Hacker News Reader

Comment by massivecali | Hacker News Reader

The first is for the benefit of all the other students in the form of reduced tuition grants, a new library, lab equipment etc. The other is for the benefit of the bribe taker. There are lots of situations that elevate X over accomplishment, but this seems like one with actual benefit on a large scale. That said, I hope they all get punished for it.

View on HN

I dont think a monetary donation means a new lab or a library for all students to use that otherwise would have not been built. these universities have excess budget and easily afford to carry out new construction and procurement as planned regardless of donations. Im sure if the said parent had not donated the 2.5 million dollars, not a single thing would have been different for the students. not one.

>> I'm sure if the said parent had not donated the 2.5 million dollars, not a single thing would have been different for the students. Not one.

That's definitely false. Most universities tie annual endowment spending to total endowment size. Just because you can't directly tie the dollars to a specific project, doesn't mean it didn't contribute to the general student body's quality of education.

What are you talking about, of course sourcing new endowments allows them to build more things/provide more services/etc. Approximately half of Yale's operating budget comes from revenue generated by its hospital system (which is a whole 'nother contentious issue, but besides the point). The other half largely comes from drawing a "safe amount" on it's endowment principal, i.e., small enough to be sustainable in the long term without depleting the fund. A relatively small part comes from tuition. Obviously, increasing the endowment (be it $2.5MM or $250MM at a time) increases the amount that can be put towards budgeting in the future -- enabling, for example, the University to grow its student body (which Yale is currently doing) while maintaining the ability to privately subsidize student tuition.

People who claim that top schools have excess budget have no idea how expensive it is to run them. Pledges are a total ok way of funding scholarships and other benefits for the student community on those schools. One "stupid rich" student enabling "smart poor" ones.

If the bribe taker donated all of the money to charity, would that make it any less unethical for the University/basketball coach? A bribe is a bribe, and the spot that was taken in the University could have and should have gone to someone more deserving.

>If the bribe taker donated all of the money to charity, would that make it any less unethical for the University/basketball coach

Yes, it would. That wouldn't make it ethical or legal of course.

This is a classical "ends justify means" argument. Though most people won't admit it, I think it's a valid argument, but requires a rather perverse value system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com