Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 311 posts

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#131

Post by treis »

mattlutze wrote: post #74
steveBK123 wrote: post #9

I am not a fan of the orange man. But I think its an interesting question if the feds should be funding rich Ivies with small numbers of students vs more efficient state universities which educated 100s of thousands each at a fraction of the cost per student. All of the Ivy League combined educate 65k undergrads. SUNY by comparison educates 5x that many at a tuition of 1/5th to 1/10th depending on in/out of state and…

Too many people think these are funds to just run the universities. By and large, what is being withheld are funds for research. Federally-funded academic science often looks like: 1. The university + government fund/run a project 2. Project creates new knowledge (cool!) 3. The government gets a pretty awesome license to use that knowledge 4. The government more often than not gives that knowledge away (or offers gre…

This is somewhat disingenuous. Something like half of the grant is handed over to the University as overhead. Much of that is legit to cover things like labs but a lot of it goes to a cover a massive amount of administrative bloat.

Also, nobody really objects to the research that leads directly to stuff private industry can use. That's not what people want to cut.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#132

Post by boplicity »

arduanika wrote: post #120
boplicity wrote: post #110

To be clear: It's not as simple as funding for these schools being taken away. What's being threatened is funding for research being done at these schools. That's a huge difference.

It's not as simple as that, either. Every research grant comes with an "overhead" charge on top that goes to the university admin, which can be something like 60%. https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/02/10/lies-damn-lies-and-un... And moreover, it's not just the research grants that are being threatened, as seen in TFA. There's also the massive subsidy in the form of tax exemption. No other hedge funds receive that kind…

So I have a rare disease. The only treatment is surgery. However, there is an ongoing study on a promising treatment at an elite university for a very effective and simple drug-based treatment. That type of research funding is absolutely being threatened. So, yes, it really is that simple.

If only Trump were trying to force universities to be more efficient with their spending. However, both of us clearly know that is not what is going on here.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#133

Post by nickff »

lief79 wrote: post #86
didgetmaster wrote: post #78

It is part of the political reality that we live in. Whichever party is currently in power, will inevitably use that power to promote ideas that are favorable to them and to dissuade ideas that they are opposed to. The same people who are whining about the Trump administration abusing their power by doing these things; were cheering on the Biden administration for doing similar things from the opposite angle. This is…

The last part is accurate, but equating the two is a bit of stretch. The democrats went out their way to do everything by the book. They also generally took the time to understand the systems they were working with. The current presidency went in with the assumption that everything was wasteful, and didn't take the time to understand what they were cutting. Hence, emergency rehires, judicial blocks on firing, etc. Th…

Biden had the bureaucracy on his side (it’s well known that government employees are largely left-Democrats), so he was able to collaborate with it. In his first term, Trump learned that insiders were good at preventing him from accomplishing his goals when he ‘played by the rules’, so now he’s just ignored ‘the system’.

Insiders have plainly ignored the law in the past when it was convenient, (see all the agencies which violated notice-and-comment rule-making in the Obama years,) we’ve just never seen anyone ignore the administrative agencies to this degree before.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#134

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

boothby wrote: post #130
UncleMeat wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal . Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.

> Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.

Congress has a jail. He's already refused to answer to a subpoena. They can arrest him any time they want.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#135

Post by mmooss »

snickerbockers wrote: post #44
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only su…

> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional.

That omits a crucial issue that many amazingly overlook: The bar isn't constitutional but legal. Congress makes the laws, not the President. The President is bound by those laws, and in fact their job is to enforce the laws that Congress makes. They cannot do things unless empowered by the law.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#136

Post by mmooss »

boothby wrote: post #130
UncleMeat wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. This is not true. They can also stop him if what he is doing is illegal . Statute can absolutely constrain the executive.

> Statute can absolutely constrain the executive. This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.

> This is an open question.

It's not. Statute has constrained the executive for all of American history.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#137

Post by mmooss »

epistasis wrote: post #99
snickerbockers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that. The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only su…

If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed. It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution. > Otherwise, all authority in the execut…

> We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed.

Also the law must be followed.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#138

Post by rahimnathwani »

vonmoltke wrote: post #127
rahimnathwani wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities can and they do: https://public.com/bonds/screener?issuerSymbol=PDFHV The yield on ~20 year Harvard bonds seems to be about one percentage point higher than the yield on 20 year treasuries.

Those are standard, unsecured bonds. They're not loans against anything in the endowment.

Right, and the endowment already uses leverage, so many of the endowment's assets will already serve as security for loans.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#139

Post by xracy »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #83
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

"Conveniently" is the wrong word to use here. "Conveniently ignores" implies that the author intentionally disregarded some known facts to make their argument look more persuasive. However, this is not the case here. The article's argument is that a reduction in government funding is very damaging even when it is small relative to the endowment size. This argument would not lose any of its power if the author covered…

There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering.

"Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.

Re: Why can't Ivies cope with losing a few hundred million?

#140

Post by mmooss »

bitwize wrote: post #76
Kapura wrote: post #11

This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.

This question was not raised when the Obama administration dictated procedures and evidentiary standards to universities in cases of sexual assault, with threats of being found liable under Title IX for noncompliance. Well it was raised by some on the right, and then dismissed because, you know, the right, and who wants to defend campus rapists anyway? Those Duke University lacrosse kids should have hung -- even if t…

This unlimited relativism is bizarre. If Trump invaded Canada, is his argument that Roosevelt invaded Germany? There is a difference between one and the other.

What does the Duke lacrosse case have to do with it?

Post reply on HN