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

181–190 of 311 posts

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

#181

Post by otterley »

vaidhy wrote: post #171
xracy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because our system would fall apart every 4 years when a different party started diverting money to their cronies. How corrupt do you want a nation to be?

But it is not illegal!! Morals or ethics do not necessarily determine if it is legal.

It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit.

We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.

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

#182

Post by freejazz »

codexb wrote: post #152
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.

At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.

It is dictatorial, not because one person gets to make the decision, but because the US constitution delineates the powers of the gov't, to which the President does not have this power. I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many people here to grasp. The separation of powers is such a fundamental aspect of our government that I am astounded to see you miss this point. When any one branch usurps the power of another branch it is the *EXACT* kind of tyranny the constitution was created to avoid.

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

#183

Post by mmooss »

dani__german wrote: post #158
mmooss wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To show that these questions have been asked before, and when the social issue at stake is one that leftists champion, very very few on the left are willing to stand up to presidential authority in any way. When the same exact power is used in a way that leftists by fiat deem "bad", there is no limit of the amount of pettiness, name calling, obstruction, and general ill will they will put to use to stop the president…

There is no comparable president on the left, or from any part of the political spectrum.

> Thats the way to be a principled loser, and be called all sorts of names in the process.

Your argument is baseless attacks and your victimhood. Is there anything substantive that supports your claims?

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by mmooss »

eastbound wrote: post #160
mmooss wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Duke lacrosse what the epitome of “Guilty because male”… which made the wind turn around and you have a situation to deal with now. All of this because people don’t want the left’s “Guilty because male” or “because [race]” solution, and they made it known through the ballots. For those who don’t know: Under Title IX, in summary, accusers of rape have all rights for their case to be treated by internal boards in the u…

The sexual assault allegations against Duke lacrosse players were headed for criminal court. They are unresolved because powerful people prevented them and their alleged victim from having a day in court, evidence and arguments being heard from both sides, and a jury rendering a verdict. Instead their parents did everything possible to keep it out of court (why?).

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

#186

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

aoanevdus wrote: post #121
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of such an abstract question? The university's goals and expected resolution for the problem would always depend critically on why the stream of grants stopped.

When a large institution is faced with uncertainty about the future, it’s both feasible and prudent to make plans that account for multiple future outcomes. In this case, it makes sense to do both of the following: 1) Fight the administration in the legal system. 2) Plan for the case where some of those legal fights are lost.

What does it mean, concretely, to plan for that case? It doesn't sound like there's any risk of a scenario where, like, Columbia can't pay maintenance staff and all the buildings flood. If the US government freezes them out of grant funding, then the research funded by those grants won't be funded any longer - there's no careful planning you can do to make that less true.

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

#187

Post by freejazz »

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #166
DrillShopper wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award Then that person should not be a politician or political appointee who judges on the merits and not on the votes it will bring.

If the funds are disbursed from the public Treasury, it is very much a political decision. You can put some intermediary bureaucrats to create a face of objectivity, but it's a political decision at it's core.

Do you understand that Congress has the power of the purse and the President does not?

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

#188

Post by codexb »

freejazz wrote: post #182
codexb wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.

It is dictatorial, not because one person gets to make the decision, but because the US constitution delineates the powers of the gov't, to which the President does not have this power. I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many people here to grasp. The separation of powers is such a fundamental aspect of our government that I am astounded to see you miss this point. When any one branch usur…

What was happening before this year? Surely, congress was not the one approving and awarding these grants. It was a member of the executive agency. Trump didn't declare any power that wasn't already being exercised by the executive.

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

#189

Post by freejazz »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #103
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.

if you want to go that way, you're conveniently ignoring if congress should have the authority to allocate funds to nonprofits that aren't part of the government under the enumerated uses in article I section 8.

In what way is what you raised a genuine question of constitutional law?

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

#190

Post by treis »

xracy wrote: post #150
treis wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The overhead is what makes research possible. How do you do research without a lab, or a building?

>Much of that is legit to cover things like labs
Post reply on HN