Philanthropy to university became an issue in Gladwell's podcast. Simple as beautiful, Gladwell's topic can be concluded in one sentence, I believe. 'Should philanthropists donate their money to prestigious universities like Harvard and Standford, or to less prestigious universities like Glassboro state university?' It is quite controversy debate topic, with some ironic dilemmas, which make hard to answer. But, according to my opinion, allocating philanthropy to the prestigious college is much beneficial than another choice. Through this post, I'll explain why based on 'biological perspective'.
Before I start, I want to stress out that society itself is a fluid model, just like organic structure. Since society is run by with humans and their activities, we can't analyze and estimate society is purely run by economic principles, like cause and effect or supply and demand. So I believe only insisting 'social equalities' doesn't work at all. We should concede some inequalities, especially in the status of each university. Gladwell should concede Stanford or Harvard is much successful and potential than colleges like Glassboro or Vassar(But I don't mean such universities are more inferior than others).That is why we should vision society with a fluid model, and focus our topic through biological perspective. Anyway, what I wrote on this blog is purely my 'own' opinion, so it is your choice to accept or not.
Many animals, especially mammals, tends to pursuit benefits but avoid risks. Maximizing merits but minimizing de-merits is one of the most frequent strategies in the ecosystem. Term 'optimal foraging model' can be a good example for this phenomenon. Optimal foraging model means that natural selection would prefer species that maximize benefits but minimize the costs, and animals will evolve to satisfy this status. Whenever animals face certain situations, they naturally choose choice with 'higher success rate' than others. WHY? Simple. There are no creatures on Earth wants to work more and earn less. If there is, it will perish. This can be a selfishness, but anyway, it is a principle in nature. The reason why I'm mentioning biological principle in this post is, public, sponsors, or philanthropists are mankind. They can't free from this principle at all, I believe.
For philanthropists, donating fees for universities is one kind of selection. I don't believe it purely derived from altruism. Most of the philanthropists wish their philanthropy effectively aid students. In other words, they are investing in student's potential. So it is natural that philanthropists are focusing more toward famous universities like Stanford, Yale, and Harvard. As I mentioned before, this is purely based on their biological choices. It can't be criticized, it can't be blamed. It is 'natural'. Without a doubt, prestigious universities graduate more potential students than other universities. Compare the influence between Stanford and Glassboro in society. Even though Stanford already have the tremendous of money, but Stanford will not disappoint philanthropists in results. It is trust. It is obvious that prestigious universities have trust to public. Philanthropists will not regret their donations since they know they money were used for well. No one regrets when their choices are stable and potential enough.
I'm not blaming Glassboro. I'm not criticizing 'un'-prestigious universities are not compatible for philanthropies. It's just a choice, but I'm just disagreeing Gladwell.
For philanthropists, donating fees for universities is one kind of selection. I don't believe it purely derived from altruism. Most of the philanthropists wish their philanthropy effectively aid students. In other words, they are investing in student's potential. So it is natural that philanthropists are focusing more toward famous universities like Stanford, Yale, and Harvard. As I mentioned before, this is purely based on their biological choices. It can't be criticized, it can't be blamed. It is 'natural'. Without a doubt, prestigious universities graduate more potential students than other universities. Compare the influence between Stanford and Glassboro in society. Even though Stanford already have the tremendous of money, but Stanford will not disappoint philanthropists in results. It is trust. It is obvious that prestigious universities have trust to public. Philanthropists will not regret their donations since they know they money were used for well. No one regrets when their choices are stable and potential enough.
I'm not blaming Glassboro. I'm not criticizing 'un'-prestigious universities are not compatible for philanthropies. It's just a choice, but I'm just disagreeing Gladwell.
But it is clear that the big top universities have more money than they can possibly spend. Are they using their donations? Not exactly. They couldn't even if they tried as they simply are drowning in money. That's the issue. And why would Nike donate to Stanford? There's a selfish reason tied to status and brand name recognition. Stanford is a brand. It will elevate the status of anyone attached to it. This isn't about a good cause so much as a proud cause. Glassboro is simply the girl nobody wants to date. But what if someone gave her a makeover? What if Stanford lent her a dress and some makeup? What if we were willing to look more at seeing money being used rather than sat on? Interesting arguments you have, but admittedly you acknowledge how tangled it is. Good.
ReplyDelete