OT: Phil Knight donates $400m to Stanford
This morning Nike co-founder Phil Knight donated $400 million to fund graduate student scholarships at Stanford.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/business/philip-knight-of-nike-to-giv…
Highlights if you don't feel like reading:
-Goal is to recruit graduate students from all around the world (2/3rds approximately will come from out of the country) to fix the major global challenges. Poverty and climate change will be the first issues addressed.
-100 students will be admitted each year, and will be given full tuition and room+board for three years.
-$400 mil is the largest donation in Stanford history, and the 2nd largest ever. (Knight donated $500 million to Oregon in 2013)
Just curious what the board thought about this. Seems to be generating both a lot of high praise and a lot of negativity as well.
February 24th, 2016 at 2:58 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 24th, 2016 at 3:23 PM ^
saying stick to Academics, let Oregon handle Athletics
/s......or not?
February 24th, 2016 at 2:58 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 24th, 2016 at 3:22 PM ^
You can always say there is something else money should go to. Feeding people, curing disease, etc. But indirectly, this is going to just that. The goal is to eventually reduce poverty (which is likely the main cause of hunger) and global warming (which impacts how we make food).
In order to solve the world problems, you have to prepare people to solve those problems. One of the best ways of doing that is paying for their education. This goes beyond giving someone a fish vs teaching someone how to fish, this is paying for new sustainable, more efficient methods of fishing to be studied so that we can eventually teach the fishers who can eventually teach the hungry.
In the grand scheme of "money can go to better things", this is very, very, very, very low. This is going to an extremely worthy cause that could potentially impact billions at some point in the fairly near term.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:41 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 24th, 2016 at 3:58 PM ^
which I think means it should be put to good use because they can attract the folks who will solve some major problems. Giving $400MM to say...Idaho Tech...isn't going to have the same impact
February 24th, 2016 at 4:10 PM ^
We would never know :) It's possible that sending $400MM to Idaho Tech allows them to hire better faculty, better students, infuse the local economy with a decent amount of cash.
Sending $400MM to Stanford is a drop in the bucket for Cardinals. Yes, it will bring in more students from under-developed economies to Stanford and get them to intermingle with the veritable who's who.
My initial thought was that Phil is trying to "buy" Cardinals in the football season. How can you thump your benefactor's alma mater!
I kid. I kid.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^
Because trees and things
February 24th, 2016 at 5:34 PM ^
This $400MM is to fund work into eradicating poverty and solving global warming. Two HUGE problems in the world. If that money is given to Idaho Tech (for example again), no way in hell that money does anything to solve the world's problems. Idaho Tech could try their darndest and maybe achieve a small fraction of what a world class institution like Stanford could do.
This money would be wasted if it wasn't given to a top tier research institution
February 24th, 2016 at 6:57 PM ^
Living in poverty in US and doing the same in a village in India or sub-Saharan Africa are completely different things. So if one starts to solve the problem by sitting in the US with the only interaction with a few locals, that might not be as effective as it could be.
He is donating this money to get folks from the poor economies to Stanford, train them and then send them back to work. Great idea. Do you know what would be more effective? Pay a bunch of Stanford folks to go over to Liberia and live there for a six month duration. Let them see the problem first hand and then try to equip the locals with proper tools.
But that is my personal opinion and yours' doesn't need to match with mine. I hope this money is properly spent and at the end of the day helps the people it's supposed to help.
After posting I realized that I didn't really stay on point. sorry about that. It's quite possible that Idaho Tech (I have nothing against their mighty fine institution) could become a center of execelence in Global Poverty Eradication with $400MM. As I said, we would never know.
February 24th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^
To compare the benefit of giving to Stanford vs. Idaho Tech is to miss the point 100%. Knight isn't giving an open-ended donation. He has an idea he wants put into motion. Stanford is the vehicle for that idea because it'll be far better at executing that idea than Idaho Tech will.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:27 PM ^
Idaho Tech can't absorb $400M. But giving $40M to 10 community colleges would have a much bigger impact on each one of those colleges and their student bodies than $400M will have at Stanford, where it will be spent on the pie-in-the-sky, Silicon-Valley-disruption-can-heal-the-world bullshit that will not work because you can't fucking private-sector and start-up and entrepreneur your way out of the fact that almost half of Indian children under the age of 5 are stunted.
If the gift produces one idea that turns into the next green revolution, then it was worth it. Otherwise it's like trading three first round picks and a couple of second and third round picks to take RGIII second overall. If he has Tom Brady's career, by golly you made a good call. If he doesn't, what a fucking waste.
February 24th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^
you hit on some and some you don't, but you gotta spend the money to fail first so you can find the real solutions. Famously, Edison reportedly made 1,000 failed lightbulbs before finding 1 that worked.
It's interesting that you quote the green revolution because that was the culmination of several decades of work by Borlaug and many others. And you and I both know that wasn't free. Gotta spend some money to make it as they say
February 24th, 2016 at 4:05 PM ^
If someone chooses to be generous with their money to a good cause, I think it's really nobody's business to say it's not a worthy enough cause.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:51 PM ^
And the track record of large gifts like this leading to anything other than new buildings is shall we say, mixed.
February 24th, 2016 at 5:04 PM ^
He's giving to an endowment for scholarships, not buildings. Incoming students are not rich.
February 24th, 2016 at 5:18 PM ^
My point was that large gifts rarely show any benefit, which is a simple truth. And the money is going to Stanford to endow scholarships, Stanford is rich, with a giant endowment of roughly 25 billion already. Most of the students who beneft might have received scholarships anyway. Hey, hope it all works out great, but Stanford could have done this anytime they wanted.
February 24th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^
Space Coyote you are a very smart person.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:01 PM ^
Any donation of money to higher education is good with me. Althought the university system we have is highly flawed in a lot of ways, addressing climate change and poverty is a noble goal. Providing funding for kids to attend college is a good thing, especially if somehow it allows more students of a lower socioeconomic background this opportunity.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:04 PM ^
the most important thing that citizens and the givernment can do, but giving one of the richest Universities another $400M is probably one of the worst ways you can fund education.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:07 PM ^
You realize that rich school does not mean funding for research right? One of the toughest experiences I have had in graduate school is the never ending chase for funding. Research is a full time job and costs money and guess what, it doesn't always produce immediately results. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
Sure, you can pay for someone's education, and they can get a graduate degree by simply taking classes perhaps. It's the research funding that makes this substantial.
Giving it to one of the best universities in the world only makes sense. In fact, giving it to a university that doesn't have the prestige and resources (including money) makes very little sense.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:23 PM ^
Michigan used to take a 55% cut of the research funding one brought in. The rest would go to pay for the supplies, the grad student's salary and other benefits and may be to pay the professor to some extent.
Universities push for "chase for funding" because they take a cut from it. I don't know how can one make the system work better and allows the grad students to devote more time to research than grant writing.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:18 PM ^
I tend to disagree with this. I understand that giving to a "rich" school with a healthy endowment appears to be making the rich richer. However, the downstream research from donations such as these generated at places like Stanford, Michigan, OHSU, MSK etc... has far reaching implications.
Phil Knight has given nearly a billion dollars to OHSU. From that certain once deadly cancers have essentially been cured (CML for instance). There are definitely brilliant scientists and phsyicians who need "extra" funds given the dried up state of NIH grants and I applaud his philanthropy.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:15 PM ^
Agreed the goals are noble, and I'm all for higher education (a little too much so), but are institutions like Harvard and Stanford with massive endowments (Harvard is $36B, Yale is $24B, Stanford is $21B, etc.) and wealthy alumni bases really the neediest recipients of philanthropy?
There are more direct ways to effect change than building a Phil Knight center Global Doing of Good Things. Administrative costs of these kinds of university-based programs are sky-high and impact is hard to measure. I wish all the grad students luck and hope they become successful advocates and social entrepeneurs for the various causes, but I could list 100 places I'd donate if I were rich I'd rather go with lean operations that score well on watchdogs like Charity Navigator and Charity Watch.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:41 PM ^
It does not matter who the neediest recipients of philanthropy are. The guy created tremendous value in this world, got personally rich, and is doing with his money what he pleases. That is beautiful.
Wealth is not some shared thing that we all can have a say where it goes...because it's not ours to give. But I do hope that you and I both are able to become rich and donate to our 100 favorite places and make such a big impact!
February 24th, 2016 at 5:49 PM ^
Ok, citing school's endowments is dumb. The point of endowment is to build it as big as possible so that you can responsibly take out a small percentage of it every single year without the balance going down.
So, if I have a $20B endowment and you take a 3% cut every year, you're looking at $600M a year. That seems like a lot, but it's not enough to pay for every student, salary, running cost, capital goals, maintenence, etc, etc.
A $400M endowment is essentially a $12M / year donation forever. That's amazing and a big deal no matter how much money a school has.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:03 PM ^
Can't wait to see what their uniforms will now look like.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:07 PM ^
first thoughts as well.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:04 PM ^
He can donate it how he chooses. Few things irritate me more than people complaining about how other people give their money away.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:18 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 24th, 2016 at 3:54 PM ^
I totally agree, however there is a huge issue with the way donations are taxed.
Knight will receive $158 million tax break for just this one donation. So technically, he just cost the American people $158m, while he gets all the glory for being a philanthropist. Not Knight's fault, just a flawed system.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:07 PM ^
well the idea there is that a donation is removed from your taxable income to some degree to encourage charitable donations. It's not like Phil Knight pocketed $158 million, he just effecively lost $400 million. That's the same flawed thinking that gets people to shop because they 'saved $500!!!'....by spending $6,000
So either the government gets $158 million from Phil Knight to benefit the people..or one of our very finest universities gets $400 million to benefit the people. I don't see what the issue is. This is a good thing
February 24th, 2016 at 4:29 PM ^
Yes, you saved thousands, you also spend tens of thousands you ignorant idiot!
February 24th, 2016 at 5:16 PM ^
That's actually a great explanation. I was flawed in my thinking. Not to mention that 100 students per year with a Masters will have a higher taxable income for the rest of their lives, so Uncle Sam still gets his. Thanks man.
February 24th, 2016 at 6:27 PM ^
Few things irritate me more than people complaining about how other people complain
February 24th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^
A little 50K my way couldn't hurt
could it?
February 24th, 2016 at 3:11 PM ^
I'd be down with 5k. Very down.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^
The entire U.S. higher education system is becoming more and more a cash scam every year. And it really is a terrible shame. But what to do about it is very difficult to identify. As such, someone giving money to a university - any university - is OK with me. In a world full of Shit Sanwiches, a week-old tuna sandwich from a gas station ain't all that bad...
February 24th, 2016 at 3:44 PM ^
Plus one FauxMo for your insight and for reminding me of one of the funniest graffiti lines I ever read in a college library bathroom (admittedly thirtysome years ago when bread was slang for money) . "Life is like an s.... sandwich, the more bread you have the less s ..... you eat. "
I think Phil Knight's donation is pretty epic, and is truly likely to the world. a better place. Imho tuition at most schools is too expensive these days. BTW, when Stanford was founded, it was free tuition for the first few decades with generous grant upon which the school was founded. Hope they put this money to good use.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:49 PM ^
Without having to give the lengthy speech about the worthy degrees, there's tons of BS's that are BS, and really have no value added.
With near endless subsidies comes near endless tuition hikes as well.
February 24th, 2016 at 4:13 PM ^
There's hope for you yet, Fidelio ;-)
February 24th, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^
Any donation to education is great, but K-12 funding right now is what is hurting. Universities have huge endowments, they can help themselves when needed. Public K-12 education gets gutted and has little to no ways to replace their funding.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:25 PM ^
You can fund K-12 education to the moon, but from what I've observed, no amount of money can solve the problem without parental involvement. Many school systems with high dollar per student expenditures don't enjoy success. You need someone to make children understand the importance of education and require them to do the work that is necessary to make them succeed. Even with good teachers, that effort doesn't come from the school but from the home.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:39 PM ^
Having non-corrupt politicians help.
Michigan doesn't have non-corrupt politicians, so welp.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:54 PM ^
Sure, we have those on Aisle 7 with our unicorns, elves, Smurfs, and clean Ole Miss recruiters.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:52 PM ^
I suspect your downvotes might have come from people who sometimes suspect this point of view is an excuse to avoid directing more funding to failing schools in high-poverty areas, i.e. "you're just throwing money down the drain because the parents aren't pushing their kids to learn." I don't read that in your comment at all, though. I think at least half of what kids achieve in school owes to their household, not the school.
That said, completely favor spending the bucks on public schools and paying whatever property taxes are necessary to fund it (though I think property-tax funding is a stupid way to fund schools because it guarantees huge disparities, that's another issue).
February 24th, 2016 at 4:17 PM ^
My point had nothing to do with playing politics over school funding. I have observed over what is starting to become more years than I want to admit to that throwing more money at a problem is not always the means to achieve a solution. You need an adequate amount of funding to ensure the presence of sufficient resources but I'm firmly of the opinion that educational success comes from parental support and accountability and it starts at an early age. It's about making young kids watch Sesame Street instead of a cartoon and reading a book instead of a video game and making sure your kids do homework and be accountable for a lousy report card.
I cannot think of too many things that a parent can give his or her child than a good education and that, IMO, is an instance where you reap what you sow.
February 24th, 2016 at 3:16 PM ^
The state of Louisiana could probably use it more.
Too soon?
/kind of joking, kind of not
February 24th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
There are two ways to give to charity. One is to give to causes that relieve immediate needs and suffering, such as your Louisiana suggestion. Another is to give to causes that prevent future suffering, which seems to be the intent behind the Knight gift. I don't think it's possible to say that one is better than the other.