Hacker News Reader

Comment by supersync | Hacker News Reader

This is a very fair concern. First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment.

The concentration of mega-gifts at the top has very perverse impacts.

Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year.

Philanthropy combines prestige, PR, and “legacy” in a way that massively overvalued those three vs. any kind of measurable impact.

The alternative you are suggesting is badly, badly needed in the non-profit world.

But the “brand” game has won vs the execution game, esp. in higher Ed.

View on HN

I worked in the Broad building at Caltech (Eli Broad), and I watched for 2 years as they demoed the parking lot outside my office to build the 200 million dollar Chen neuroscience building. It is a complete and total waste of money, and I say that cognizant of arguments like 'attracting talent'...etc. At one point we calculated the number of neuroscience postdocs we could hire for that money and easily came to the conclusion that we could have pulled off a Manhattan project of neuroscience with that kind of money. It's pathetic that donors delude themselves into thinking that projects like this do ANY good.

Edit: link: https://www.henselphelps.com/project/chen-neuroscience-resea...

wait, is the 200 million just for the building, or for the entire facility (new equipment, etc)? Building a new facility in itself seems a worthwhile enterprise - though as a postdoc myself I'd rather have pay bumps for the postdocs :)

I believe at least 170 million was slated initially for construction costs, which may have run over. I don't know how much was for new equipment, but I can't imagine it was a significant fraction (and likely it was an additional expense over those numbers).

170+ million for a BUILDING?! That doesn't make sense to me at all - as someone who spends his waking hours in research laboratories in a newish building of comparable size to the Chen building, I can't see where the money would go.

here's a guess, our fancy new stem cell research building has 3 pieces of chihuly glass about each about the size of a mini cooper...

Well....for starters there is the monkey tunnel that leads from Broad to the Chen building because....you guessed it....the vivarium was in the basement (and still is) of Broad. Many neuroscience labs were in Broad (a VERY nice building in and of itself).

I chuckled when they demolished the nearby Mead undergrad chem lab to make way for another such building, then I realized that the department graduating 5 undergrads a year might have something to do with it. I already missed the sculpture where the bagpipe guy used to play that got taken out for some ChemE building.

> easily came to the conclusion that we could have pulled off a Manhattan project of neuroscience with that kind of money.

In general I wish people spent more time looking at alternatives when these huge projects are proposed. For instance, it drives me nuts thinking of all the alternatives when I see making bids to pay billions for the Olympics. That's the kind of money that could turn the whole area into a science Mecca in several different, with a whole host of positive downstream effects locally.

Donor behavior such as this comes down to human psychology and neuroscience.

* Tribalism: Humans like people who "are like them", it's easier to relate. Thus, IME, Stanford grads prefer other Stanford-branded people. Or at least crême de la creme Ivy. Especially compared to the plebs and the proles.

* Vanity: Donors find it appealing that the structure will be around for a long time, prominently and proudly emblazoned with the donor's own name. Yes, external validation does feel good. Especially among certain (insecure) types. A truly altruistic and self-assured person makes donations anonymously.

Empire building is a popular pastime among the human species, especially those with power. The rest of us settle for something like Civ, SimCity, or sand castles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_Pompey

Not the first by a long shot.

(Ahem, pyramids ...)

People should invest local. I just handed a check to our sons martial arts center. It is used for scholarships for kids that can't afford monthly dues. Every dollar is treasured.

Yea but it won’t raise your prestige, I mean giving charity to Stanford, one of the top schools in the world, shows everyone how baller you are, and maybe the next 20 generations of Doerrs will get guaranteed admission too

John wanted his name on the Doerr.

Words cannot describe, should have sent a poet.

Ho Doerr?

> Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year.

Which building is that? Not doubting you, just curious.

>But the “brand” game has won vs the execution game, esp. in higher Ed.

I can remember seeing this in action at Stanford. Companies will fall over themselves and pay anything to have their name associated with absolutely anything that has the name Stanford on it. And the students know this, so they play the game. Every student group, organization, club, etc. no matter how small or meaningless is heavily sponsored by relevant corporate donors as a result.

>First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment.

Academic institutions are also tax-exempt, therefore don't pay any tax on the profits of any endowment or real-estate investment gains. The rise of the ivy-league schools becoming glorified tax-free holding companies, with education side-gigs, corresponds with the bloat in academic administration.

https://observer.com/2006/05/nyu-columbia-make-a-mint-on-rea...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/higher-ed-administrators-grow...

Stanford is really a real estate venture masquerading as an academic institution.

Why? For tax purposes.

Upon first hearing this I was shocked and disappointed. Over time I've lowered my hopes and expectations, and come to accept it for what it is:

Old, elite, uber-wealthy white men at the top, who want it to stay that way.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Stanford+president

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marc_Tessier-Lavigne_at...

References:

"The Stanford Empire", by Mercury News

> Stanford's vast holdings. Stanford, Silicon Valley's largest property owner, controls more than 5,000 acres in Palo Alto and unincorporated Santa Clara County. On that land are the university's sprawling campus, a shopping center, tech offices, apartment buildings and entire residential neighborhoods.

> The value of Stanford’s empire is larger than those of Google, Apple and Intel combined.

https://extras.mercurynews.com/whoowns/stanford.html

"How Stanford Came to Dominate the Landscape in Silicon Valley", by KQED

> The value of Stanford's real estate empire is greater than the holdings of Google, Apple and Cisco combined.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11781771/how-stanford-became-the-l...

> First off, most of this funding will go to a building.

What a waste.

Some time back I read a line in article "Government has deluded itself into thinking that building institutions is same as institution buildings"

This seems to apply here.

Link?

Upvoted because I agree but it's not always this cut and dry. I can't speak for climate research (I imagine it's mostly computer sims so maybe a building is a waste), but for bio research lab space is nearly as important as personnel.

The waste is they hire architects to build elaborate buildings with plenty of affectations that make universities and donors feel important, but that often put functionality far behind form. While the inside of lab space is quite functional and "luxury" in lab space goes is actually lab equipment, sq. ft, and having a window that looks out on something pleasant. Much less impressive looking buildings could be built which facilitated far more science.

Universities have degenerated somewhat into being professional sports teams and professional fundraisers.

"Attracting top talent" is nonsense, universities are already full of people so desperate for positions they work nearly for free.

If I had a billion dollars I'd build a university out the best equipment, the cheapest buildings, and a minimum wage for anyone doing academic work of $100k and see how far that got me.

> Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year.

Which building is this?

>First off, most of this funding will go to a building.

Gross.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com