Hacker News Reader

Comment by pm90 | Hacker News Reader

To give back to the institution that helped shape them? To enable that institution to be more successful at what it does? Because funding for education has fallen precipitously in the last few decades?

There are arguments against big endowments to famous institutions. But for more modest schools, seems like a no brainer.

Nobody is obligated to donate anything. But giving back is one of those things that every successful society promotes a lot of.

I also can’t resist pointing out that even a million dollar grant which would hardly even register to Brin would go a long long way in funding a school that’s not doing all that well.

View on HN

So you promote furthering social inequality? Also donations from rich guys to their schools creates so many bad incentives even if you don't consider the direct effects. It means that rich kids will be valued more since they are tied to donations, it means that schools will seek out people who might become rich in the fuuture etc.

ERHS is in Prince George's County, which, while well-off as far as majority-black counties go, is far from the wealthiest in the area (due in part to the structural difficulties of building and maintaining black/brown wealth in America). To be frank, it is in one of the wealthier and whiter parts of PG, but it remains a diverse public school that largely draws students from the surrounding community. If Google or Brin were to donate to either the school or the county, it would decrease inequality in comparison to competing jurisdictions (e.g., Montgomery, Fairfax, Anne Arundel, and Loudon Counties, let alone DC itself).

This might not hold for other cases, but it really does in this one.

> So you promote furthering social inequality?

No. I promote creating a culture of contributing back to educational institutions if you have the means to do so.

> Also donations from rich guys to their schools creates so many bad incentives even if you don't consider the direct effects. It means that rich kids will be valued more since they are tied to donations, it means that schools will seek out people who might become rich in the fuuture etc.

Schools have no way of knowing which of their kids will become rich and therefore there is 0 substance to your assertion that donating to schools will change their structure in perverse ways. Public Schools by definition don't select their students anyways.

There are the kids who are already rich--or, rather, whose parents are already rich.

More to the point, kids with affluent backgrounds are far more likely to develop means of their own

I see your point. Systemically, most wealthy people will be the children of wealthy parents and their giving back will mostly propagate the inequality. That does make sense to me.

Interestingly, this also means that, even in public school, affluent children are likely to get a better education than less affluent children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com