<p>For everyone's reference: <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908051.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908051.html</a></p>
<p>Notice that their are nine private schools (non ivy too) listed before a public is.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think it's fair to say that one's choice of whether or not and how much to donate reflects the experience they had at the school. There are some people who refuse to donate because they hated it or donate scads of money because they loved it, but there are also people who choose to donate to causes that they deem to be more worthy or who just aren't the giving kind. Also, not everyone is wildly successful and has thousands to spare for charitable giving each year, regardless of the relative prestige of the name on his or her degree. I'm not sure if this is how it is calculated or not, but if the rate of giving is calculated by the percentage of alumni who donate, a small private school and a huge public school could both have 10,000 alumni donate and the private school's percentage is going to be a lot higher. I think that public school grads in many instances have the same potential to earn high salaries as private school grades, but you cannot forget that there are thousands more graduates each year from the average public compared to the average private and there are only so many lucrative jobs available.</p>
<p>"but you cannot forget that there are thousands more graduates each year from the average public compared to the average private and there are only so many lucrative jobs available."</p>
<p>If you want to use this argument then you're essentially saying that these (limited) lucrative jobs only go to private school grads or go to them in significantly higher numbers; suggesting a difference in post-grad opportunity. If there are many many more public school grads, and if they have the same opportunity of wealth attainment, then it follows that public school donations should be higher that privates. Period. Or at the very least, on par with that of privates. But it's not even close.</p>
<p>I'm not suggesting that there isn't the same potential for wealth attainment coming from a public school, but that the disparity is too great for that explanation to cover.</p>
<p>Yes, and the next 10 are mostly public. I did mean to change my statement to Top 20 but the time elapsed before I got back to it. Also UW would be in there at #3 but did not report this year.
You also did not answer the point that say in California most UC grads already give to the UC through income and other taxes paid to the state. Some feel that is enough and it is the state's responsibility to fund the UC.</p>
<p>"Some feel that is enough and it is the state's responsibility to fund the UC."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the California State Legislature and the Governator might beg to differ as their contributions to the UC dwindle further. The UC Regents meet almost quarterly it seems to discuss and approve fee hikes. Of course, it IS the state's responsibility to fund the UC's, yet with their income from the state shrinking every year, UC alumni support is needed now more than ever. And yet they're reluctant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to use this argument then you're essentially saying that these (limited) lucrative jobs only go to private school grads or go to them in significantly higher numbers; suggesting a difference in post-grad opportunity. If there are many many more public school grads, and if they have the same opportunity of wealth attainment, then it follows that public school donations should be higher that privates. Period. Or at the very least, on par with that of privates. But it's not even close.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one said they necessarily have the same opportunity. There is something to be said for having the name of an elite institution on your degree as well as the connections that you establish through choosing that course of study. Proportionally, due to the selectivity that elite private schools enjoy and the relatively wealthy backgrounds the average elite private school student boast, there are going to be more qualified candidates for lucrative positions graduating from private schools each year than publics, but that doesn't mean that a private school grad automatically has greater earning potential than his or her public school counterpart. Also, the specialties of many public schools don't necessarily lead to jobs with six figure starting salaries, because the stated mission of a public school (or at least mine) is to educate the people of the state so that they in turn will work for the better good of the state. Believe it or not, the corporate world is not the end all be all. You're not going to have people who graduate from the top Journalism, Education, Social Work, etc., programs making top dollar, but that doesn't mean that they are any less adequately prepared to excell in their field than those graduating from programs that historically lead to high salary positions. However, qualifications aside, they're not going to be in a position to donate megabucks to their school. That doesn't mean that they didn't appreciate their college experience.</p>
<p>The problem with endowments at public institutions is that if the endowments get big enough, the state will either cut funding or eliminate all funding altogether. Donating to a state school is almost self defeating.</p>
<p>"but that doesn't mean that a private school grad automatically has greater earning potential than his or her public school counterpart."</p>
<p>I agree. </p>
<p>"because the stated mission of a public school (or at least mine) is to educate the people of the state so that they in turn will work for the better good of the state. Believe it or not, the corporate world is not the end all be all. You're not going to have people who graduate from the top Journalism, Education, Social Work, etc., programs making top dollar, but that doesn't mean that they are any less adequately prepared to excell in their field than those graduating from programs that historically lead to high salary positions. "</p>
<p>If anything, state institutions because of their large size, will most likely offer more specialized, preprofessional, lucrative degrees than privates. Berkeley, Michigan, and Virginia all have top 10 business schools. Seven of the ivies and Stanford have no business school at the undergraduate level. Alternatively, it's not as though privates don't offer these less lucrative majors either. Two of the ebst journalism schools in the country are t USC and Penn, which both rank higher than any public in alumni giving. The top public school grads should be able to command as much top dollar as their private counterparts. </p>
<p>I agree that having a big name degree on your resume is a boon. However, Berkeley's as big of a name as Johns Hopkins. Michigan is as big of a name as Brown. Why can't these two (and others) solicit as much as their private counterparts?</p>
<p>"The problem with endowments at public institutions is that if the endowments get big enough, the state will either cut funding or eliminate all funding altogether."</p>
<p>The state, or at least California, is cutting funding anyway. Private donations are needed to fill this void.</p>
<p>themegastud, I don't know whether this is a cart before the horse kind of issue. Maybe the state is also cutting funding because the endowments are fairly high to help offset the state cuts. If the endowments were much lower, maybe the cuts would be less too.</p>
<p>Well, the state is cutting UC funds because its own budget is stretched so thin. The UC's endowments haven't really appreciated singificantly in past 5 years and yet state funding has dropped precipitously.</p>
<p>Actually the UC's got a nice bump in funding this year. Also I see UCLA and UCSF on that top 20 list.
Also UCLA has set-up it own foundation outside the UC System and it has shown huge growth.</p>
<p>Wisconsin had similar growth going from $1.028 Billion in 1998 to $1.955 Billion in 2004. Michigan and Virginia also have large rapidly growing endowments. Most state schols are just getting started in this area.</p>
<p>And if you want to talk success--two schools are tied for the undergrad source of the most S&P 500 CEO's Harvard and Wisconsin. The largest corporation in the US is headed by a UW grad--Exxon. I know he just announced his retirement but he is still in charge this week.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0145.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.bus.wisc.edu/news/0145.asp</a></p>
<p>The UC's have gotten a bump in fundthing this year... but not from the state government. Also, according to your data, UCLA received $76 million from alumni in 2003 <a href="https://island.fim.ucla.edu/foundation/aboutus/reports/03/financial.html%5B/url%5D">https://island.fim.ucla.edu/foundation/aboutus/reports/03/financial.html</a>. In 2004? $34.4 million. Less than 50% of the previous year! By contrast, a single USC alumnus last year gave $52 million to USC - more than all of UCLA's alumni combined. Bear in mind, this is only a single alumnus as I cannot find the statistic which shows USC's alumni giving rate for 2004.</p>
<p>That was a cool link, btw. I hope you don't think I'm debating the notion that public grads are less successful, becuase I certainly don't subscribe to that. I'm simply puzzled as to why their alumni giving rates are so out of line with private counterparts.</p>
<p>At private schools, fundraising has always been more important. It's indoctrinated into the students and their families from the day of acceptance. Public schools have, for the most part, avoided this. Recently this has changed, where I went to undergrad fundraising was never that huge a thing. A new President came in and he's raised over a billion dollars in the last 5 years, so the publics are starting to do this. </p>
<p>Also, the people who go to private colleges, especially the elite ones, tend to be wealthier. Their dad was rich, he went to this school, so, his kid should go to this school. This kid already knows the right people and has the connections and has an advantage over everyone, including the poor students at the same school. And, he's gonna give to the school to get his kid in. Because, as good as these colleges are, all these rich kids would never, for the most part, get in on merit alone and their parents know that. They want them to go there, so they give great sums of money guaranteeing them a spot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet another example of how little you seem to know about this. Many illegal immigrants take jobs for $1/hr because they are not afforded the protection from worker abuse that legal residents are. They're actually a good example of hardworking people that struggle financially.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Answering me with personal insults? I think you're the one that has demonstrated that you know little about the subject. Have you ever actually travelled in a Third World country? Have you ever actually seen truly starving people with your own eyes? Probably not, and until you do, I don't think you have much standing to talk about what true poverty is all about. The fact is, I have actually travelled to famine-struck areas. I have seen people literally dying of starvation. Now THAT, my friend, is real poverty. To compare the American poverty level to that is simply grotesque. </p>
<p>Look, the simple fact is that billions of people around the world would absolutely love to trade places with the American poor. Does that mean that it's fun to be a poor American? Of course not. But it's a whole lot better than being a poor Chinese or a poor Indian, or a poor African, or a poor South American. Perhaps you'd like to experience the lifestyle of a poor person in America, and then the lifestyle of a poor person in China or India, and then you can come back and tell us which one you would prefer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Many illegal immigrants take jobs for $1/hr because they are not afforded the protection from worker abuse that legal residents are. They're actually a good example of hardworking people that struggle financially.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the real reason why they take those kinds of jobs is perfectly simple. Those illegal immigrants take those jobs because they are better than what they could get back home. Yes, those jobs are bad. But what's available back home is REALLY bad. If things were actually decent at home, then they would obviously have no reason to take those bad jobs in America. And that's exactly what I'm talking about - even the worst jobs in America are still better than what is available in many places in the world. If that weren't true, there would be no illegal immigrants. </p>
<p>Or let me put it another way. There are many Mexicans that illegally cross the border to take bad jobs in the US. But there aren't too many poor Americans that illegally cross the border to Mexico to find work. Why not? Simple. Because although being poor in America is obviously no picnic, it's still better than working at a bad job in Mexico. If that weren't true, then thousands of Americans really would be trying to get into Mexico to find work. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You said the reason there weren't many people that benefitted from Harvard's financial aid system was because they were raised by lazy and unmotivated people. But clearly, government statistics show that there are more poor (bottom 12.5%) people that do work than those that do not. You were basing your assumptions on a minority of the poor, making it very clear that your initial comments were out of line, no matter how much you try to backpedal now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How am I backpedaling? I am not only not backpedaling, I am actually "front-pedaling". </p>
<p>The fact is, your statistics are wrong. You cited the unemployment rate and the poverty rate. Yet the fact is, looks like you don't understand how the unemployment rate is calculated. The unemployment rate is calculated based on the number of people who are ACTIVELY LOOKING for work who can't find it. If you are not actively looking for work, then you are not considered unemployed, according to the government statistics. Don't believe me? Read about it yourself. It's on the US Census pages. </p>
<p>Hence, you are using the statistics the wrong way. The people who are in poverty include plenty of people who are simply not looking for work (and hence are not considered unemployed according to the government). Hence it is categorically false that over half of the people who are in poverty are working. As Sowell showed himself, in the bottom 20% of all American households, the majority either don't work at all, or only work a fraction of the time, contrasted with the top 20% of all households, where almost all of them work fulltime. Again, Sowell gave you the Census Table, read it yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And do you have statistics about these poor Asians or are you just making assumptions without doing your research? I think you'd be surprised at how many poor Asians struggle academically, despite the Asian culture's emphasis on education's importance (the lack of which, btw, does not translate to "lazy and unmotivated" for other cultures).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You want stats? You got 'em. Read the book Ethnic America by (who else?) Thomas Sowell, on the chapters on Chinese-American and Japanese-American history. </p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, linking to a conservative website? Not the best way to make your argument. At least go for an objective source next time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're saying that Sowell is not objective? He is far and away one of the most respected social scholars of our times, and his research is generally unimpeachable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, no one's saying there <em>isn't</em> a correlation between hours worked and income, just that it isn't as absolute as you think it is. Full-time on minimum wage gets you $10,500 a year. Work 80 hours a week and you net a cool $21k. A far cry from the doctors and investment bankers you used as the example of people you know that work those kinds of hours.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I ever say that it was absolute? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that it was an absolute link. I said that there was a correlation, and that is undeniable. </p>
<p>You keep harping on this minimum wage thing. The fact is, the majority of people who are making minimum wage are either part-time workers or teenagers (usually both), and certainly there are very few people who are working 80 hours a week on minimum wage (which I suppose would take holding down 2 full-time jobs, both at minimum wage). If you have that sort of work ethic and drive to really work 80 hours a week, you can almost always find something that will pay you more than minimum wage. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And just out of curiousity, do you personally know anyone living under the poverty line? Making less that $40k/yr even? It's always easy to badmouth a demographic that's faceless to you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll do you one better. I happen to personally know people who have lived under the "poverty line" in Asia, in Africa, and in the Caribbean. And I have seen true Third World poverty with my own eyes. In fact, I have spent some part of my life trying to fight it. Once you see Third World poverty, and you know people who have underwent that, believe me, American poverty pales in comparison. You say that I'm ignorant about poverty - well, have you ever seen worked to combat Third World poverty? Have you ever seen Third World poverty with your own eyes? </p>
<p>Look, the simple fact of the matter is that America does not have the ravages that cause poverty in the Third World. Poor Americans aren't beset by famines, disease epidemics, civil wars and the like. In America, a lot of poverty (again, not all, but a lot) really can be explained by behavorial reasons. For example, you know and I know that there really are a lot of poor parents who just aren't very interested in their children's future. That's why you have the problems of deadbeat dads. That's why you have so many problems with illegitimacy and teen pregnancy in poorer neighborhoods. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote entire books about these problems, and he's no conservative. Even people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, none of them conservative, have publicly declared that there are strong cultural and behavorial reasons for poverty - that poverty is not just about having little money, but is also, to some extent, determined by your behavior. The fact is, some poor people (not all, but some) really are poor because they really truly don't want to work and they don't have self-discipline and self-responsibility. Again, not all poor people, but it is undeniable that some really are like that. </p>
<p>This is not about 'blaming the victim', but merely about talking about today's social problems frankly. I support programs that serve to improve people's self-discipline, work-ethic, and responsibility. Poor children who don't have good role models to follow should be given such role models. Deadbeat dads who refuse to support their kids should be forced to do so. The point is, there are a lot of attitudinal and psychological factors at play when talking about what causes poverty. I don't think anybody seriously dispute that.</p>
<p>Jesus Christ you can't drop anything can you? I NEVER said poor Americans had it worse than poor people in other countries. But the fact is, poor people in developing nations were never part of the discussion here. You just chose to randomly throw them in. For what reason, I don't know.</p>
<p>Now since you apparently lack the maturity to drop an OT discussion even when I offered to take it somewhere else (how old are you again?) I'll be the one who's enough of a grown-up to stop. Have fun arguing with yourself sweetie.</p>
<p>Ok I'll be honest, I don't want to discuss this with you in another thread even though I offered (It's almost painful to read through your essay-long posts. Try being more concise please). So here's the last thing I'll say on the matter.</p>
<p>I checked the Census data, and you're right, a majority of people in poverty do not work. However, that majority is 51.4%. Meaning roughly half of the people below the poverty line DO work. I said it once and I'll say it again - you were completely out of line in stating that the reason not many poor children go to college is because they have lazy and unmotivated parents. You initially did not have a "well I'm only talking about some poor people" caveat (hence, the backpedaling). At best your statement applies to half of the poor students in the US, and I'm sure the other half would be deeply offended by you insulting their families. You have to admit it was wrong of you to say that.</p>
<p>A side note about minimum wage: Many minimum wage workers work multiple part-time jobs, which is effectively a full-time commitment. Employers do this because part-timers are not entitled to the employee benefits full-time workers would be. </p>
<p>Lastly, I think you'd be surprised at how much I agree with you. I'm relatively right-wing when it comes to the economy. However, I took issue with you insulting an entire demographic like you did. We have family friends who live near the poverty line. They are the most hardworking people I have met. The fact that their children had to go to community college had NOTHING to do with a lack of drive on the parts of their parents. To top it off, supporting yourself with off-hand observations of "ghetto people" certainly didn't present you as any more sensitive to the plight of the working poor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now since you apparently lack the maturity to drop an OT discussion even when I offered to take it somewhere else (how old are you again?) I'll be the one who's enough of a grown-up to stop. Have fun arguing with yourself sweetie.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you say you're going to stop by declaring it publicly? What's wrong with this picture? If you really wanted to stop, you could and should have simply not replied at all. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I NEVER said poor Americans had it worse than poor people in other countries. But the fact is, poor people in developing nations were never part of the discussion here. You just chose to randomly throw them in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not 'randomly' throwing it in at all - but to illustrate a very basic point, which is that poor Americans could be having it a LOT worse than they do. Plenty of people around the world would LOVE to trade places with a poor American. This is particularly relevant when we're talking about those poor Americans who are poor because they don't want to work. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I checked the Census data, and you're right, a majority of people in poverty do not work. However, that majority is 51.4%. Meaning roughly half of the people below the poverty line DO work. I said it once and I'll say it again - you were completely out of line in stating that the reason not many poor children go to college is because they have lazy and unmotivated parents. You initially did not have a "well I'm only talking about some poor people" caveat (hence, the backpedaling). At best your statement applies to half of the poor students in the US, and I'm sure the other half would be deeply offended by you insulting their families. You have to admit it was wrong of you to say that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What the heck are you talking about? I am not only not wrong, I am completely right. When over half of all poor people do not work, I think that qualifies as "many" poor people. Many does not mean all. If I wanted to say 'all', I would have said 'all'. I said 'many'. And even you have to admit that when over half of them are not working, that is many of them. </p>
<p>To those who are poor and who are working, you should have the good sense to know that I am not talking about you. One If you take umbrage over a comment that is not even directed at you, that simply betrays a level of inappropriate supersensitivity. </p>
<p>But I said it before, I'll say it again, many poor people are poor because they are not working, and while some of them don't work because they truly can't, many others don't because they don't want to. Hence, there are indeed many poor children who aren't motivated because their parents aren't motivated. That's an undeniable fact. Again, I never said ALL of them are like that. Obviously some are not. But many are. That's an undeniable fact. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I took issue with you insulting an entire demographic like you did. We have family friends who live near the poverty line. They are the most hardworking people I have met. The fact that their children had to go to community college had NOTHING to do with a lack of drive on the parts of their parents. To top it off, supporting yourself with off-hand observations of "ghetto people" certainly didn't present you as any more sensitive to the plight of the working poor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How did I insult an entire demographic? Did I say that 'all' of them behaved a certain way? No, I said that many did. Many does not mean all. However, as you have seen yourself in the Census data, many poor people truly do not work fulltime. That's the truth. Why are you trying to deny the truth? It's the truth. It's a painful truth. But it's still the truth. Even if you don't like saying it, you and I both know that many poor children are never taught the value of education, self-discipline, and hard work, and that's why they don't do well later in life. </p>
<p>Personally, I think a frank and honest discussion of what is really happening in poor neighborhoods is far more sensitive and compassionate than pretending that certain behaviors and attitudes don't exist, and pretending that there aren't strong cultural and psychological factors at play. Let's face it. A lot of poor kids don't have the academic records to compete for a school like Harvard simply because their parents are irresponsible and just don't give a damn about them. I know that's harsh, but that's the truth. Pretending otherwise doesn't do anybody any favors.</p>
<p>You know, I think the poor people in this country are poor because society forces them to be poor. Is it such a coincidence that blacks and latinos proportionally make up the largest contingent of those living under the poverty line? America has a history of trying to put down minorities and making them eat dirt. Ever since the beginning of slavery, we have strongly discouraged blacks from learning how to read or to educate themselves. It was only quite recently that Americans have officially stopped to discourage blacks from learning. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that white teachers give preference to white children in the classroom and label the blacks and latinos as a lost cause. It's something they do on a subconcious level. </p>
<p>I find it extrememly amusing when the privileged blame the poor for being poor. It's society that creates the problem of poverty in the first place, and most of the blame for the problems of the poor rests on the shoulders of those conservative white folks who are so quick to label the poor as lazy good-for-nothings. The situation is tantamount to a gangster who beats a girl so badly that she becomes crippled, and then blaming and laughing at her for not being able to walk. You think the poor, predominantly black and latino populations are just lazy and unmotivated? Or do you think it's because we rubbed their noses in dirt for so long that we made them who they are?</p>