American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Monahammer]

I'm not convinced she knew what she was going to read aloud before she read it. She's the definition of a sock puppet.

[photon]

The fact that the Freedom Caucus kicked her out for not.. what being free enough is hilarious.

Trump's team requested that the stolen documents trial be moved until after the 2024 election presumably so that he can pardon himself if he wins.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I'm not convinced she knew what she was going to read aloud before she read it. She's the definition of a sock puppet.

now now, let's not overreact. Sock puppets don't deserve to be insulted like this.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by photon

The fact that the Freedom Caucus kicked her out for not.. what being free enough is hilarious.

Trump's team requested that the stolen documents trial be moved until after the 2024 election presumably so that he can pardon himself if he wins.

If anyone on the decision end of this cant see what he is trying to pull here, they should be removed from the group right now. Everything is such a con with this guy yet there is plenty of folks down there that seem to be happy to follow along.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Those endowments and fund development is so unimportant that Harvard has a Vice President and four Associate Vice Presidents under him for handling the 435 people in Alumni Affairs and Development. Harvard is so intent on giving away all that endowment money that 70% of awards granted to students (Harvard doesn’t do scholarship) is from alumni gifts, usually given to specific departments from graduates.

I’m not sure how what you wrote here is a response to my point. I didn’t say it was unimportant. I said it was self sustaining. I think what you wrote validates why they don’t need to collect more money from Legacies.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m not sure how what you wrote here is a response to my point. I didn’t say it was unimportant. I said it was self sustaining. I think what you wrote validates why they don’t need to collect more money from Legacies.

Are you really that dense? Harvard employs 435 people whose job it is to fund raise from those very people who were legacies and will likely have legacies follow them to Harvard. The Ivy League is built on legacy and making sure legacies continue to enter their hallowed halls. Where the #### do you think those billions came from? Listening to EF Hutton? It is all gifts from people who went there and want to ensure their offspring have similar opportunities/advantage. Even though they are completely flush with cash they continue to fund raise and use that money to pay for their gifts to students, which is counter to your point. They could, but they don’t.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Are you really that dense? Harvard employs 435 people whose job it is to fund raise from those very people who were legacies and will likely have legacies follow them to Harvard. The Ivy League is built on legacy and making sure legacies continue to enter their hallowed halls. Where the #### do you think those billions came from? Listening to EF Hutton? It is all gifts from people who went there and want to ensure their offspring have similar opportunities/advantage. Even though they are completely flush with cash they continue to fund raise and use that money to pay for their gifts to students, which is counter to your point. They could, but they don’t.

The point is that more billions are no longer needed.

9% of the 5.8 billion dollar operating budget was from gifts for use today. They also had a surplus income of 407 million (independent of the amount the endowment grew). So that 9% works out to roughly 500 million. So you can see how unnecessary all that fundraising is.

They could easily eliminate legacy admissions and lose all of that endowment money and it would not impair their ability to deliver the current level of education now or in the future.

So to answer your question no I am not that dense. Perhaps you are trying to respond to a point I am not making.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The point is that more billions are no longer needed.

9% of the 5.8 billion dollar operating budget was from gifts for use today. They also had a surplus income of 407 million (independent of the amount the endowment grew). So that 9% works out to roughly 500 million. So you can see how unnecessary all that fundraising is.

They could easily eliminate legacy admissions and lose all of that endowment money and it would not impair their ability to deliver the current level of education now or in the future.

So to answer your question no I am not that dense. Perhaps you are trying to respond to a point I am not making.

Harvard disagrees with you. Hence employing 435 people and five executives to fund raise. Massive investment for something not needed.
Also, Harvard's revenues are still driven by this fund raising because of volatility in the market ($11B loss in 2009 counter by an $11B gain in 2021). Harvard's own review states the key is donors.

"That means that 49 percent of University revenue is from current-use gifts and the endowment (which can be very volatile, depending on market conditions and Harvard’s investment strategy). As discussed below, the endowment’s performance was historically strong in fiscal 2021, but Harvard’s increasing dependence upon it makes setting the appropriate guardrails and executing the investment strategy ever more important. And although donors’ current giving surpassed expectations at the worst moments early in the pandemic, their largess is not inexhaustible."

"The true heroes for Harvard in fiscal 2021 were supportive donors, past and present."

But whatever, Harvard should follow your economic plan for long-term sustainability and tell the alumni to take a flying leap. They don't need their money (or stock gifts).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Harvard disagrees with you. Hence employing 435 people and five executives to fund raise. Massive investment for something not needed.
Also, Harvard's revenues are still driven by this fund raising because of volatility in the market ($11B loss in 2009 counter by an $11B gain in 2021). Harvard's own review states the key is donors.

"That means that 49 percent of University revenue is from current-use gifts and the endowment (which can be very volatile, depending on market conditions and Harvard’s investment strategy). As discussed below, the endowment’s performance was historically strong in fiscal 2021, but Harvard’s increasing dependence upon it makes setting the appropriate guardrails and executing the investment strategy ever more important. And although donors’ current giving surpassed expectations at the worst moments early in the pandemic, their largess is not inexhaustible."

"The true heroes for Harvard in fiscal 2021 were supportive donors, past and present."

But whatever, Harvard should follow your economic plan for long-term sustainability and tell the alumni to take a flying leap. They don't need their money (or stock gifts).

I see you don’t understand what the word “Need” means.

They have 485 people working donations because it turns a profit. They will at no point in time believe that they have enough money.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Goalposts moved AND an argument of semantics. The daily double!

[jammies]

Lanny, the point is that Harvard won't go bankrupt and need to shut its doors if legacy admissions end. When a system is corrupt and unfair yet profitable, we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and congratulate those who benefit from that system on their privilege, we should be looking at making that system more fair and less profitable.

I know it's difficult for you to understand anything beyond your blinkered viewpoint and unwillingness to entertain anyone else's opinions, but your point that legacy admissions exist and make money is entirely irrelevant to whether it's moral that they exist. Try to follow along, no one is arguing that these universities aren't making money from their alumni, they are arguing that the money is influencing these institutions in a profoundly negative way by enabling the perpetuation of privilege.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Lanny, the point is that Harvard won't go bankrupt and need to shut its doors if legacy admissions end. When a system is corrupt and unfair yet profitable, we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and congratulate those who benefit from that system on their privilege, we should be looking at making that system more fair and less profitable.

I know it's difficult for you to understand anything beyond your blinkered viewpoint and unwillingness to entertain anyone else's opinions, but your point that legacy admissions exist and make money is entirely irrelevant to whether it's moral that they exist. Try to follow along, no one is arguing that these universities aren't making money from their alumni, they are arguing that the money is influencing these institutions in a profoundly negative way by enabling the perpetuation of privilege.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

The motives of the people administering the endowments aren’t selfish or sinister. The Harvard braintrust aren’t personally reaping fortunes off the endowment. They see the endowments as the means by which their institutions can continue to thrive, and the larger the endowment the better. The same way those managing group retirement funds and charitable trusts see long-term growth of the fund as the overriding principle guiding their decisions (I expect endowment admins are drawn from those fields). It will require a sea change in outlook and institutional incentives to get them to accept that the fund is big enough, time to stop doing what they’ve been doing for decades and instead ease off the gas pedal.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by jammies

Lanny, the point is that Harvard won't go bankrupt and need to shut its doors if legacy admissions end. When a system is corrupt and unfair yet profitable, we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and congratulate those who benefit from that system on their privilege, we should be looking at making that system more fair and less profitable.

I know it's difficult for you to understand anything beyond your blinkered viewpoint and unwillingness to entertain anyone else's opinions, but your point that legacy admissions exist and make money is entirely irrelevant to whether it's moral that they exist. Try to follow along, no one is arguing that these universities aren't making money from their alumni, they are arguing that the money is influencing these institutions in a profoundly negative way by enabling the perpetuation of privilege.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

Enabling the perpetuation of privilege is core to their value proposition. People who have privilege want to keep it, and people who don't have privilege want to get it so that they can also keep it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Goalposts moved AND an argument of semantics. The daily double!

Could you quote my first post in response to you and last post and please explain to where the goal posts were moved. I make the same contention in the first as the last.

So again it’s likely you are arguing against something I haven’t posted.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

An American friend is on a tour now of all the Ivy League schools with his daughter. All of them! My friend must be richer than I thought. That’ll be a really expensive degree. Whatever it is.

I was kind of thinking about this though. With living expenses being pretty high in Canadian cities, I wonder if this balances out with higher American tuitions.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Goalposts moved AND an argument of semantics. The daily double!

LOL. This whole conversation started because you responded to a post sarcastically worrying about the continued viability of Ivy League schools if they didn't have new legacy funders, and now GGG talking about how Ivy League schools would still be viable if they didn't have new legacy funders is moving the goalposts?

It'd be like someone saying "that billionaire's lifestyle is self-sustaining; they could easily continue to spend as much as they currently do just by living off bank interest." And then someone else comes along as says "that billionaire has a team of dozens managing his investments to grow his wealth, you're wrong." Yeah, no. If you want to talk about moving goalposts...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I was kind of thinking about this though. With living expenses being pretty high in Canadian cities, I wonder if this balances out with higher American tuitions.

We had toyed with the idea of sending our daughter out of province for university, but with the out-of-control rents in Canadian university towns, it looks like that’s not going to be feasible. The government really needs to step in and close the loophole of international students being outside the remit of immigration and infrastructure planning.

[Matata]

Without its endowments and prestige, what differentiates Harvard from a community college? Harvard has positioned itself as a global nexus of elite thinkers and performers, and is a huge driver for many forms of innovation. How do they keep the latter after removing the former?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We had toyed with the idea of sending our daughter out of province for university, but with the out-of-control rents in Canadian university towns, it looks like that’s not going to be feasible. The government really needs to step in and close the loophole of international students being outside the remit of immigration and infrastructure planning.

What a weird thing to focus on in terms of the housing crisis. Profiteering landlords, REITs, etc.,? Nope, it's the international students that are the real problem here.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by jammies

Lanny, the point is that Harvard won't go bankrupt and need to shut its doors if legacy admissions end. When a system is corrupt and unfair yet profitable, we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders and congratulate those who benefit from that system on their privilege, we should be looking at making that system more fair and less profitable.

Harvard's own publication states it is the alumni contributions that were key to the successful year of growth in endowment.

I know it's difficult for you to understand anything beyond your blinkered viewpoint and unwillingness to entertain anyone else's opinions, but your point that legacy admissions exist and make money is entirely irrelevant to whether it's moral that they exist. Try to follow along, no one is arguing that these universities aren't making money from their alumni, they are arguing that the money is influencing these institutions in a profoundly negative way by enabling the perpetuation of privilege.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

No ####. That is their unspoken charter. The reason these schools can build the endowments they do is because of the privilege attending their institutions provide to graduates. Recognizing legacy opportunity is how the money and privilege keeps flowing, for both parties. EVERY school is trying to be like this and EVERY student wants this. It's why students apply to the best schools they can in hopes of gaining that leg up that an elite school's degree provides. An elite school provides a massive leg up, everyone knows it, and everyone hopes to have opportunity to use it to their advantage. The argument that it is immoral is social justice warrior horse####. Private interests can do whatever they want, including having specific recruitment behaviors and criteria that may rub people the wrong way. It's exactly why the courts ruled the way they did.