Anonymous wrote:I did not say the contested statements. I did say MIT gets more per year in government money than it dies from alumni. Truth. See https://facts.mit.edu/operating-financials/
The endowment is about 10 times larger than MIT annual government funding $24.6B in 2025 compared to $2.3B government funding. See above for breakdowns. The endowment provides financial aid. Almost half the government money is Lincoln Lab contracts.
Anonymous wrote:I'll answer you question when you show me who claimed that MIT is "such a bad school" or that they are "really having fundraising problems"?
Anonymous wrote:And still not answering a basic factual question. Who claimed that MIT is "such a bad school" or that they are "really having fundraising problems"?
Anonymous wrote:You haven't convinced me of anything, and you still haven't answered a simple question. Who claimed that MIT is "such a bad school" or that they are "really having fundraising problems"?
Anonymous wrote:I haven't agreed to anything, and you haven't answered the question. Who claimed that MIT is "such a bad school" or that they are "really having fundraising problems"?
Anonymous wrote:Answer the question. Who claimed that MIT is "such a bad school" or that they are "really having fundraising problems"?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Legacies keep the alumi donation pipeline full. With no legacies donations would plummet. It is that simple.
There's no evidence of this: an alternative hypothesis is that legacy boosts lead to admissions of kids who wouldn't have been admitted were it not for the legacy boost, thereby perpetuating the supremacy of otherwise less than stellar kids. And maybe one of the kids who would have been admitted, if selection were fully merit based would be the next billionaire who could keep college coffers full.
Anonymous wrote:I'll ask again, because you didn't answer the question. Who claimed that MIT is "such a bad school" or that they are "really having fundraising problems"?