Of course, Adams' argument falls down because of one minor point - you get value in return for donating. Here's a few examples:
1) Your children will get priority when it's their turn to go to university.
2) Keeping the school at the top of list means that your own degree has more value - it's much more impressive to be able to say 'I went to Harvard' than to say 'I went to Harvard before it became the run down dump of a school that it is today'
3) Alumni generally retain the ability to access various university resources.
On top of these direct compensations, there are a couple of others to consider:
4) When you go to a school such as Harvard, your experience is being subsidised by the Alumni. Once you too are an alumni, you would have to be a poor person indeed to not feel at least a little obligated to do the same for the next generation, if your circumstances permit it.
5) If you do have money that you want to donate, I for one can think of few rational choices that are better for society than a university. However the university uses that money, it will help them to obtain the best researchers (either directly or indirectly), and help those researchers get access to the funds they need to improve the state of human knowledge.
>I for one can think of few rational choices [for donations] that are better for society than a university
I disagree. Sometimes people analyze the charitable causes that do the most good (by various metrics, such as lives saved) and I've never seen university donations on the list. The Copenhagen Consensus is one example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
Some people, noting that universities are non-profits and enjoy government subsidies, think that Ivy League universities are likely to be wasteful, and that society may be over-investing in them. Some even argue that the value of an Ivy League university is more the signal that it sends than the education it provides. Competition for this signal leads to a lot of wasted or inefficiently allocated effort. For this reason, marginal tertiary education may have negative externalities (because we'd all be better off if everyone signaled 50% less).
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/e370/IO7.ht...
So I would hesitate to donate to a university rather than, say, an AIDS prevention charity. If I specifically wanted technological progress, I'd probably consider contributing to the X Prize Foundation, or something like it.
This is fulfilling the generative drive, see [1]. This is an important and powerful mechanism that insures the community's and species continuity. I am not surprised that universities have learned to tap it.
It's interesting to note that much of the success of large US universities, compared to their European counterparts, has been driven by the fact that American alumni are far more generous than European alumni. Only about 10% of Oxford alumni make donations to the university, while most US universities have donation rates exceeding 50% -- and Oxford and Cambridge are doing considerably better than their continental counterparts.
Whether this is due to US universities being more aggressive in soliciting donations (they are), more willing to allow admissions decisions to be influenced by donations (they are), or simply due to US alumni having more money to throw around (the US has a higher income gap between degree and non-degree holders than Europe) isn't clear; but whatever is causing this difference in donations, it has huge consequences.
My university education was free (to me) aside from a trivially small yearly fee. It's this way for all students in my small Western European nation. The universities I attended received money from the state for each student. So why should I donate to them (not that I have ever been asked to)? The more students, the better, and their economic background doesn't matter.
Without actually knowing anything about it, I would venture to guess that European universities get a lot more funding from the state than American universities do.
The US has a stronger voluntary private civic culture. I seem to recall that the US has the highest charitable giving rate in the world.
However, with the government raising taxes on charitable donations and expanding social services to match the European model, we may see our civic culture whither to match theirs, too (the argument of Albert Jay Nock).
The scholarship that allowed me to attend my Alma Mater was entirely funded by the donations of other Alumni, some of whom I've met. I know most students in the US get federal support as well, but being an foreign national, this wasn't true for me.
I've been awarded time and again in my professional life due to the quality of my education. I feel I have good reason to feel indebted to my Alma Mater, and will donate to it when I have sufficient means to do so.
Honestly, supporting motivated students get a great education seems as worth a cause as any.
Makes sense to me. It's akin to a charitable donation. Would you rather donate money to a guy to fix his plumbing (who, by the way, could already afford a house)? Or to someone to get an education so they can drastically improve their financial status?
So then, to be honest it's really not supporting motivated students get a great education, is it? It's supporting motivated students get an education at the same place I did
I certainly understand it, and even commend it, but I don't think its as charitable as thing as perhaps you are making it out to be. Your concern seems to be more with the institution and less with helping motivated students get educated.
Sorry for the sharpness of that analysis, but I think it must be pointed out.
Sigh. Now change university (or plumber) to comic strip writer. Why does he still get money every time his comic strip is sold? Shouldn't he get money just once? The publisher pays him a flat fee, and done.
The university donation is charity. But I don't see him asking, why do people give to charity.
Now change plumber to doctor - the rich support the doctor and the poor give what they can. Sound reasonable? It should - it was the typical model for a good part of history. So why is doctor different from plumber?
Now substitute me for doctor. Shouldn't people give me money when they can for the good that I do for society? Why am I any different than the doctor? Is the guy who prescribes medicine that much better than the guy who writes code to manage the prescription? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right?
Alumni donations subsidize the cost of research (which has obvious benefits) and also serves to keep tuition levels "low". I know low is a difficult word to associate with tuition but without development money coming in, the money would need to be raised elsewhere.
It's almost like when investing in startups. Not every graduate is going to strike it rich but the more graduates there are, the more likely that more of them will (assuming your standards remain the same). So you can keep your tuition low enough to attract enough people and hope that the lost tuition revenue will be made up for by alumni donations by those who do well with their degree.
Trying to apply "business model A" to "business B", seeing that it doesn't work, and then saying "business model A" is a dumb idea isn't a worthwhile approach to looking at something. It's actually a pretty stupid way to look at things. I generally hate when people try to take something relatively complicated and try to dumb it down. The wrinkles and complications are what makes the problem. If every problem was summed up into one digestible solution, there wouldn't be any unsolved problems.
I give money to a school I attended. They don't demand tuition, so they need donations to help others like me. If a plumber had done work for me when I couldn't afford it at the time, but still helped me out of goodwill.. then they'd reaping my goodwill now too.
Why are we linked to a copied version instead of the original, which is directly linkable also? I like the plaintext, but it says (C) on the bottom of the page.
His degree clearly wasn't worth it. Doesn't he realize that part of his education was subsidized by other donors? It would be more like insurance paying part of the plumbing bill and giving to insurance your entire life.
I graduated about 4 years ago from Northeastern University and I've never been asked for money. Maybe they can see I still have student loans to pay off?
If they ever do call me, I plan to tell them I'll donate some money if they fire one of the 2 staff members I absolutely despised. When I was a student there I would think to myself how much money/influence it would take to get them canned.
This is simple. Giving is voluntary. Some people Went to such-and-such a school. They needn't give. Others are Members of the Alumni for such-and-such a school. They should give generously. It's entirely up to you to decide whether you simply paid for a certain education, or whether you entered into a life-long association with your school's institutions.
edit: I know it sounds snarky, but I mean it in a curious way, inspired by your 'life-long relationship' phrase. Is the school vetting you for life, or is it a one-shot irrevocable deal? Can a school revoke a degree for incompetence (...where it was obviously a mistake to award the degree in the first place)? What about discontinued financial support?
My wife went to a prestigious ivy-league school. I went to college here and there at the cheapest places I could find. Now she gets hit up for money all of the time, and I never hear from the three colleges I attended.
Assuming we studied the same thing with the same perceived value (we didn't, but this is a thought experiment), why should she feel obligated to support her experience and I not feel obligated to support mine?
I guess the rub here is "perceived value." Can a case be made that the perceived value in the same education from a different institution be worth supporting all of your life? If so, don't we already do that with federal research grants and tuition support for students?
I have the same confusion when school kids come by raising money for a new gym or something. So I pay taxes to the local government that then allocates money to the school, but that's not enough, so then the schools use my kindness towards kids to raise even more money for their pet projects?
It's not enough that colleges are now big businesses, that most professors don't spend their time in the classroom, that tuition costs have risen far faster than inflation -- now we're expected to hold some special place in our wallets for them as well?
I guess. I guess if you're really that sentimental about your college.
This is hardly limited to private schools. I went to a state university and they do the same thing while simultaneously taking money without my direct authorization (taxes; still in the state).
[+] [-] demallien|17 years ago|reply
On top of these direct compensations, there are a couple of others to consider: 4) When you go to a school such as Harvard, your experience is being subsidised by the Alumni. Once you too are an alumni, you would have to be a poor person indeed to not feel at least a little obligated to do the same for the next generation, if your circumstances permit it. 5) If you do have money that you want to donate, I for one can think of few rational choices that are better for society than a university. However the university uses that money, it will help them to obtain the best researchers (either directly or indirectly), and help those researchers get access to the funds they need to improve the state of human knowledge.
[+] [-] michaelkeenan|17 years ago|reply
I disagree. Sometimes people analyze the charitable causes that do the most good (by various metrics, such as lives saved) and I've never seen university donations on the list. The Copenhagen Consensus is one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus
Some people, noting that universities are non-profits and enjoy government subsidies, think that Ivy League universities are likely to be wasteful, and that society may be over-investing in them. Some even argue that the value of an Ivy League university is more the signal that it sends than the education it provides. Competition for this signal leads to a lot of wasted or inefficiently allocated effort. For this reason, marginal tertiary education may have negative externalities (because we'd all be better off if everyone signaled 50% less). http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/e370/IO7.ht...
So I would hesitate to donate to a university rather than, say, an AIDS prevention charity. If I specifically wanted technological progress, I'd probably consider contributing to the X Prize Foundation, or something like it.
[+] [-] ovi256|17 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_development
[+] [-] cperciva|17 years ago|reply
Whether this is due to US universities being more aggressive in soliciting donations (they are), more willing to allow admissions decisions to be influenced by donations (they are), or simply due to US alumni having more money to throw around (the US has a higher income gap between degree and non-degree holders than Europe) isn't clear; but whatever is causing this difference in donations, it has huge consequences.
[+] [-] Luc|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troels|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacoblyles|17 years ago|reply
However, with the government raising taxes on charitable donations and expanding social services to match the European model, we may see our civic culture whither to match theirs, too (the argument of Albert Jay Nock).
[+] [-] ChrisMac|17 years ago|reply
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/brainwashing/
[+] [-] andreyf|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mustpax|17 years ago|reply
I've been awarded time and again in my professional life due to the quality of my education. I feel I have good reason to feel indebted to my Alma Mater, and will donate to it when I have sufficient means to do so.
Honestly, supporting motivated students get a great education seems as worth a cause as any.
[+] [-] orblivion|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|17 years ago|reply
I certainly understand it, and even commend it, but I don't think its as charitable as thing as perhaps you are making it out to be. Your concern seems to be more with the institution and less with helping motivated students get educated.
Sorry for the sharpness of that analysis, but I think it must be pointed out.
[+] [-] ars|17 years ago|reply
The university donation is charity. But I don't see him asking, why do people give to charity.
Now change plumber to doctor - the rich support the doctor and the poor give what they can. Sound reasonable? It should - it was the typical model for a good part of history. So why is doctor different from plumber?
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|17 years ago|reply
Now substitute me for doctor. Shouldn't people give me money when they can for the good that I do for society? Why am I any different than the doctor? Is the guy who prescribes medicine that much better than the guy who writes code to manage the prescription? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right?
</friendly sarcasm>
[+] [-] ssharp|17 years ago|reply
It's almost like when investing in startups. Not every graduate is going to strike it rich but the more graduates there are, the more likely that more of them will (assuming your standards remain the same). So you can keep your tuition low enough to attract enough people and hope that the lost tuition revenue will be made up for by alumni donations by those who do well with their degree.
Trying to apply "business model A" to "business B", seeing that it doesn't work, and then saying "business model A" is a dumb idea isn't a worthwhile approach to looking at something. It's actually a pretty stupid way to look at things. I generally hate when people try to take something relatively complicated and try to dumb it down. The wrinkles and complications are what makes the problem. If every problem was summed up into one digestible solution, there wouldn't be any unsolved problems.
[+] [-] ggruschow|17 years ago|reply
Why are we linked to a copied version instead of the original, which is directly linkable also? I like the plaintext, but it says (C) on the bottom of the page.
[+] [-] brent|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andy|17 years ago|reply
If they ever do call me, I plan to tell them I'll donate some money if they fire one of the 2 staff members I absolutely despised. When I was a student there I would think to myself how much money/influence it would take to get them canned.
[+] [-] raganwald|17 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gills|17 years ago|reply
edit: I know it sounds snarky, but I mean it in a curious way, inspired by your 'life-long relationship' phrase. Is the school vetting you for life, or is it a one-shot irrevocable deal? Can a school revoke a degree for incompetence (...where it was obviously a mistake to award the degree in the first place)? What about discontinued financial support?
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|17 years ago|reply
My wife went to a prestigious ivy-league school. I went to college here and there at the cheapest places I could find. Now she gets hit up for money all of the time, and I never hear from the three colleges I attended.
Assuming we studied the same thing with the same perceived value (we didn't, but this is a thought experiment), why should she feel obligated to support her experience and I not feel obligated to support mine?
I guess the rub here is "perceived value." Can a case be made that the perceived value in the same education from a different institution be worth supporting all of your life? If so, don't we already do that with federal research grants and tuition support for students?
I have the same confusion when school kids come by raising money for a new gym or something. So I pay taxes to the local government that then allocates money to the school, but that's not enough, so then the schools use my kindness towards kids to raise even more money for their pet projects?
It's not enough that colleges are now big businesses, that most professors don't spend their time in the classroom, that tuition costs have risen far faster than inflation -- now we're expected to hold some special place in our wallets for them as well?
I guess. I guess if you're really that sentimental about your college.
I am not.
[+] [-] ars|17 years ago|reply
See also my other comment, elsewhere in this thread.
[+] [-] ironsam|17 years ago|reply