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

The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#31

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

photonthug wrote: post #25
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #6

> " The genuinely radical Ivy League option — spending their vast endowments to sharply increase student numbers — is unlikely to be entertained. " This is often said but doesn't seem to be realistic if one digs into the numbers. Endowments aren't one big slush fund that the university can use however they want; they are a collection of individual donations, many of which can only be used in accordance with the donor…

70% of 53 billion is restricted, but presumably they still make significant money from interest/investment on that money. And IDK, but I assume it's all tax-free too, since the alumni probably wrote a big chunk of the tax code. Are these profits considered part of the endowment too and with similar restrictions? If unrestricted, is the available student aid commensurate with that, or does it disappear into operations…

Given that interest/investment revenue from restricted endowments is the entire point of the donation, yes, that revenue is restricted.

As for tax treatment, why not just google it yourself instead of assuming? In the US, a tax was added under the Trump administration on revenue from university endowments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_tax#Federal_changes_...

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#32

Post by tnecniv »

photonthug wrote: post #28
tnecniv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am paywalled from the article, so maybe I’m misunderstanding the quote you pulled due to lack of context, but you also can’t just double the acceptance rate over night. Even if you could admit more students and cover their tuition, you run into a number of issues, e.g.: 1) Students have to live somewhere. More students living off campus will drive up apartment rent in the area. You can build dorms to increase the h…

> An option might be to start opening separate campuses, but that’s unappealing to their prospective students. Is it really unappealing to students though? Or is it just unappealing to abstracted others (like some alumni/profs/admins) that are much more interested in university "prestige" than actual education and education-opportunities?

I think it will be unappealing for a lot of them. Think about some of the logistics. Let’s assume the second campus is nearby but not super close, so perhaps there’s a 20 minute shuttle ride. What do you put at the new, second campus?

Do you isolate some departments there? That has the advantage of students not having to take the shuttle back and forth for random classes since students in those departments will take most of their classes there, but that makes it a pain for them to take electives on the main campus and separates. If they move into off-campus housing, it’s probably going to be close to the second campus and can isolate them from the broader student community. It also makes it a bigger pain for students in other departments to take electives there. Do you just put dorms there? That removes the issue of going back and forth for classes, but separates them from the main campus life.

Some people may not care about the commute, true, but for a lot of people it will be unappealing. I’ve known graduate students who worked in research-only buildings separate from the main campus and they typically found the situation more annoying than they originally expected. I would expect undergraduates, who tend to care even more about being plugged into the school social environment, would be even more bothered by it. The prestige of these schools is high enough that plenty of students will enroll and deal with it, but their top candidates tend to decide between multiple high-end institutions and these quality of life things can play a big role in their choice.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#33

Post by photonthug »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #31
photonthug wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% of 53 billion is restricted, but presumably they still make significant money from interest/investment on that money. And IDK, but I assume it's all tax-free too, since the alumni probably wrote a big chunk of the tax code. Are these profits considered part of the endowment too and with similar restrictions? If unrestricted, is the available student aid commensurate with that, or does it disappear into operations…

Given that interest/investment revenue from restricted endowments is the entire point of the donation, yes, that revenue is restricted. As for tax treatment, why not just google it yourself instead of assuming? In the US, a tax was added under the Trump administration on revenue from university endowments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_tax#Federal_changes_...

Well I don't really enjoy researching tax law, just criticizing it ;) But it does look like my intuition was pretty reasonable here. The endowments have been taxed for 6 of the 387 years of since the university was founded. Not that I really want to see that money going to the government.. this also won't necessarily help anything unless it's actually going towards to student-aid.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#34

Post by dustingetz »

SpaceBuddha wrote: post #20
dustingetz wrote: post #12

i don’t get why the chief beneficiary of AA is elite whites as quoted by the article conclusion? are they referring to the legacy and the donors? how is that AA?

It wasn't worded in the clearest way but I believe the author is talking about AA in the context of Ivy leagues specifically, and that AA at those institutions has done nothing to offset the % of (mostly white) elites who gain access through athletics/legacy admissions, etc. How this benefits those same elites is that by having universities push AA as a part of their public image (i.e., we're doing our part in fixing…

So AA is bad due to malicious compliance? Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#35

Post by photonthug »

tnecniv wrote: post #32
photonthug wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An option might be to start opening separate campuses, but that’s unappealing to their prospective students. Is it really unappealing to students though? Or is it just unappealing to abstracted others (like some alumni/profs/admins) that are much more interested in university "prestige" than actual education and education-opportunities?

I think it will be unappealing for a lot of them. Think about some of the logistics. Let’s assume the second campus is nearby but not super close, so perhaps there’s a 20 minute shuttle ride. What do you put at the new, second campus? Do you isolate some departments there? That has the advantage of students not having to take the shuttle back and forth for random classes since students in those departments will take…

> Think about some of the logistics.

Weighing this against the logistics of paying down student debt for a lifetime, I imagine lots of students would prefer a 20 minute shuttle ride for a few years if they can cut tuition in half by building outside of historical campus, or outside of the city center.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#36

Post by naveen99 »

balderdash wrote: post #9
naveen99 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just increase the price of admission for non merit based spots. but the universities want to take the money as a “donation” instead of cost of goods, so the parents can save on taxes as well and donate twice as much. maybe tuition should be tax deductible for everyone instead.

They basically already do. It’s called people that pay full tuition (and subsidize people that don’t - full usually doesn’t mean cost, it means cost+). Private universities are typically only using legacy status to add a slight advantage to candidates that are in the paying full freight pool (I.e. they’re not giving a spot to a below average legacy candidate that needs financial aid)

Full tuition is still merit based admission in theory. I mean there should be a quoted price for completely merit blind admissions.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#37

Post by csense »

Suppose I start a debate club in my living room.

Do I have a right to say "Only my friends can join my debate club"? Do I have a right to say "Children of past participants are always welcome here"? Do I have a right to say "Max occupancy: 1800"?

Most people would say "Yes" to these things.

What if I hire some marketing experts, and eventually my debate club has a really good "brand" and all sorts of companies want to hire participants at enormous salaries for highly influential positions? Once my debate club is a gateway to money, power and influence, do I still have the right to admit who I want? Or does my branding success somehow create an obligation to make admissions meritocratic, rather than some other kind of -cratic (e.g. autocratic, "My debate club, I decide, and that's the end of it," or aristocratic, "Children of members have an easy path to membership", or plutocratic, "Money talks")?

At what point does Harvard become different from my debate club?

What exactly creates a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation that trumps "My debate club, my rules," and necessarily places corresponding limits on Harvard's freedom of association?

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#38

Post by scarmig »

csense wrote: post #37

Suppose I start a debate club in my living room. Do I have a right to say "Only my friends can join my debate club"? Do I have a right to say "Children of past participants are always welcome here"? Do I have a right to say "Max occupancy: 1800"? Most people would say "Yes" to these things. What if I hire some marketing experts, and eventually my debate club has a really good "brand" and all sorts of companies want t…

Once it becomes a critical part of our social structure. That will always be a judgment call, but Harvard qualifies as that more than any nongovernmental entity today.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#39

Post by confuseddesi »

csense wrote: post #37

Suppose I start a debate club in my living room. Do I have a right to say "Only my friends can join my debate club"? Do I have a right to say "Children of past participants are always welcome here"? Do I have a right to say "Max occupancy: 1800"? Most people would say "Yes" to these things. What if I hire some marketing experts, and eventually my debate club has a really good "brand" and all sorts of companies want t…

Freedom of association is extremely limited once you factor in public accommodations. For example, even if I own a hotel, I can’t choose who can stay in the hotel if they are willing to pay in a lot of cases.

Re: The moral bankruptcy of Ivy League America

#40

Post by zenapollo »

csense wrote: post #37

Suppose I start a debate club in my living room. Do I have a right to say "Only my friends can join my debate club"? Do I have a right to say "Children of past participants are always welcome here"? Do I have a right to say "Max occupancy: 1800"? Most people would say "Yes" to these things. What if I hire some marketing experts, and eventually my debate club has a really good "brand" and all sorts of companies want t…

I don’t know exactly where the line is, but it’s actually not so important. Arguments like these miss the more important point. There absolutely is a line somewhere. Why? Because SCALE MATTERS. Always. This is something that is largely missed in most legislation and regulation. It’s so obvious and self evident why a trillion dollar company should have higher regulations that a billion dollar one which should have higher regulation that a million dollar one. Where is the line? I don’t care that much, just make one and address the larger problem.
Post reply on HN