Slashdot Mirror
Michael Bloomberg Donates Record $1.8 Billion To Johns Hopkins University; Donation Will Be Devoted Exclusively To Undergraduate Financial Aid (go.com)
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University. The gift is believed to be the largest ever to an academic institution. The money is earmarked for scholarships and grants for undergraduate students from low and middle-income families, Mr. Bloomberg, 76, said through a press release. The gift will enable Johns Hopkins to become one of just a handful of need-blind schools -- meaning students will be considered for admission regardless of their ability to pay. Currently, 44% of Johns Hopkins students graduate with some form of debt averaging $24,000. From a report: As a direct result of the endowment, Johns Hopkins will be able to permanently commit to "need-blind admissions," which will admit the highest-achieving students from all backgrounds, regardless of their ability to pay, according to the university. In addition, the Baltimore-based school will be able to offer no-loan financial aid packages, reduce contributions for families who qualify for financial aid, provide "comprehensive student support," and increase the enrollment of Pell grant eligible students, which will "build a more socioeconomically diverse student body," Johns Hopkins said in a statement. In an op-ed published in The New York Times, Bloomberg wrote: America is at its best when we reward people based on the quality of their work, not the size of their pocketbook. Denying students entry to a college based on their ability to pay undermines equal opportunity. It perpetuates intergenerational poverty. And it strikes at the heart of the American dream: the idea that every person, from every community, has the chance to rise based on merit.
I was lucky: My father was a bookkeeper who never made more than $6,000 a year. But I was able to afford Johns Hopkins University through a National Defense student loan, and by holding down a job on campus. My Hopkins diploma opened up doors that otherwise would have been closed, and allowed me to live the American dream. I have always been grateful for that opportunity. I gave my first donation to Hopkins the year after I graduated: $5. It was all I could afford. Since then, I've given the school $1.5 billion to support research, teaching and financial aid.
I was lucky: My father was a bookkeeper who never made more than $6,000 a year. But I was able to afford Johns Hopkins University through a National Defense student loan, and by holding down a job on campus. My Hopkins diploma opened up doors that otherwise would have been closed, and allowed me to live the American dream. I have always been grateful for that opportunity. I gave my first donation to Hopkins the year after I graduated: $5. It was all I could afford. Since then, I've given the school $1.5 billion to support research, teaching and financial aid.
The data suggests otherwise.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're welcome to go work for the college at a reduced rate so that they can lower their costs. I'm guessing that whatever company you work for admits or maintains customers on the basis of their ability to pay.
The line from the summary indicating that "Currently, 44% of Johns Hopkins students graduate with some form of debt averaging $24,000" which assuming that it's saying the other 56% graduate with no debt at all, would suggest that students who attend that college graduate with significantly less debt on average than students at most other universities.
If the U.S. education system is broken it is precisely because it will gladly loan anyone money to go to college regardless of their likelihood of being successful there, the ability for their degree to allow them to earn a living or pay back their loan, or any other sensible metric. Given the surprising number of college students who cannot even pass the high-school level math courses necessary to take college algebra, I suspect that these loans are being given to people who have no real understanding of compound interest or who have given any thoughts as to how their degree might enable a career. It is morally reprehensible to shackle young people with a debt that they cannot discharge through bankruptcy.
I don't mind rich guys making a show out of doing a big donation, or engaging in feel good rich man's hobbies. It beats them using their money to buy political favors or spread misinformation that furthers their goals. Better Bloomberg and Gates than Soros.
How about the Koch brothers? They buy political favors and spread misinformation, but you're all "meh, don't care."
Ohhhhh, I get it. The Kochs aren't jewish. And they're on the "right" side.
Soros is one millimeter to the left of center – politically – and he's jewish, so that makes him a bad guy when he donates to Dem candidates.
And you don't care who Bloomberg and Gates donate to because they're not donating to Dems. Or Republicans, but mostly that they're not donating to Dems.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Clinton Democrats OTOH did not.
Folks keep mixing up the right wing of the Democratic party with the left. They are not.
For example, Nancy Pelosi is not a member of the left. The actual left is currently trying to oust her from her speakership, and they tried to primary her but she had so much cash she buried her primary challenger.
Listen to Bernie. To Liz Warren. To Ro Khanna. They're the left, and they're trying to unite the working class for better pay, universal, guaranteed as a right healthcare, clean air and water and worker's rights.
You're right about the Clinton Democrats though. They behave like the GOP 90% of the time, so the only thing they've got to run on is phony social issues. Like the actual GOP all they've got is identity politics and fat sacks of cash from their donors. Don't fall for it. There's a real left, and they're the party of the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The article you linked to makes a terrible mistake in that it looks at funding per student instead of the overall cost. I'd suggest this article in the NY Times which does a good job of explaining the flaws in the reasoning in the article you've presented. I'd link to other articles, but you have a tendency of dismissing the source without bothering to read it so you get the Times, which if you could successfully dismiss as "right wing" would constitute such an amazing display of mental gymnastics that even the fucking Russian judge would have to give you a 10.