Phil Knight, Nike Founder, Donates $400M to Stanford University | Hacker News Reader

Phil Knight, Nike Founder, Donates $400M to Stanford University

nytimes.com

7 pointschirau6 comments

Meanwhile underfunded state schools who do the lion's share of getting people into middle class jobs and giving the students a leg up in life, serving those in between scholarships and the trust fund kids get ignored and bypassed.

Yes this has the potential to benefit third world countries if the students go back and contribute, but we well know there are many poor and disadvantaged in the US as well who get the short shrift.

I'm sure you find your point emotionally resonant so I'll give you an opportunity to make it interesting with a loaded question - is it better for the species to push people to grow beyond their bounds or is it better to swell in the middle?

I'll answer that this way, you don't want to allow the middle to get too [unsustainably] thin while the ends bulge. There needs to be a balance.

Is it really either or? (BTW, I don't find your question objectionable - I disagree, but it doesn't bother me at all that you asked it).

For instance, across the bay from Stanford, there's a large state supported research university that probably has just a few more top-10 and top-5 PhD programs than Stanford (or Harvard, for that matter). It has a much higher percentage of low income students, and because it also enrolls a much larger undergraduate population, it enrolls more low income students (including more students who are the first in their families to ever attend college) than the entire ivy league combined.

Why not give 300 mil to that school? You wouldn't be "swelling the middle", these are talented students, but you would be supporting more low income students.

He has given large sums of money to the University of Oregon also, if not $400 million.

Unfortunately, with the case for perfectly effective altruism, the ambiguity of these type of arguments of where the "best" impact can be made usually fold back into the the idea that the donation is seeking not just advancement in the world (though this is clearly and hopefully part of it), but also to build a personal legacy and connection to things that the donor cares about - in this Stanford. We like to reinforce things we can see and things we care about. Empathy and investment exist in much narrower scopes that we would like to think. I agree with you that the $$ could be allocated perhaps more efficiently, but hey - at least he is putting it to something positive. If more and more billionares take a note out of Phil Knight's book (referring just to the donation) we will slowly make good (perhaps not ideal) progress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com