because it had a large surplus of funds, and that it's been hurting as the Cold War ended, and now with the Great Recession. But you're in part moving the goalposts. No one is denying MIT doesn't have a lot of money, we're discussing whether it has such an unrestricted surplus it can all of a sudden properly caption all the video it formally publishes. In a legal regime that'll make that all the more expensive and time and energy consuming. And what will have to be sacrificed to do this, aside from all the videos that will go dark and stay dark. Especially in the case of the targeted OCW, which most certainly doesn't have the money to do this, and based on its ability to fund raise after it fulfilled its original mandate, would have trouble doing this, and would also certainly have to initially remove all its videos after an adverse outcome. Heck, is MIT going to have to institute policy of cost recovery to cover the expenses of making sure no video gets them into further trouble? Another thing to consider is that Harvard and MIT were chosen as the initial targets for the obvious reasons. Just how much will the world be enriched when this filters down to every college in the US? Like the one my family shares a property boundary with, which prides itself in providing a low cost education and rents out textbooks. Right now it's very cheap for them to put video on the web. If you're successful, that'll end.

hullo 12y ago
Luckily, folks who care about making things accessible for those with disabilities have already won (god forbid something like the ADA getting passed today), so I don't actually need to fight this battle. These videos will be captioned, MIT will not go broke (or stop putting up new things). Set up a tickle file, one year from today, see how it all looks.