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

Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 214 posts

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#171

Post by bnralt »

codekilla wrote: post #112
supersync wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

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 co…

> easily came to the conclusion that we could have pulled off a Manhattan project of neuroscience with that kind of money.

In general I wish people spent more time looking at alternatives when these huge projects are proposed. For instance, it drives me nuts thinking of all the alternatives when I see making bids to pay billions for the Olympics. That's the kind of money that could turn the whole area into a science Mecca in several different, with a whole host of positive downstream effects locally.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#172

Post by solveit »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #169
thinkcontext wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates has talked about what has motivated him to donate the way he has, its no mystery. He says he was gobsmacked by how little money was devoted to the health problems experienced by poor countries and that comparatively small investments could have enormous impact. Also, I think you are underestimating how terrible malaria is > Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that in 2020, 241 million clinical cas…

I mean, that's bad, but those numbers aren't anything compared to what climate change is going to do. If the population of Earth drops by a billion over the next hundred years, that's 10M a year, on average. (I recognize that I'm not differentiating between premature deaths and a lack of replacement births, but still.)

Why do you think climate change will kill a billion people over the next century? Not saying you're wrong, just bewildered that you are able to make any kind of prediction on this at all.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#173

Post by [deleted] »

vmception wrote: post #109
KMag wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you're asserting that by donating $1.1 billion in cash, they're likely getting more than that sum multiplied by their marginal tax rate in tax reduction? I'm honestly curious what the loopholes would be.

To be clear, I'm not asserting that.

[deleted]

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#174

Post by acchow »

supersync wrote: post #20
daterdots wrote: post #11

I am concerned about the incredible concentration of money and resources into a few academic institutions. Obviously Stanford is an incredible school, but I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each.

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. T…

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

Which building is this?

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#175

Post by mupuff1234 »

metacritic12 wrote: post #158
daterdots wrote: post #11

I am concerned about the incredible concentration of money and resources into a few academic institutions. Obviously Stanford is an incredible school, but I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each.

Is that true though? There's the idea of the 10x programmer, and from looking at academia, such thing as a 10x researcher as well. In biology, the median 100th-ranked university professor is making incredibly incremental contributions (like applying a well known technique to the 300th gene). The average top university professor is making groundbreaking achievements. I almost view it as the opposite -- if you gave the…

But if we compare it to the stock market - it's almost always better to buy the index instead of picking individual stocks.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#176

Post by codekilla »

valarauko wrote: post #135
codekilla wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

Well....for starters there is the monkey tunnel that leads from Broad to the Chen building because....you guessed it....the vivarium was in the basement (and still is) of Broad. Many neuroscience labs were in Broad (a VERY nice building in and of itself).

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#177

Post by JacobThreeThree »

supersync wrote: post #20
daterdots wrote: post #11

I am concerned about the incredible concentration of money and resources into a few academic institutions. Obviously Stanford is an incredible school, but I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each.

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. T…

>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-rea...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/higher-ed-administrators-grow...

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#178

Post by metadat »

codekilla wrote: post #112
supersync wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

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 co…

Donor behavior such as this comes down to human psychology and neuroscience.

* Tribalism: Humans like people who "are like them", it's easier to relate. Thus, IME, Stanford grads prefer other Stanford-branded people. Or at least crême de la creme Ivy. Especially compared to the plebs and the proles.

* Vanity: Donors find it appealing that the structure will be around for a long time, prominently and proudly emblazoned with the donor's own name. Yes, external validation does feel good. Especially among certain (insecure) types. A truly altruistic and self-assured person makes donations anonymously.

Empire building is a popular pastime among the human species, especially those with power. The rest of us settle for something like Civ, SimCity, or sand castles.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#179

Post by acchow »

KMag wrote: post #106
vmception wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very inaccurate. I dont really know where to start. There are circumstances where you cant get your name on a building from a donation, there are circumstances that circumvent that requirement. There are circumstances where there is no tax deduction because the donation already occurred from another non profit. These wealthy people are going to run circles around the the general understanding for another 100…

To be clear, you're asserting that by donating $1.1 billion in cash, they're likely getting more than that sum multiplied by their marginal tax rate in tax reduction? I'm honestly curious what the loopholes would be.

Not a donation to a university.

However, rich people set up their own 501(c)(3) organizations to which they are boards of to get free flights, hotels, meals, etc from. Basically, instead of spending that money directly, they "spend" it via donations to their 501c3, and their 501c3 sends them on trips

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#180

Post by valarauko »

hpkuarg wrote: post #152
valarauko wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think malaria is absolutely worthy of the investment. Malaria is one of those issues that isn't top of the mind for much of the Western world, but is one of the absolute major killers worldwide, right now. It's also relatively a low hanging fruit in terms of return for money spent vs improvements in human well being. Climate Change is a big deal, but is it killing as many people on an annual basis as malaria, with…

In fact, one might say that the easiest bang for the Gates buck in terms of addressing climate change is pulling their anti-malaria funding. ;-)

As glib as that option might be, the people most affected by malaria are disproportionately the ones least contributing to Climate Change in the first place, and tend to live in regions most affected by CC. I'd imagine the Gates could get far more bang for their CC bucks by lobbying for revoking the EPA/FDA/OSHA/VA. A few billions in the right super PACs and CC might be reversed ;-)
Post reply on HN