Live data from Hacker News

Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

seattletimes.nwsource.com

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#81
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't regard that as a waste - it may have been an expensive lesson, but I presume the money was spent on subsidizing smaller class sizes in schools. I can assure you that when a smart teacher who spends every day with kids says one thing about what's better for their education, and the Gates' Foundation's research says another, I have trouble seeing the validity of the latter. What I'm saying is that yes, smaller…

> Have you ever been in a classroom? Are you suggesting Anigbrowl does not have any education ?

No, I'm suggesting he's a little too quick in believing the "scientific method" over people with direct experience in a classroom.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#82

This is a good step, but the state should also be taxing them at close to 90% as well. That way all the other billionaires who don't care about philanthropy are forced to contribute back into the system that allowed them to gain the wealth in the first place.

That would make everyone poorer in the long term.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#83
post #78

He earned it so he can spend it anyway he wants, but it would probably help a lot more people if he used the money to become an angel investor in a lot of small businesses that would employ a lot of people. Funding startups in bio and space that would advance the technology, but probably wouldn't get funding from other sources.

No, he probably wouldn't. Look, I understand that this site has a lot of startups, but don't let the echo chamber go to your head. Funding startups is expensive-- we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum, I expect, for a startup that most likely will fail. That same hundreds of thousands of dollars can save the lives of thousands of people that are starving to death or dying of disease.

True, but a billion does a lot of startups and research money leads to treatments.

Also, doing a small business equivalent to the charity that pays single bill for a person (since many people are one bill away from broke) would help amazingly well. Buying a expensive coffee machine for the local family bakery, or paying a months rent for the some other local business might put them on solid ground and allow them to hire people. I just think someone with his business talent could really build neighborhoods better than most generic charities.

Once again, it is his money and how he chooses to spend it is his business and is amazingly generous.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#84
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think the mantra of 'smaller class sizes = better education' came from in the first place? Though I don't doubt the advice was was honestly intended, teachers do have an economic interest in reducing class sizes (as it increases demand for their educational skills and accordingly, wages). It's got to be easier to teach 10 kids than 20, and we generally feel we're more productive when we're not overly str…

I don't regard that as a waste - it may have been an expensive lesson, but I presume the money was spent on subsidizing smaller class sizes in schools. I can assure you that when a smart teacher who spends every day with kids says one thing about what's better for their education, and the Gates' Foundation's research says another, I have trouble seeing the validity of the latter. What I'm saying is that yes, smaller…

(sorry to abandon this thread - I went away for the weekend) I have indeed been in a classroom, and even had some teaching experience, although I don't claim to be an education expert.

I have 2 problems with your approach. First, I don't want to over-rely on the reports of smart teachers. Not because I don't trust them, but because when it comes to public education we have limited financial resources, and a distribution of ability across the population of teachers. Maybe a smart teacher can consistently get better results with a smaller class. I could believe it. Unfortunately, we have yet to find a system that ensures we only hire and retain smart teachers. In matters of public policy, we are often forced to forgo optimal results for some, in order to achieve acceptable results for the system as a whole.

My second problem is more fundamental: how are we evaluating what's 'better'? If this determination is made purely by those who are most involved, then logic dictates that parents should be the ultimate arbiters of educational quality by virtue of having the greatest intimacy with their kids. Of course, we know that this is not the case in practice, because parents' commitment and ability varies very widely indeed, and so we cannot trust them as objective reporters. If we did, collage admissions officers and potential employers could simply call up an applicant's parents and ask them if the applicant would be a good candidate. In reality, we use testing of various kinds because it gives us some sort of objective yardstick with which to measure academic performance across a large population. We simply don't have the resources to fully evaluate every aspect of every individual candidate, and while statistical methods are rather dehumanizing they do offer enough predictive power to be useful.

Consider that while High School teachers express a high degree of optimism about the future academic prospects of their graduates, college teachers have been complaining more and more about the number of incoming students who need remedial classes in English or Math. Just as an excess of 'teaching to the test' may measure only test-taking ability, an excess reliance on classroom performance as reported by teachers may measure only the ability to perform in a classroom context.

Re: Paul Allen commits majority of his wealth to philanthropy

#85
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what makes his definition of "effectiveness" any good? When goals are as clear as "maximize profit", I have no doubt Bill Gates is one of the most competent in the field. However, when it's as vague as "improve education", I have serious doubts. I'd trust a passionate fifth grade teacher to make good judgements of what's best for their students' education over a billionaire entrepreneur any day.

Where do you think the mantra of 'smaller class sizes = better education' came from in the first place? Though I don't doubt the advice was was honestly intended, teachers do have an economic interest in reducing class sizes (as it increases demand for their educational skills and accordingly, wages). It's got to be easier to teach 10 kids than 20, and we generally feel we're more productive when we're not overly str…

I am all for both carefully designed and carried out research; and also from personal, anecdotal experiences of students and teachers. My mother taught me the first part of the Aeneid in Latin while as a 5 year old I followed her around on washday and making beds etc. I have taught doctors for 40 years,using lectures, pushing them to read encyclopedic books, short summary manuals, watching experienced doctors doing dangerous procedures on patients, using socratic discussion with other doctors, etc. and find that people vary in their ability to learn from each approach; therefor, I encouraged all, and if they found a way that worked best for them; to push that ahead of all others. But, when "research proves that class size doesn't matter", I can't help but think then that we should have large regional schools scattered across the U.S. I would suggest that we put 3,000 (three thousand) students in each classroom if size doesn't matter.
Post reply on HN