The whole point of an endowment is to support whatever it was created to support in perpetuity. They do that by investing the endowment and using most of the income from those investments to support the endowment's mission, and a small part to grow the endowment over time.
Penn is spending around $1 billion/year from their endowment, which is a fairly reasonably amount for an endowment of $22 billion.
Penn's endowment distributed $1.1 billion last year. Endowments like this are managed to last a long time - indefinitely, even.
Penn itself is older than the United States - they're not going to start blowing through their endowment because of political trends over the last couple months (or next 4 years), even if they legally could.
As one simple example, some funds are for endowed chairs, named after donors or companies. For example, in computer science at Carnegie Mellon, we have chairs named for Richard King Mellon, Kavčić-Moura, Thomas and Lydia Moran, and more. (You can see a full list here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~scsfacts/endowed.html)
It costs a few million to create an endowed chair, and these funds can only be used to help offset salary costs for that professor (thus helping with the budget for the department) and for research associated with that professor. You can't just use all of the money in these endowed chairs for other things that people in this thread are suggesting, it's not fungible.
You know, folks on HN often re-post links to Chesterton's Fence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...), about trying to understand how things are done and why, before tearing things down and potentially causing more problems. I'd highly suggest the folks in this thread that are exhibiting a lot of anger about academia keep Chesterton's Fence in mind. Yes, academia has problems (as do all human institutions and organizations), but the amount of good academia offers is quite vast in terms of advances in science, arts, education, public discourse, startups, and more.
I once encountered an endowment fund that was restricted for use in a defined scholarship. This was problematic because that scholarship could only be given to students of a specific race. Restricting applicants in this way would be illegal under Canada's charter, so for at least a decade the funds were simply not spent. As far as I know nothing has changed.
Chesterton's Fence is also just an argument for conservatism and never changing anything because there is no end to the argument that you don't really understand how things are done and why. Maybe "Academia" does need a bit of a wakeup call. You're lumping in a whole lot under academia and it's not really clear what portion of "academia" and academia dollars are linked to those outcomes you're talking about.
You're attacking a straw man, though. I see a lot of posts here that aren't even considering why something might be the way it is. We haven't gotten to the point where someone might do the "you don't really understand how things are done and why" goalpost-moving dance, and suggesting that of course that's how it's going to play out is unwarranted.
I mean, the initial post in this thread is just completely ignorant. Expecting a university to blow their endowment on a short-term[0] political issue is just ignorant. They spend maybe 5% of their endowment each year, because that is the safe amount to spend, as they want to be able to pull that 5% out, every year, essentially forever. Two minutes of "research" on university endowments would surface this kind of information.
[0] Four or even eight years is nothing to an institution that is older than the United States itself.
Typically, they're set up so that the income goes to a particular purpose, or so that only the income is used. For instance, a big chunk of Harvard's engineering and CS professorships are funded through a donation from a 19th century inventor of machines to make shoes. His intent was to fund professorships in "practical sciences" in perpetuity, and he had particular terms - he wanted salaries to be competitive for instance. The university can't legally spend down the principal or use the money for some other purpose.
It is a trust fund basically. From what I uderstand, the principal is nearly impossible to use/withdraw and you can only use the interest/returns generated from investing the principle.
Even that portion is also restricted. The purpose must be strictly academic and some part must be paid to the university, some must be reinvested, and then the final pieces can be used at the professor's discretion according to the rules set when the endowment is established.
So generally, you are looking at 1-2% of the total amount that can be spent annually. Still a lot, but for research, tens of millions would still not be enough for something like Penn.
At some schools the endowment returns are sufficient to cover operational expenses, which is why they can have such generous financial aid policies (effectively “not charging tuition” for those whom it would matter).
Yeah at the Ivies and equivalents the "tuition" is basically a "suggested donation" and the final bill is based on how much the parents have to give. I'm not sure about room and board.
At private schools, stated tuition is basically just a (soft) cost ceiling. The majority of students receive some level of aid, either need or merit based, or both. It's a pretty good system, if you want a mix of rich students, academically gifted students, and disadvantaged students who might succeed given the resources.
The existience of merit-based pricing is the big differentator versus public schools.
Not sure which way you’re saying the differentiator goes, but “merit-based pricing” is NOT what the top schools have. They are entirely need blind. You don’t get financial aid because you’re good at sports, you get it because you were accepted to the school and if you can’t afford to go there then they will make sure that you can attend. In fact that’s why the Ivies don’t offer scholarships - because if you can’t afford to attend, they’ll reduce your tuition until you can.
I’d call it merit-based admissions, if anything.
(Athletes can still get preference in admissions, with each team given a number of slots, but it’s totally separate from financial aid decisions. And this is actually a disadvantage compared to top, non-Ivy schools like Stanford, because a top athlete from a rich family would go to Stanford for free but would have to pay at an Ivy.)
At the very top, schools don't need to worry too much about competing to attract top students, because they're the best schools and the top students are going to be trying to get into them anyway. Private schools below that (like Stanford, USC, etc) use discounted tuition to try and convince top students to attend, leading to the merit-based tuition I described.
As the other poster mentioned, endowments / donations often come with conditions attached that significantly restricts how money from them can be used.
Penn's budget is $4.7 billion (just the university, not including the hospitals). Even with a $22 billion endowment, they can only fund a fraction of that off of investment income.
And what are you even talking about "coming back to the taxpayers"? This isn't like a sports team holding a city hostage to get a new stadium. They apply for competitive grants to do particular research projects, then they do those projects. They aren't asking for a handout, they are being paid to provide a much-needed service (health research).
Penn has a $22B endowment, and pulls around 5% out of that annually. That seems to be a reasonably safe number that will give them a good chance of at worst keeping the endowment's size constant. Sure, they can take out more every year (they'd have to take out more than 4x that to match Penn's current budget), but then their endowment would reduce in value every year and eventually run out. That would not be a good outcome.
Usually impractical and heavily politicized stuff like "colonialism studies".
Activism is not necessarily bad, but the current university environment, for some reason, seems to produce activists who are just unbelievably cringe and naïve.
The idea that you can have an economically sound career talking about historical colonialism is a bit far-fetched. There are a few authors who probably scrape by a living writing books on this topic, but that's about it (and they don't need a degree to do this). If you get one of the handful of academic jobs where you teach this topic to other students, it is something of a racket, where you are teaching students to get a degree in a field where the only job is teaching other students this topic. There is certainly inherent value in some fields that don't have a direct application, like philosophy, but can still inform other pursuits.
As for the politicization of the field of colonialism studies, generally, these sort of topics are viewed through a pseudo-religious lens today, the religion being utopianism, the idea that there can be survival and satisfaction for all. Under the utopianist worldview, practical concerns are ignored and the topic is judged under a lens of morality and dogma. That makes it an unserious field and marred by activism. Very true for many humanities and social graduate degrees. Might as well go to seminary and spend half a decade learning to be a theologian. The outcome is similar, dogmatic and removed from reality, makes it hard to transfer into a real world setting.
A lot of discuss here--sorry if my thoughts are a bit jumbled, but:
> The idea that you can have an economically sound career talking about historical colonialism is a bit far-fetched
I don't believe all careers need to have economic soundness as their pursuit.
> the idea that there can be survival and satisfaction for all
I feel that it's wrong to dispossess people of their lands and resources just because you can. I think that perspective is underrepresented in our society. I think there is usefulness in teaching "the other side" of history. I also believe a wealthy society should invest in jobs that are not "economically sound".
> practical concerns are ignored and the topic is judged under a lens of morality and dogma
What do you mean "practical concerns"? What other lens is there than morality? I don't believe morality can be dogma, but interested to hear your view.
> dogmatic and removed from reality
Present reality? No room for moral correctness or the study of it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the thread of your comment is that everyone should have an "economically sustainable job". Why is that so important?
> Sounds like a history class to me--but please tell me why it isn't..
History, in general, has always been a somewhat "activist" degree. But it's a huge area of research, and it's not _necessarily_ politically charged.
"Colonialism studies" almost always degenerate into "all civilization bad, need to destroy all humans and return to the stone age" nonsense.
That's not to say that real research in this area is impossible, this year's Nobel Prize in economics was given for the colonialism research.
> I'd be curious to see some examples.
Recent Gaza protests in Seattle, for example. The protesters were handing out communist propaganda. Not in any roundabout way, but literal Communist Manifestos. Or another example, Seattle's ex-councilmember campaigned _for_ Trump, to help speed up the "destruction of capitalist oppression" ( https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/a-big-sea... ). I can go on, with more examples, but they are mostly local to the Seattle area.
For less political examples, the "just stop using oil" protesters who keep defacing art.
> "Colonialism studies" almost always degenerate into "all civilization bad, need to destroy all humans and return to the stone age" nonsense.
How does studying colonialism lead to that conclusion? "Almost always"? Based on what survey?
> For less political examples, the "just stop using oil" protesters who keep defacing art.
The essence of protest is grabbing attention, disruption. This means inconveniencing the comfortable. I concede that I'm not sure the anti-fossil fuel protesters defacing famous art are earning sympathy for their cause.
> The essence of protest is grabbing attention, disruption.
That's not the point. The point is that shitheads think that "just stopping oil" at the drop of a hat (by 2030) _is_ an option. That governments can just "sign a treaty" and stop all the fossil fuel extraction in less time than it takes to design and build an average HVDC power line.
I actually spoke with one of their members on WhatsApp, and they do believe that.
> Sorry, what exactly is nonsense about the linked paper?
Basically, that everybody is just trying to displace poor natives with pollution.
> Dream big!
Yeah, that's the part that is cringe and naïve. Adult people kinda need learn to distinguish between dreams and reality. And actually work on improving the reality.
> Basically, that everybody is just trying to displace poor natives with pollution.
If by "everybody" you mean "Capital", then that's probably true, overall. It's how the system works.
> Yeah, that's the part that is cringe and naïve.
Pretty depressing that that is your take. Dream big, go in the right direction, get wins where you can. Better than aiming small and getting even less done. My take, anyway.
It absolutely is. Capital is appropriative. Capital destroys the natural world for growth and imposes tyranny on the working classes. So, agree to disagree.
> The violence to force that "dream" is.
Violence? You mean protests? Or policy changes that you disagree with?
The administrators, athletic coaches, and non-productive tenured professors all cost a lot, and their hands were in the pie before these students' were. By the way, the students in question are for the "activist degrees" you mentioned - they seem to all be in the humanities.
The point is that a soldier with a Javelin is a much less visible target than a big vehicle. Even if he runs just 40 meters away between the firing of the missile and its impact, any return fire aimed at the original site will likely miss him. And there can be a hundred of such Javelin-equipped soldiers in range.
But there may be cheaper and better models one day. This war has shown that ATGMs, MANPADs and their ilk have a huge potential, which means that a lot of countries and companies are going to pour resources into R&D. This usually means an overall improvement in capabilities and possibly a reduced price tag.
As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse. Russia still cannot do that, but for rich Western countries, it is an absolutely realistic option.
Have you ever humped a combat load? It sucks. You’re rolling out with 40 lbs of stuff hanging off you before we even talk sustainment.
Javelin has gotta be 40-50 lbs. Add that on. Want an extra missile? Add another 30 or so.
Now suppose you don’t run into any armor, this is why every infantryman doesn’t/won’t carry one. Maybe 1 per squad, if we want to be super aggressive maybe 1 per fireteam. But that’s now a machine gun they’ve left out, what if they really needed more suppression?
It’s a trade off and humans aren’t capable of bringing all the nice to haves to every fight. This is why there won’t be hundreds in a company.
Most of the weight is in the missiles themselves at 35 lbs (15.9kg) the targeting unit is only 14 lbs (6.4kg). So for defensive scenarios or preset ambushes the missiles could be brought in via vehicle and prestaged.
Not to go in circles here, so the ultimate point here is same as the article: there have and will continue to be a threat / counter threat environment and will continue to evolve.
What we are witnessing from Russia is not how armor should be employed. Armor is not suddenly obsoleted due to tech that’s been out for decades. That take is probably overly simplistic and wrong.
Only 14lbs for the CLU. That's HEAVY. Someone still needs to hump that around, plus the missiles. Plus all the battle rattle gear. The Army did away with the 11H MOS, so now everyone is either an 11B or 11C. Stuff gets heavy, and rarely gets lighter.
>>>But there may be cheaper and better models one day.
And when that "one day" comes around, the tank engineers will have outfitted every vehicle with Trophy-style active protection systems AND laser anti-missile/anti-drone remote weapons stations on the turrets.
>>>As an analogy: once it would be considered too expensive and impractical to equip infantry with night vision en masse.
Interesting that you mention night vision. We used to swear by equipping our infantry with IR lasers as well, for pinpoint accuracy during night combat. Now that more of our adversaries are using night vision, we are swinging back towards NOT using IR lasers because the active emission is just like the old Murphy's Law adage: "tracers point both ways".
Do you know what you call 100 Javelin equipped soldiers in a group? A target rich environment. The paper/rock/scissors idea would have mortars ranging down on that group in a flash. Try running away while humping 45lbs of gear while under mortar fire.
In no way can 100 men cover several square kilometers of terrain in anything close to an effective manner. That's roughly a company sized unit, and they "might" be able to have a 800m frontage, but that depends on how they're equipped. If they're light infantry with limited transportation, not a chance.
The tank would need to actually find the ATGM team though. It's relatively easy to detect a tank in the vicinity - they're loud and big. It's a bit tougher to spot a couple of guys in a bush (or in a ditch, or behind a wall, or in a thicket, or any number of hiding places)
Yeah a well employed heavy armor element, particularly supported by dismounted infantry and SHORAD is going to stomp an infantry element that has exhausted anti tank rocket/missile stocks. Not debating that for a second.
> I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member.
The idea is that the lack of NATO membership is just a formality. In any other aspect, Ukraine is a much more important geopolitical asset than said Latvia (with all due respect to the Latvians - I'm just imagining the way it plays out in Putin's head. Or at least the way I understand Piontkovsy here).
> If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond?
Yep. Piontkovsky even describes a potential limited nuclear strike scenario as part of the raising of stakes by Putin. AKA "are you willing to die for Narva[0]?"
I mean I find these analysis absurd, they seem based on the ideas not just that Putin is irrational but also that he knows nothing about the very things we would assume he knows about, stuff like how treaties and military alliances work.
I could totally understand some guy on the street thinking hey Latvia is nothing, if they won't defend the Ukraine then they won't defend Latvia but why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars they would otherwise rather keep out of think such a thing.
In fact I would assume his kneejerk opinion would be to believe that the only way to get all these weak nations to actually go to war would be if an attack happened on a NATO nation.
