The most surprising thing to me was how small a percentage of the budget was under the control of the president of the university; it was only a tiny amount. Virtually all of the money was controlled by the source, not by the administration.
The most surprising thing to me was how small a percentage of the budget was under the control of the president of the university; it was only a tiny amount. Virtually all of the money was controlled by the source, not by the administration.
Understand your frustration but the public was outraged when $1 million of a librarian's donation was used for a football scoreboard.[1]
Yes, the university did comply to the exact letter of his will (only $100k was restricted for library and the rest was unrestricted) ... but the public thinks the spirit of his donation was ignored.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=librarian+donation+used+for+...
OK, that's a bit unrealistic. I could build them one for a few hundred, though, and they could pay a student $50 to flip over the numbers during the game.
No, you couldn’t.
It has to keep working for years/decades, be maintainable, survive bad weather conditions, etc. even if you made the scoreboard out of wood and painted it, it would have to be large enough so that the stadium could see, the paint would fade and it would take weeks to make it, etc.
In University I participated in a club sport "funded" exclusively through the student government -- really more of a tax rebate than anything else since only 60% of what the climbing "team" paid in student fees we got back to buy ropes, biners, rent a van for outings. That sort of stuff.
College sports do serve a real community-building purpose. Just... a few hundred or maybe low thousands total per sport instead of a few tens of millions for the main sport.
I get not wanting to have a minor league football team with unpaid labor, but even rec league basketball needs a scoreboard.
There is no reason why the state should spend its educational subsidies on funding auxillary recreational activities solely for the benefit of university students when a good GPA is not necessary to recreate, nor do university students have a greater need of recreation than anyone else.
The problem is that it is really hard to know where to draw the line and the US as usual takes it fully to the extreme.
All that being said, I thought the big sports were a revenue driver for the schools that chose to participate in the bigger leagues?
It's just one of the many inescapable inefficiencies that happen when humans try to create a large organization.
> There are a couple exceptions to this principle. One is when the nonprofit is an umbrella organization. It's reasonable to make a restricted donation to a university, for example, because a university is only nominally a single nonprofit.
The article doesn't say what to do when donating to a university or college. So, when donating to a university, do also donate in a relatively unrestricted way. But donate to:
1. a department (in small amounts),
2. a scholarship fund (in medium amounts),
3. an endowed professorship for a specific department/discipline (in large amounts), or
4. some important component of the physical plant (in "Gates/Allen" amounts).
Not to the university as a whole.
At least that's what I've witness as being effective.
Oh, and if you donate to scholarships, make sure the university/college plays ball. If they won't at least match 4% of the principle, just set up the scholarship an independent thing and let the kid choose where they go. Why donate a student scholarship to a specific school whose value is literally just the sustainable withdrawal rate? What's the point of that? Certainly not to help a student. Your donation will turn into a chair on the deck to be rearranged. But lots of donors get suckered into doing this.
I consider that good news, actually, because it makes restricted donations meaningful.
I always assumed that restricted donations were pointless, because if I donated $x of restricted donations to cause A, the organization would simply take $x of unrestricted donations that it was planning to spend on cause A and instead spend them on other causes. All of my money technically went to cause A, but de facto it didn't.
I still assume that's the case for regular, non-university charities.
On the other hand, if you trust that someone wants to do a good thing, they probably have more information about the topic than you do, so you should give them freedom to actually act on that information. Like, maybe you think "X is way more important than Y", but maybe the lack of Y is actually what prevents them from doing X efficiently, so your restriction to only use the money for X is not helpful, even from the X-maximizing perspective.
Like, sometimes your mission is to distribute food to starving kids in Africa, but you can't organize your volunteers until you buy a new computer, because the only one you had just broke. Then someone gives you a paycheck with big letters "only use to buy food, I don't want to see you wasting money on computers". Yeah, thanks a lot, dear condescending saint.
This is indeed the approach I've been taking with some climate change charities: most of them have an "advocacy" component, and while I'd like to support effective emissions reduction projects, I'm not willing to contribute to the preaching for individual asceticism.
I have no issue giving to "some project + a proportionate share of central/overhead costs".
Unfortunately, it's often extremely hard to find a charity that is tax deductible where you live, part of employer matching programs, effective in running projects you want to support, and not performing activities you specifically don't want to support.
With climate change specifically, if I can't reasonably rule out the risk that the org will spend the money to tell me that I can't have an air conditioner, meat, or travel (or worse, lobby my government to ban me from having these things), they're not getting any money.
I'm OK with taking some risk that the org will use money in a way that I consider non-optimal, but I draw the line where I see a risk that the money may be used directly against my own interests. "Don't feed the mouth that bites you", I guess.
Like Mozilla foundation, which has a number of separate "initiatives"
Or Wikimedia, which partially works on Wikipedia.org website, but also works on a number of projects not directly related to the main website.
Sometimes there is only one charity that covers a certain topic so if they also do other things you don't want to support the only choices are to make a restricted donation or to not donate at all.
That seems logical enough to me.
I mean, if every new building is an unprofitable drag on university finances, they wouldn't be building more of them. At the very least a building should pay for its own upkeep, if not its original construction costs.
And given that the fundraising department will surely want to tell rich donors that buildings are good for the university, simultaneously saying that the previous buildings were all bad for the university would be a very confusing message.
No, you then need a steady supply of new buildings to provide funding to fix the old ones/replace the old ones.
Regarding donating buildings in general, Andrew Carnegie seemed to get a lot of prestige leverage when he funded thousands of public libraries by paying for the buildings while requiring the locals to pay the upkeep and operation.
My documentation and compliance burden was as high for a $5 purchase as a $5k purchase. My estimate of the salary cost (neglecting overhead) of approving a single purchase (my approval, electronic documentation, paper documentation, front-office approval, and PI oversight) was ~$80. That doesn't account for the impact of lost time on other tasks. For a $5 purchase.
The true accountability -- If I consistently spent money on something contrary to the aims of the lab? I'd be either out of a job or deprived of tools necessary to get the work done.
Why not just keep a separate fund for each purpose and as these donations come in you route out the portions to the desired fund? If that is what's done then what's the difficult part that I'm missing?