Hacker News Reader

Comment by devwastaken | Hacker News Reader

Point foundations requirements: https://pointfoundation.org/point-apply/application-faqs/

"A proven track record of leadership and community involvement Strong academic achievement Working for the betterment of the LGBTQ community Financial need"

These orgs don't actually research their target base. You can't show strong leadership without your parents having the funds to put you in programs to show that and get references. You're not going to get great marks at bad schools. And you're sure as hell not doing any of those when your parents disown you.

It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism. People like Mackenzie Scott are better served in making their own orgs if their intention is to help people in need and not give people a free ride they already could afford.

View on HN

> it's a foundation to fund elitism

This is a complete false dichotomy. You appear to be arguing that either an organization funds highly underprivileged or homeless youth from "bad schools" or they're funding elitism? "Giving people a free ride they already could afford?" I disagree.

College expenses are so ridiculously high that a broad swath of the middle class can simply not afford to help their children pay for college. A University of California school costs over $35,000/year for California residents. Private schools and costs for out of state residents are far higher. Add in bare bones other expenses, and an almost-impossible-to-attain-in-4-years-4-year-degree can cost $150K+ for a public school.

These people are not "elites." These are solid middle class families and the college cost problem is huge. Imagine making enough money to support your family, pay ridiculous rent/house prices, get your kids into decent programs, maybe save a bit for retirement...and are ineligible for almost all forms of financial aid, and 90% of scholarships, because that salary that barely pays the cost of living is considered excessive. Getting a second mortgage or raiding a retirement fund may not be an option. And what if you have 2 or 3 kids?

This is assuming that these families still support their kids after they've come out.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people start their lives under a crushing debt burden that can't be lifted even through bankruptcy. Or, they simply skip college entirely. An organization that assists with college costs by looking at a student's complete picture (not just financial need) will help far more people than "elites."

Not every LGBTQ student gets disowned by their families. Some do and still show strong leadership simply by continuing to strive for a college of their dreams. Some, tragically, suffer in immeasurable and innumerable ways and may need other kinds of support. All of these kids deserve a chance, and if this organization helps some of them then I think that's fantastic.

The attitude of "if you're not helping this one segment that I deem most at risk then you're part of the problem" is corrosive and unnecessarily cynical.

The people in need I am talking about are the middle class. The overwhelming majority of families don't have the time, money, or education necessary to do these things. This is especially true of those in poverty.

That would be all fine and good if there was support systems that actually helped those whom needed it. FAFSA even at it's maximum amount doesn't cover that much, and it certainly won't cosign a private loan.

These kinds of "merit based" scholarships are everywhere and overwhelmingly taken by those whom don't even need a college degree. The only thing different with this one is they plaster LGBTQ over it the same as Apple or Google will wave rainbows around. That doesn't actually target the community that needs it.

What I'm interpreting from you here is: "these well off middle class kids deserve this more because they're well off middle class kids that can't afford the California schools.". That's elitism.

You're interpreting incorrectly. I never used the word "more" in my response.

My points are:

(a) "merit based" scholarships are not everywhere. The vast majority are financial need based - which is not a bad thing.

(b) You mentioned "bad schools" and "elites" - nothing about the middle class. My point was to assert that just because someone can afford to live where there are decent public schools doesn't mean they can afford college. These people are not "elites." The cost of California schools was a data point; the problem is nationwide.

(c) A charity which chooses to help kids who need help is still doing good, even if some of the kids are not the most disadvantaged in the country.

At no point did I indicate that "middle class kids that can't afford California schools" were somehow more deserving than those with a poorer SES. I simply pointed out that they exist, and that some do need help, and they frequently fall into a gap of being neither rich enough or poor enough to get help.

First you accused the charity of elitism, and now you accuse me of elitism. I find that interesting and curious.

Financial based scholarships are bad. They assume that the parents are giving money to the children. By definition every single person going to collage has no money as they are still children, not even legal adults.

They also make very odd choices like your family must be under the poverty line ($14k) yet a family making $25k is no more able to pay for college.

>This is a complete false dichotomy.

Her wealth makes her part of the elite. She is deciding by her own made up rules who deserves and who does not deserves her help and money. If that is not elitism what is it? Just because she chooses what are called "historically disenfranchised" does not make it fine. The elitism comes from her ruling from on high as she wishes without oversight. Which she is doing so it is elitism plain and simple.

Elitism. -Control, rule, or domination by the members of an elite.

OP was saying the LGBTQ charity that gave scholarships to students was elitist because it incorporated criteria like leadership and performance in addition to financial need. That's what I responded to.

I did not comment on whether MacKenzie Scott is elitist or not.

> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism.

Dude… what?

They’re basically saying “Rich people should give money to people in need. Not those needy. Not those needy either, gawd.”

Alright, I had to upvote that even though I disagree with you, just because that was hilarious and made me laugh out loud.

The comment is referring to the meritocracy trap; the observation that it takes privilege to get to a position of being able to excel at hard work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Tr...

I am not really sure how a scholarship could do otherwise, but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids who aren't in a position to be able to get the credentials to get a scholarship.

Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education.

Still waiting on that social safety net though.

> I am not really sure how to scholarship could do otherwise

There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right?

I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.

> but arguably it's better to support 10 LGBTQ kids

Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.

No, I made a comparison between two options.

And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me?

There's no need to pretend there's an argument.

Parents dictate these outcomes, not the teens. Those in the best position to meet these requirements fundamentally need them the least, because their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements. If this org was for the betterment of LGBTQ individuals they would target those whom are disadvantaged and did not have these opportunities.

I replied in a separate comment, but want to respond to this:

> their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements.

I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate.

Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed.

Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements."

If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com