That 7% from rich people, where does it go?

Let’s say the school decides they have enough money without that 7%. They figure out they don’t need to be that rich. Does that mean they can’t do more institutionally or does it mean they can’t do more organizationally (which is just get bigger, more heads, more money)? What does it really mean for them to suddenly become ethical and say they don’t want that blood money anymore?

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. It’s a follow the money situation, and it’s important to figure out who is beholden to that 7% when it comes into their system. If we find out it’s the giant cafeteria building, then maybe we settle for a smaller one. But if we find out it’s making certain people fat in the pockets, then you’re on to something.

——

Aside, society should really start encouraging the most talented to consider the ethics of institutions they go to. Whether that be Palantir or Stanford. Legacy admissions is just straight unethical, and Stanford students need to protest this.

▲

musicale 6 days ago | parent [-]

Stanford presumably determined that the loss of donation money would be greater than what they would have to spend to cover financial aid without help from Cal Grants.

▲

ivape 6 days ago | parent [-]

You are not reading what I'm saying acceptingly. I am suggesting the math they did only helped them conclude they would have less money. It did not lead to a conclusion that they can't keep being an elite institution servicing and creating high level academics at fair prices while still being profitable and growing financially. Very roundabout way of suggesting they are greedy at their core.

	▲	musicale 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"Follow the money" is a good point. Universities spend an enormous amount of money, and it's often hard to see what it's actually being used on. Stanford has so many administrative staff that they built a separate campus for them in Redwood City. https://redwoodcity.stanford.edu
	▲	6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]