<p>
</p>
<p>RH stole from the tax collector to give back to the taxpayers. What these rich schools should be subject to is paying their fair share of property taxes to pay for the public services that support their considerable acreage footprint. </p>
<p>Quoting Blue Bayou post:</p>
<p>SM2L: I also think that some of the colleges which are just a tier below the top could do more to raise their endowments…</p>
<p>BB: Do you really believe that they are not trying? Seriously?</p>
<p>SM2L: It seems they were less than thrilled with aspects of their experience.</p>
<p>BB: Or, perhaps – and more likely – the families are just less well off to begin with in comparison with those that attend the highly selective schools.</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe that they can do better in some ways. They might start by reading student reviews of their college experience and make some changes accordingly. Some changes wouldn’t cost them anything and others would be relative small compared to the benefits. Not only would the students be happier, but applications would increase and thereby their selectivity and ratings. </p>
<p>The colleges I have in mind actually have fewer low income students than the top colleges and offer much less financial aid to the majority. Their tuition and room and board are no different from the top ones. I do believe, as studies have also proven, that happy alumni for the most part will do what they can to give back. </p>
<p>Adding to above:</p>
<p>Of course they’re trying. I just think some aren’t doing some of the things they could or should. The time to put the effort into alumni donations is while the students are attending the college. In my opinion, the alumni should be actively involved with the students and doing things to foster a relationship between the two. The alumni know well the things which should be changed and they should be able to have a say with the administration about needed changes. Changes can be made, students are happier, they already know some of the active alumni, and then after graduation when they receive the requests for donations, they’re more likely to respond positively. Sounds like a better scenario than ignoring students’ needs and treating them poorly in some ways while they’re students and then sending them requests for donations hoping they’ll be generous. What example have they been shown?</p>
<p>GMT, Robin Hood in Texas had nothing to do with the Sherwood original. ;)</p>
<p>This concept is exactly what I had stated in a previous thread - if people think that wealth distribution from rich families to poor ones is currently inadequate to maintain a healthy society, this applies more so to these institutions. Take the college 1%ers like Harvard, levy a 40% tax on their multi-billion dollar annual income and ship it off to educational institutions at the other end of financial spectrum. You can have an account funded by the wealthy universities, and the poorer ones can file a form showing they have given admissions to x students, have y employees, and only have z dollars in the bank, and they get entitled to draw money based on that.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Should Harvard pay the bils at UMass? Should Stanford fund the follies of Cal? </p>
<p>That is plainly nuts. Thankfully, so nuts that such plan would not go beyond the first line of lunatics. </p>
<p>Poor colleges should be closed. Period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not??? Isn’t this what colleges are already doing to its richer customers with a HIGH TUITION/ HIGH AID pricing model? It’s utter hypocrisy on their part if they don’t want to apply the same kumbaya redistributionist philosophy to themselves.</p>
<p>
This is exactly the point that I was trying to make that GMT stated so much better. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t mind seeing large corporations who are sheltering money in other countries throw some support to public colleges and given tax incentives to keep the money here stateside. After all it wold be a win win situation if they had better educated future employees and it would help make college affordable for the average income family. It is rather shameful to see corporations such as GE not paying any taxes due to loopholes by keeping corporate offices in Europe.</p>
<p>@artrell :</p>
<p>One problem is that many big multinationals don’t see their fate tied in with the fate of the US any more. Back in the day, Henry Ford believed that paying his workers more was good for business as they would then have the money to buy his cars. These days, Walmart is still heavily tied to the fate of the US, but many multinationals are not.</p>