Anonymous wrote:Well it's his money, but what a terrible misallocation of resources

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, PP. And to a school that really doesn't need it. How about taking a billion dollars and starting scholarships for poor, but capable students to get college degrees?

Amen -- from a Stanford grad, spouse of grad, and parent of grad -- and that's exactly why I don't give any $ to Stanford

You know you can earmark your donations to go only to scholarships, right? Not that you need to do that at Stanford (but why not?)...

For example - we direct all donations to our graduate school go directly to the department we studied in. The school funded all of our graduate tuition and provided paid jobs.
Earmarking the money to them means the university is required to add it to the department budget. This allows the department to funnel it to programs that support current graduate students.

We also choose specific places for our undergrad donations to be directed. Never to the university as a whole.

We know the $ gets where we intended it to because those departments write us separately to thank us.

Yes, you can earmark, or you can simply choose to give to other organizations that have a greater need and do greater good.

PS - for decades, I gave nothing to my undergrad school (where I was full pay) in order to double down on the graduate school department (full ride).

Anonymous wrote:Weird, he isn’t an alum

Anonymous wrote:I would simply like to offer thank you for this donation. It is a private couple choosing to use their private wealth to fund a project that I believe has possibility of having a significant beneficial public impact. Personally, I don’t feel the need to rank whether or not I would put this type of investment at the top of my list if I were choosing to donate $1 billion, which I don’t have, I am simply grateful that these private citizens have chosen to support an area that is of great public importance. And more generally, I think it’s a very good thing to say wealthy individuals dedicating resources to the public good. And I am glad it is happening, regardless of whether or not it is helping impoverished kids pay for college, refugees to relocate, cognitively disabled people from finding jobs, imprisoned use from obtaining needed rehabilitation, elderly from suffering abuse, old cold towns from economic disaster, or anything else. All of these are very important and noble causes. That a multi billionaire chooses to focus on one is just fine by me. In fact, the more it is viewed as a good thing for the Uber wealthy to do, the more they will probably do so in a whole range of the areas that need support. So, maybe, just maybe, we could say a simple thank you and offer appreciation rather than tearing donors down essentially just because they are rich. These guys are doing exactly what many of us would want the rich to do. So can we ever stop complaining?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy is buying admission for a couple generations of his progeny. The school definitely does NOT need the money. But his great grandkids will all get to be Cardinals.

I can live with all his next 5 generations’ kids going to Stanford if this new school fixes climate change.

Anonymous wrote:This guy is buying admission for a couple generations of his progeny. The school definitely does NOT need the money. But his great grandkids will all get to be Cardinals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, PP. And to a school that really doesn't need it. How about taking a billion dollars and starting scholarships for poor, but capable students to get college degrees?

Amen -- from a Stanford grad, spouse of grad, and parent of grad -- and that's exactly why I don't give any $ to Stanford

You know you can earmark your donations to go only to scholarships, right? Not that you need to do that at Stanford (but why not?)...

For example - we direct all donations to our graduate school go directly to the department we studied in. The school funded all of our graduate tuition and provided paid jobs.
Earmarking the money to them means the university is required to add it to the department budget. This allows the department to funnel it to programs that support current graduate students.

We also choose specific places for our undergrad donations to be directed. Never to the university as a whole.

We know the $ gets where we intended it to because those departments write us separately to thank us.

You can earmark, but all it means that they reduce the amount from the general allocation by the same amount. So unless your donation is above what they would get from the general allocation, you're not changing anything except sending a signal. And if it is, it's only by the amount of the difference.

That said, I do the same thing (earmark) - I'm just not under the illusion it matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, PP. And to a school that really doesn't need it. How about taking a billion dollars and starting scholarships for poor, but capable students to get college degrees?

I'm all for your suggestion in supporting scholarships, but if your goal is to have a direct impact on climate/sustainability progress - funding a new school at Stanford seems like a good move to me. Their track record for innovation is impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, PP. And to a school that really doesn't need it. How about taking a billion dollars and starting scholarships for poor, but capable students to get college degrees?

Amen -- from a Stanford grad, spouse of grad, and parent of grad -- and that's exactly why I don't give any $ to Stanford

You know you can earmark your donations to go only to scholarships, right? Not that you need to do that at Stanford (but why not?)...

For example - we direct all donations to our graduate school go directly to the department we studied in. The school funded all of our graduate tuition and provided paid jobs.
Earmarking the money to them means the university is required to add it to the department budget. This allows the department to funnel it to programs that support current graduate students.

We also choose specific places for our undergrad donations to be directed. Never to the university as a whole.

We know the $ gets where we intended it to because those departments write us separately to thank us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, PP. And to a school that really doesn't need it. How about taking a billion dollars and starting scholarships for poor, but capable students to get college degrees?

Amen -- from a Stanford grad, spouse of grad, and parent of grad -- and that's exactly why I don't give any $ to Stanford

You know you can earmark your donations to go only to scholarships, right? Not that you need to do that at Stanford (but why not?)...

For example - we direct all donations to our graduate school go directly to the department we studied in. The school funded all of our graduate tuition and provided paid jobs.
Earmarking the money to them means the university is required to add it to the department budget. This allows the department to funnel it to programs that support current graduate students.

We also choose specific places for our undergrad donations to be directed. Never to the university as a whole.

We know the $ gets where we intended it to because those departments write us separately to thank us.

As a Stanford alumna, I would love to earmark my donations to go to white, middle-class girls. Do you think I can do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, PP. And to a school that really doesn't need it. How about taking a billion dollars and starting scholarships for poor, but capable students to get college degrees?

Amen -- from a Stanford grad, spouse of grad, and parent of grad -- and that's exactly why I don't give any $ to Stanford

You know you can earmark your donations to go only to scholarships, right? Not that you need to do that at Stanford (but why not?)...

For example - we direct all donations to our graduate school go directly to the department we studied in. The school funded all of our graduate tuition and provided paid jobs.
Earmarking the money to them means the university is required to add it to the department budget. This allows the department to funnel it to programs that support current graduate students.

We also choose specific places for our undergrad donations to be directed. Never to the university as a whole.

We know the $ gets where we intended it to because those departments write us separately to thank us.

Anonymous wrote:This guy is buying admission for a couple generations of his progeny. The school definitely does NOT need the money. But his great grandkids will all get to be Cardinals.