Stanford just eliminated 11 sports

[Scorcho]

 

[Orange]

1 hour ago, Scorcho said:

 

They have a $27B endowment.

Get ready for the title IX lawsuits.  These large universities are about as repulsive as the police in this country right now.

[All Hail]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

They have a $27B endowment.

Get ready for the title IX lawsuits.  These large universities are about as repulsive as the police in this country right now.

I don’t understand this reaction.  They basically got rid of all the white kid sports, the least diverse teams in the entire school.  Now the Uber wealthy will have to find new ways of getting their kids into Stanford.

and as it relates to title IX, they did away with more Men’s than women’s scholarships.  

[Orange]

13 minutes ago, All Hail said:

I don’t understand this reaction.  They basically got rid of all the white kid sports, the least diverse teams in the entire school.  Now the Uber wealthy will have to find new ways of getting their kids into Stanford.

and as it relates to title IX, they did away with more Men’s than women’s scholarships.  

Between this and what Harvard did (providing zero in-class instruction but giving no breaks in tuition) they're both institutions sitting on a pile of money like some sick combination of Smaug and Scrooge McDuck.  What's hard to understand about my reaction?  This is just more elitism fucking over everyone with less.  It'd be one thing if it  was a public institution....but it's not.  It's a billionaire, telling hundreds of kids they can't wrestle or swim because Stanford's too poor.  Sure, okay.

[All Hail]

2 minutes ago, Orange said:

Between this and what Harvard did (providing zero in-class instruction but giving no breaks in tuition) they're both institutions sitting on a pile of money like some sick combination of Smaug and Scrooge McDuck.  What's hard to understand about my reaction?  This is just more elitism fucking over everyone with less.  It'd be one thing if it  was a public institution....but it's not.  It's a billionaire, telling hundreds of kids they can't wrestle or swim because Stanford's too poor.  Sure, okay.

That pile of money they are sitting on has rules and limitations.  It can’t just be used for anything.  This is also true for Cal’s 4.8 billion endowment.   They were losing an unsustainable amount of money that Can be put to much better use than letting a bunch of rich kids play squash or swim in synchronization.

[Orange]

16 hours ago, All Hail said:

That pile of money they are sitting on has rules and limitations.  It can’t just be used for anything.  This is also true for Cal’s 4.8 billion endowment.   They were losing an unsustainable amount of money that Can be put to much better use than letting a bunch of rich kids play squash or swim in synchronization.

Then the endowment policies should be changed, if they won't bother to serve the community when a financial crisis hits, and instead sit on the billions like a fucking troll under a bridge.  Harvard and Stanford frankly disgust me.   People who donate to institutions like that are misguided.  If anything, they should donate to state college systems.

[All Hail]

2 hours ago, Orange said:

Then the endowment policies should be changed, if they won't bother to serve the community when a financial crisis hits, and instead sit on the billions like a fucking troll under a bridge.  Harvard and Stanford frankly disgust me.   People who donate to institutions like that are misguided.  If anything, they should donate to state college systems.

People that donate money want some form of control over where that money goes.  If I donated millions of dollars towards a universities endowment I would want a certain amount of that money to be earmarked for causes I believe in like scholarships and internships for underrepresented minorities.  I would not want that money spent on scholarships for synchronized swimmers and I doubt many do.  Spending money carelessly is a great way to decentivize future donations and is exactly why most people donating money do so with stipulations.

Additionally, Stanford, like most universities, have a separate fund set up specifically for people that want their money to be used for sports.  Unfortunately, that money is not enough to cover projected future losses of Stanford’s AD and pulling from an endowment fund that is designed for academic and not athletic purposes is a great way to piss off your best donors.

As for sitting on Billions.  Endowments only properly function when your annual spend is less than the capital gains generated on the principal amount.  Otherwise, you will lose your endowment and once again, lose the confidence of your donors.  

[Orange]

5 hours ago, All Hail said:

People that donate money want some form of control over where that money goes.  If I donated millions of dollars towards a universities endowment I would want a certain amount of that money to be earmarked for causes I believe in like scholarships and internships for underrepresented minorities.  I would not want that money spent on scholarships for synchronized swimmers and I doubt many do.  Spending money carelessly is a great way to decentivize future donations and is exactly why most people donating money do so with stipulations.

Additionally, Stanford, like most universities, have a separate fund set up specifically for people that want their money to be used for sports.  Unfortunately, that money is not enough to cover projected future losses of Stanford’s AD and pulling from an endowment fund that is designed for academic and not athletic purposes is a great way to piss off your best donors.

As for sitting on Billions.  Endowments only properly function when your annual spend is less than the capital gains generated on the principal amount.  Otherwise, you will lose your endowment and once again, lose the confidence of your donors.  

Try as you might, you still haven't justified Stanford sitting on a $27B endowment, when supposedly all of these philanthropic people were setting aside money they wanted to go to oppressed minorities.  Despite making up close to 15% of the population, blacks make up just 4.7% of students at Stanford.  (Asians and whites make up 85%).  You were saying something about "underrepresented"?......

[All Hail]

54 minutes ago, Orange said:

Try as you might, you still haven't justified Stanford sitting on a $27B endowment, when supposedly all of these philanthropic people were setting aside money they wanted to go to oppressed minorities.  Despite making up close to 15% of the population, blacks make up just 4.7% of students at Stanford.  (Asians and whites make up 85%).  You were saying something about "underrepresented"?......

Wtf?  I think you need to reread what you said and then my response.  
 

Who said all of these people were setting aside money for minorities?  I said that’s a what I would do. I can’t speak as to what other people have Earmarked their donations for besides academic causes vs athletic causes.
 

Also, it seems pretty evident you don’t understand how endowments work. They are not sitting on 27 billion.  That is the principal for their endowment and cannot be spent.  Drawing from the principal is known as endowment invasion and would result in major lawsuits.  If you don’t understand this very basic concept of how endowments work, perhaps you shouldn’t use so much of your energy raging against the evils of Stanfords endowment.  

[Orange]

15 hours ago, All Hail said:

Wtf?  I think you need to reread what you said and then my response.  
 

Who said all of these people were setting aside money for minorities?  I said that’s a what I would do. I can’t speak as to what other people have Earmarked their donations for besides academic causes vs athletic causes.

 

Also, it seems pretty evident you don’t understand how endowments work. They are not sitting on 27 billion.  That is the principal for their endowment and cannot be spent.  Drawing from the principal is known as endowment invasion and would result in major lawsuits.  If you don’t understand this very basic concept of how endowments work, perhaps you shouldn’t use so much of your energy raging against the evils of Stanfords endowment.  

Why use the example of donating on behalf of underrepresented minorities when you know full well that's not what any of these donors do?  Why are you so vociferously defending these elitists institutions that hoard donations, while so much of the population surrounding these campuses is in a horrid circumstances of sickness, poverty, and lack of opportunity?  Why don't you instead support changing the entire structure and paradigm for billionaires gifting to non-diverse, exclusive universities to the detriment of those that could actually use it?

Between this and your rabid support for Jim-Crow guardians on the other thread, I guess it doesn't surprise me that you support a watered-down republican to replace Trump.

[PAC MAN]

Here goes their future Director's Cup championships.