Affirmative action for the 1%?

[Fero]

This is actually something that is organised pretty fair over here. Sport scholarships don't exist, and people from the middle class up don't get a dime either. For instance, my family is considered lower upper middle class, which means we have a great house in the countryside of one of the most expensive municipalities in Belgium, some nice cars and generally don't have to worry about money. In my college days, I payed just under 600 euro tuition fee for one of the best colleges, which is the most you can pay, and around 300 euros a month for my studio appartment (we don't have dorms here) The working class kids usually get automatic scholarships, which means they pay 50 euro tuition and max 150 euro for accommodation. The poor kids got a pretty sweet deal over here.

 

[chalupa]

Communist .

 

[Ciaran]

lolmerica!

 

[FenderBender]

But they don't operate in the free market, and that's the point.

Really? Thats the point? Where was that mentioned in the article? The schools this guy are criticizing aren't mandatory and they're not state run. They're private businesses.

 

[chalupa]

Really? Thats the point? Where was that mentioned in the article? The schools this guy are criticizing aren't mandatory and they're not state run. They're private businesses.

Seriously? You're smarter than this...

Government grants, public funding, and tax free alumni donations. Which of those three make it free market?

The deck is stacked, it has nothing to do with free market.

 

[BigMattTheHobo]

oh wow colleges in free market. mein sides are off into space

 

[Nocturnal]

No it's not missing the point. These schools didn't become desirable institutions by divine proclamation. The schools operate in a free market. The people who set the standards for who get in are the people who own the business. Let the universities do what they see as best for their business and you make the purchase that maximizes the return on value you put in to it. If the practice wasn't worthwhile then any good business would drop it.

Hmm, so perhaps we should talk about how the practice favors the wealthy and is essentially unfair, leading to public pressure to end that practice.

Wait, that's what we are doing!

Also, would you feel the same way if this practice was used to exclude a minority group (it was started to keep out the Jews apparently).

 

[FenderBender]

Seriously? You're smarter than this...

Government grants, public funding, and tax free alumni donations. Which of those three make it free market?

The deck is stacked, it has nothing to do with free market.

A business is no longer a business because it gets tax free donations? By that definition, there is not one market in the US that is a free market. This doesn't change the fact that you don't have to go to college, or if you'd like you can pick the school you want, and with the exception of state run schools, if they don't make a profit they don't stick around.

All that being said, what does this even have to do with alumni donations? If you're saying the government should stop meddling with colleges then I agree.

Hmm, so perhaps we should talk about how the practice favors the wealthy and is essentially unfair, leading to public pressure to end that practice.

Wait, that's what we are doing!

Also, would you feel the same way if this practice was used to exclude a minority group (it was started to keep out the Jews apparently).

I've already stated why it's not unfair. Alumni donations make it possible for more people to go than if there were no donations. It actually helps the people who have the qualifications but not the money.

If a school wanted to exclude Jews then by all means let them do it. I can't imagine how a school with this policy would be better off because of it. If they do it they do it at their own cost.

 

[Nocturnal]

I've already stated why it's not unfair. Alumni donations make it possible for more people to go than if there were no donations. It actually helps the people who have the qualifications but not the money.

If a school wanted to exclude Jews then by all means let them do it. I can't imagine how a school with this policy would be better off because of it. If they do it they do it at their own cost.

It's a big assumption to think that if legacies weren't given extra points then donations would not happen.

 

[Nocturnal]

I've already stated why it's not unfair. Alumni donations make it possible for more people to go than if there were no donations. It actually helps the people who have the qualifications but not the money.

If a school wanted to exclude Jews then by all means let them do it. I can't imagine how a school with this policy would be better off because of it. If they do it they do it at their own cost.

It's a big assumption to think that if legacies weren't given extra points then donations would not happen.

 

[Nocturnal]

Bonus round.

Public universities have been steadily cutting back need based scholarships in favor of revenue generation or increasing average student scores.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/public_universities_ramp_up_aid_for_the_wealthy_leaving_the_poor_behind_partner_2/

Screw off you poor faggots!

 

[FenderBender]

It's a big assumption to think that if legacies weren't given extra points then donations would not happen.

I don't think that donations would disappear without legacy policies. That doesn't mean that donations wouldn't decline. Some people might selfishly donate lots of money just for the benefit of their child. All donations whether selfishly given or not lower the school's bottom line and provide scholarships for people who can't afford school.

Bonus round.

Public universities have been steadily cutting back need based scholarships in favor of revenue generation or increasing average student scores.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/public_universities_ramp_up_aid_for_the_wealthy_leaving_the_poor_behind_partner_2/

Screw off you poor faggots!

It sounds to me like we should stop funding public universities.

 

[chalupa]

A business is no longer a business because it gets tax free donations?

Who donates to businesses tax free? Do you donate to Exxon for some reason?

By that definition, there is not one market in the US that is a free market.

Not by THAT definition, but yes, by a lot of definitions we certainly are not in a free market.


This is about prestige (worldwide); if it were truly free market, everyone would be clamoring for the best bang for the buck. Instead, this is about maintaining some perceived advantage in the marketplace, pushing a lot of money at a school, slanting the playing field in the direction of that school in terms of facilities and faculty, and then finally making it such that the donators are able to ensure their children's attendance, keeping the $$, prestige, and power in their sphere. It absolutely isn't free market.

 

[FenderBender]

Who donates to businesses tax free? Do you donate to Exxon for some reason?

Nope, but this still has nothing to do with whether schools have to be competitive with each other.

This is about prestige (worldwide); if it were truly free market, everyone would be clamoring for the best bang for the buck. Instead, this is about maintaining some perceived advantage in the marketplace, pushing a lot of money at a school, slanting the playing field in the direction of that school in terms of facilities and faculty, and then finally making it such that the donators are able to ensure their children's attendance, keeping the $$, prestige, and power in their sphere. It absolutely isn't free market.

No, this is about saintly rich people offering millions of dollars to the benefit of less privileged children looking for an opportunity to learn, and getting a small token of thanks in return. Apparently we're just making broad baseless assumptions about people with no evidence now.

Like I said before, endowments are for the benefit of the school. Everyone here keeps wanting to ignore the fact that the school gets these donations and uses them to pay for professors, maintain facilities, and offer need and performance based scholarships. Schools recognize the value of donations, and try to incentivize it through their legacy program.

And somehow everyone sees this as a fucking rich robber baron swindling schools for all their worth. If I walked in to a college tomorrow and said I'll pay for 10 people's tuitions if you give my kid the benefit of the doubt on his application, I can't imagine who would have a problem with that. But here we are arguing about how this makes the rich richer. The school gets richer, the donor gets his child in to a good school, and 10 people who couldn't afford it before get to go to college. The only people here who are outraged are the narcissist liberals who villainize rich people and think that they know a better system.

And for the record college tuition is tax deductible. And interest on Pell grants and loans is tax deductible as well. Almost every dollar paid to schools is tax deductible in some form or another. So it looks like whether I'm paying tuition or donating I'm getting some tax incentive.

 

[Nocturnal]

It sounds to me like we should stop funding public universities.

That is sure to make college cheaper for those that can't afford! That has already happened to huge degree. Most public universities have received a huge cut in funding. I know I did, F you former governor of Maryland.

More like a university that receives public money should be encouraged to pursue a course of action that the citizens find desirable. (in this case making college more affordable for those who lack the money)

 

[chalupa]

Nope, but this still has nothing to do with whether schools have to be competitive with each other.



No, this is about saintly rich people offering millions of dollars to the benefit of less privileged children looking for an opportunity to learn, and getting a small token of thanks in return. Apparently we're just making broad baseless assumptions about people with no evidence now.

Like I said before, endowments are for the benefit of the school. Everyone here keeps wanting to ignore the fact that the school gets these donations and uses them to pay for professors, maintain facilities, and offer need and performance based scholarships. Schools recognize the value of donations, and try to incentivize it through their legacy program.

And somehow everyone sees this as a fucking rich robber baron swindling schools for all their worth. If I walked in to a college tomorrow and said I'll pay for 10 people's tuitions if you give my kid the benefit of the doubt on his application, I can't imagine who would have a problem with that. But here we are arguing about how this makes the rich richer. The school gets richer, the donor gets his child in to a good school, and 10 people who couldn't afford it before get to go to college. The only people here who are outraged are the narcissist liberals who villainize rich people and think that they know a better system.

And for the record college tuition is tax deductible. And interest on Pell grants and loans is tax deductible as well. Almost every dollar paid to schools is tax deductible in some form or another. So it looks like whether I'm paying tuition or donating I'm getting some tax incentive.

So then you agree that your line about this being the free market wasn't true?



Also, I'm done talking to you on this unless you stop being so...confrontational and ridiculous. How are you doing that, you ask? I've bolded your statement above, and quoted mine from before yours.

pushing a lot of money at a school, slanting the playing field in the direction of that school in terms of facilities and faculty,

RIGHT HERE ^^^ , I HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT THE DONATIONS WERE USED FOR PROFESSORS AND FACILITIES.

What's wrong today, are you upset about something, or do you just want to argue for the hell of it?

 

[FenderBender]

I'm confrontational because the point of view that is being argued here is somewhat ridiculous. I stated that colleges operate in a free market and everyone acts like I'm saying the world is flat.

1. Unless the people are being forced to donate, then yes it is a free market, since they still have the freedom to donate/not donate, attend/not attend (hence free).
2. The difference between my statement and your's is that you're implying this is something selfish and sinister. My point is that donations/trading benefits are neither.

 

[chalupa]

I'm confrontational because the point of view that is being argued here is somewhat ridiculous. I stated that colleges operate in a free market and everyone acts like I'm saying the world is flat.

1. Unless the people are being forced to donate, then yes it is a free market, since they still have the freedom to donate/not donate, attend/not attend (hence free).
2. The difference between my statement and your's is that you're implying this is something selfish and sinister. My point is that donations/trading benefits are neither.

1) They do not operate in the free market, not at all. They operate in a manipulated market (for reasons selfish or completely altruistic or some combination of the two), and the distinction is pretty important to the discussion.
2) I cannot argue with the voices in your head without knowing what they are saying. Please clarify that you think I mean the donators are being sinister, clarify that this is what your voices are telling you. I can then know how to frame my response.

 

[FenderBender]

1) They do not operate in the free market, not at all. They operate in a manipulated market (for reasons selfish or completely altruistic or some combination of the two), and the distinction is pretty important to the discussion.
2) I cannot argue with the voices in your head without knowing what they are saying. Please clarify that you think I mean the donators are being sinister, clarify that this is what your voices are telling you. I can then know how to frame my response.

A manipulated market is an arbitrary distinction, that does not change the fact that people are free operators in the market. Where do you disagree with the market dynamics I stated earlier?

My point from the beginning has simply been that college donations work towards everyone's benefit (this includes the "poor"). This article does nothing more than attempt to villainize people who make donations to their alma mater, and schools who try to incentivize those donations.

 

[chalupa]

A manipulated market is an arbitrary distinction, that does not change the fact that people are free operators in the market. Where do you disagree with the market dynamics I stated earlier?

Pretty much your characterization of colleges, college attendance, and the college system as existing in some kind of free market.

My point from the beginning has simply been that college donations work towards everyone's benefit (this includes the "poor"). This article does nothing more than attempt to villainize people who make donations to their alma mater, and schools who try to incentivize those donations.

Now we can talk, because instead of being confrontational for reasons not apparent, you are making your case. My case: I think alumni wield WAY too much power on college campuses, and it manifests the worst in sports. I don't agree with the crux of the article (villainization of donators) in accordance to your statement, though I'm not quite at the extreme you are. However, I see this as an opportunity...legacy admissions...to rally the masses to break power alumni wield in the athletic realm via peeling back the veil on legacy donations. This can lead to a fix of the incredible disservice college athletics does to the whole concept of "institution of higher learning" in a two part process. The masses can rally behind lifting the screen on the alumni donations under the guise of legacy "unfairness" and then ride that to fixing a broken college athletic system.

Before anyone argues with me about sports (football) generating money, I just heard a report on the local sports talk station on my way into work the other day that there are only a select few of the Division 1 schools that actually are sports revenue positive for the university; I was surprised, I would have thought it was all of D1. Nope, just a few D1, and certainly none of the lesser divisions. On top of that, the highest paid state employees (I know this is a convo about private universities, but this is interesting) pretty much in every state in the US are, wait for it...

...state school football coaches. Way beyond lawmakers, WAY WAY beyond university chancellors, etc. Most of these large athletic programs are graduating rejects who only know how to tie their shoes, but not spell shoes, and the overall level of academics suffers for it. The only way these programs stay afloat is through alumni interest, which means the alumni are serving as a detriment to the environment.

Break their power in legacy, you have the opportunity to break their backs in sports. The institutions themselves will not fold under the missing money, and alumni funding of grants and scholarships (think sports anyway for the vast majority) will dry up but it can be replaced, specifically because the cost of operations will come way down without athletic programs that are a drag on the academic part of things.

I typed without proofread because I was only going to take a 30 second break, so if I screwed up something I will fix later.