It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade-off are we going to get?
Considering how this could possibly be a public good, the most obvious way is that money into these institutions produces knowledge that then produces benefits in wider society. This fits mostly with the definition:
> In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be
It is true that in some cases education produces knowledge which itself becomes non-excludable and non-rivalrous, or that knowledge produces some other good which is both those things, but the multi-million dollar donations to Ivy-league colleges made by the super-rich so that their children participate in elite networks is pretty tenuously tied to this mechanism of 'education as a public good'.
I mean you can literally witness it with your own eyes right now when you look at the US on the world stage. Compare the quality of governance and selection of candidates to a country like Singapore, or hell even China whose ruthless political apparatus weeds out people who don't perform quite effectively.
The US's strategy of funnelling the power through visible, legal channels with some levels of consistency is by far the best. If they want their kids in prestigious universities then that is what will happen. There isn't an alternative where the powerful shrug sheepishly and let their position erode.
Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education, even the playing field out. Yes you can redefine what rich means, and what poor means, over time through policies.
That last part sounds like almost a threat regarding what rich people might do if you block their corrupt behavior. That's already a sign there's a problem with the power dynamic here.
Someone getting in by buying the institution a new building isn't denying anyone access to higher education. In fact, since the institution has a new building it is likely it is increasing access to either education or research opportunities.
> Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education...
30% of the US does get a degree, so higher education isn't exactly an elite marker.
[2-4 years of time] X [70% of the US that doesn't have a degree] is an enormous number of hours. If someone is not going to use it then they have better things to do than academics. The risk of most of that 70% just looking back at a couple of wasted years is pretty high.
I suppose in fairness it might work out, but even now there are a lot of people getting degrees who havn't managed to parley it up into better outcomes. But it is likely to be a terrible plan, expensive and with marginal positive outcomes.
There’s a spectrum of “rich successful” people, many are rich but not “successful” in the way you like to believe, spend 5 minutes around them and it’s easy to know.
Also, what’s up with that “less-brilliant children” saving face statement?