Future, Babies

I read in The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2007 issue, a short article called "Mindless Donors." The source is "Why Give to a College That Already Has Enough?" by Steve O. Michael, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2007 issue. You can read from The Wilson Quarterly, a publication of The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, by going to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/. Unfortunately, you cannot access this particular article. I probably could be accused of flouting the law by posting the entire article verbatim here on my blog. But I will do so, and properly attribute credit so no one gets in trouble and the information gets out.

"Last February, when Jerry Yang, CEO and cofounder of Yahoo, donated $75 million to Stanford University, where he is a trustee, it did little to satisfy Stanford's hunger for money. The university is in the midst of a $4.3 billion fundraising campaign, launched last year after it was ranked the top dollar-getter for the academic year 2005-2006, having amassed a whopping $911 million. Harvard took in $595 million that year, and Yale $433 million. The total endowments of the three institutions at the top are truly eye-popping: Harvard's stood at $29 billion as of June 2006, Yale's at $18 billion, and hard-driving Stanford's at $14 billion. Yet the dollars just keep coming. Why do philanthropists continue to donate so generously to the institutions that need the money least?

"There is a natural tendency to give to one's alma matter, allows Steve O. Michael, vice provost of Kent State University. But 'when your alma mater is already fabulously wealthy, it is advisable, indeed wise... to adopt other institutions that can yield better returns,' just as investors redirect their cash to better performing stocks. Michael insists that 'donations to mega-rich universities do not directly improve the academic experience of their professors and students, or result in any qualitative improvement in student learning.' Philanthropic dollars could go a long way toward offsetting the burden higher education places on middle- and lower-class families, especially 'when states' appropriations to higher education are declining relative to the cost of tuition.' The money would help sustain the diversity, represented by more than 4,000 colleges and universities, that is one of American higher education's great strengths.

"Yet according to the Council for Aid to Education, $1.2 billion of last year's $2.4 billion increase in private donations went to the top 10 fundraisers. The process is self-reinforcing, as donations allow the richest institutions to beef up fundraising staffs and encourage them to judge university presidents 'less by the academic success of their institutions and more by the size of donations generated under their watch.'

"In Michael's opinion, donors 'should think of where their dollars will make the most difference,' places where even small donations would mean that 'classrooms can be upgraded, libraries renovated and expanded, and the burden of cost on students alleviated.' At such places, unlike at Ivy League schools or other top fundraising universities, donor dollars have the 'potential to transform the institution,' and fundraising campaigns are 'for genuine academic excellence, not merely the growth of the endowment or the ego of the president.'" (pp. 73-74)

Meanwhile, University of Wyoming fees are set to increase again for both part-time and full-time students. Rah rah. If people have to pay more, you'd think they could at least get better performance from the sports teams.

And Hollywood's population of celebrities with "telltale bumps" and babies seems to be ever-expanding. These will be kids with the cash to go to Stanford or some other expensive, well-endowed school. How many do you think will do it?