... well, apparently you already are.
It was reported at: http://www.openthebooks.com/ivy_league_inc/ (http://www.openthebooks.com/ivy_league_inc/)
The Feds have given about $25.7B in payments to Ivy League schools. The total sum of benefits is estimated at about $41.6B. This is reported over the timeframe 2010 - 2015.
Forty billion here, forty billion there - next thing you know, you're talking about ... well, more money to the Ivy League school than sixteen states receive annually according to the info.
Here are the sites main talking points from the site. I think they sell the actual report - didn't find a way to bring it up.
QuoteKEY FINDINGS:
1. Ivy League payments and entitlements cost taxpayers $41.59 billion over a six-year period (FY2010-FY2015). This is equivalent to $120,000 in government monies, subsidies, & special tax treatment per undergraduate student, or $6.93 billion per year.
2. The Ivy League was the recipient of $25.73 billion worth of federal payments during this period: contracts ($1.37 billion), grants ($23.9 billion) and direct payments – student assistance ($460 million).
3. In monetary terms, the 'government contracting' business of the Ivy League ($25.27 billion – federal contracts and grants) exceeded their educational mission ($22 billion in student tuition) FY2010-FY2015.
4. The eight colleges of the Ivy League received more money ($4.31 billion) – on average - annually from the federal government than sixteen states: see report.
5. The Ivy League endowment funds (2015) exceeded $119 billion, which is equivalent to nearly $2 million per undergraduate student.
6. As a non-profit, educational institution, the Ivy League pays no tax on investment gains. Between FY2011-FY2015, the Ivy League schools received a $9.6 billion tax break on the $27.3 billion growth of their endowment funds. In FY2014, the tax-free subsidy on endowment gains amounted to $3.4 billion, or nearly $60,000 per student.
7. With continued gifts at present rates, the $119 billion endowment fund provides free tuition to the entire student body in perpetuity. Without new gifts, the endowment is equivalent to a full-ride scholarship for all Ivy League undergraduate students for 51-years, or until 2068.
8. In FY2014, the balance sheet for all Ivy League colleges showed $194,332,115,120 in accumulated gross assets. This is equivalent to $3.35 million per undergraduate student.
9. The Ivy League employs 47 administrators who each earn more than $1 million per year. Two executives each earned $20 million between 2010-2014. Ivy League employees earned $62 billion in compensation.
10. In a five-year period (2010-2014) the Ivy League spent $17.8 million on lobbying, which included issues mostly related to their endowment, federal contracting, immigration and student aid.
Looks like a good place to put a line through on the budget. Right after NPR gets their line.
I'm visualizing a nice tee shirt out of this ...
FED BUDGET CORRECTIONS:
NPR Funding
Ivy League College Funding
Funding to Prevent Global Warming...
Don't assume the GOP is in favor of this. They were the ones that helped the left seize the education system, helped Wall St. invest in these so-called "Schools of higher indoctrination, er education".
Trump will use it as a bargaining chip no doubt.
Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 02:34:00 PM
Don't assume the GOP is in favor of this. They were the ones that helped the left seize the education system, helped Wall St. invest in these so-called "Schools of higher indoctrination, er education".
Trump will use it as a bargaining chip no doubt.
Scary :scared: - you read my mind. I was digging a little to try and figure out who put into the budget - RINOs, Dims? It does seem like it would be elitists - those who would shun typical educations 'cause they can afford to be in the club. That can be either party. There doesn't seem to be much of a paper (or online) trail of how items are introduced into the budget. Searching.
Quote from: topside on April 01, 2017, 02:54:38 PM
Scary :scared: - you read my mind. I was digging a little to try and figure out who put into the budget - RINOs, Dims? It does seem like it would be elitists - those who would shun typical educations 'cause they can afford to be in the club. That can be either party. There doesn't seem to be much of a paper (or online) trail of how items are introduced into the budget. Searching.
Yeah, it is scary, especially when you look at the actual Bills and the attachments weighing them down, many as big as the ACA scam that no single individual ever actually read.
Which is how they sneak this shit through, by labeling some with innocuous terms like Kansas clean corn initiative, but hidden in the Bill is lawyer speak, where they say something referring to another Bill#- - - -, stating "per Legislative decision on Bill-$^(^%#%#&*- should there be any question in the matter, SB-1234^**^$%#^ covers any and all issue governing educational funds for etc etc,"
Our Legislators are lazy, they don't want to look up the bills of reference, so they sign off knowing we have no idea what was in it either.
Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 04:07:04 PM
Yeah, it is scary, especially when you look at the actual Bills and the attachments weighing them down, many as big as the ACA scam that no single individual ever actually read.
Which is how they sneak this shit through, by labeling some with innocuous terms like Kansas clean corn initiative, but hidden in the Bill is lawyer speak, where they say something referring to another Bill#- - - -, stating "per Legislative decision on Bill-$^(^%#%#&*- should there be any question in the matter, SB-1234^**^$%#^ covers any and all issue governing educational funds for etc etc,"
Our Legislators are lazy, they don't want to look up the bills of reference, so they sign off knowing we have no idea what was in it either.
I have no problem with them reading the bill out loud on the floor so everyone can hear it. If it talks about some other bill for a rider, they have to stop and read it before going on with reading the bill. This should be televised one week before being voted on. So we the people can have a say so. If they did this the phone lines and e-mail would be hot for a week.
Quote from: walkstall on April 01, 2017, 05:48:24 PM
I have no problem with them reading the bill out loud on the floor so everyone can hear it. If it talks about some other bill for a rider, they have to stop and read it before going on with reading the bill. This should be televised one week before being voted on. So we the people can have a say so. If they did this the phone lines and e-mail would be hot for a week.
Walks brings up a question that I've not thought of before. Say you have interest in a bill as it passes through congress. Is it read on the floor of the house and senate? Is that televised? And the debate on the bill - is it televised completely? Are those scheduled ahead? I've seen C-span broadcast some things but it always seems fractional - like they only show pieces. It's usually like watching paint dry as some of the congressmen go on and on (and on). But I'd like to follow at least one once just to gain the experience of the whole process to see how it might be useful on more critical bills and to examine behaviors and arguments. Thanks ahead for hints from experience on how you guys look in on things.
Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 04:07:04 PM
Yeah, it is scary, especially when you look at the actual Bills and the attachments weighing them down, many as big as the ACA scam that no single individual ever actually read.
Which is how they sneak this shit through, by labeling some with innocuous terms like Kansas clean corn initiative, but hidden in the Bill is lawyer speak, where they say something referring to another Bill#- - - -, stating "per Legislative decision on Bill-$^(^%#%#&*- should there be any question in the matter, SB-1234^**^$%#^ covers any and all issue governing educational funds for etc etc,"
Our Legislators are lazy, they don't want to look up the bills of reference, so they sign off knowing we have no idea what was in it either.
They're called riders. What happens is a congress critter will attach a rider for a pet project or idea onto another bill, often having nothing to do with the major intent of the bill, but tacked on because they know their rider would never make it through as it's own bill. Not all riders involve spending, but the majority will, as it is the expense that makes it unlikely to pass on its own. Much of the time riders by the dozens will be attached to "must pass" bills for the very reason the bill "must pass" to keep government going. These riders can be attached in either house, as long as the original bill it is being attached to is a spending bill that originated with the House.
This is why I support the idea of line item vetoes. There are so many laws put in place, so much money spent via the rider process it is absurd. As far as I am concerned, if a law or project expense cannot be passed on its own merits, it does not deserve to be attached to another bill. Line item veto power would allow a president (or governor) to axe out riders while still signing into law the acceptable, original intent parts of a bill.
Quote from: zewazir on April 01, 2017, 09:01:06 PM
They're called riders. What happens is a congress critter will attach a rider for a pet project or idea onto another bill, often having nothing to do with the major intent of the bill, but tacked on because they know their rider would never make it through as it's own bill. Not all riders involve spending, but the majority will, as it is the expense that makes it unlikely to pass on its own. Much of the time riders by the dozens will be attached to "must pass" bills for the very reason the bill "must pass" to keep government going. These riders can be attached in either house, as long as the original bill it is being attached to is a spending bill that originated with the House.
This is why I support the idea of line item vetoes. There are so many laws put in place, so much money spent via the rider process it is absurd. As far as I am concerned, if a law or project expense cannot be passed on its own merits, it does not deserve to be attached to another bill. Line item veto power would allow a president (or governor) to axe out riders while still signing into law the acceptable, original intent parts of a bill.
You'd think congress would get the pork out - the diversity of folks that don't want the pork would vet / clean up their own bills before it passed or got to POTUS. A line item veto seems so logical - wonder why it isn't available to POTUS? Say congress passes - then trump does a line-item veto, then it goes back to congress to vote on the line items - get a 2/3 majority to overcome the line item veto. A little slow but impetus for POTUS not to veto lines willy-nilly and puts a check on the pork.
Quote from: topside on April 02, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
You'd think congress would get the pork out - the diversity of folks that don't want the pork would vet / clean up their own bills before it passed or got to POTUS. A line item veto seems so logical - wonder why it isn't available to POTUS? Say congress passes - then trump does a line-item veto, then it goes back to congress to vote on the line items - get a 2/3 majority to overcome the line item veto. A little slow but impetus for POTUS not to veto lines willy-nilly and puts a check on the pork.
Pork is why some incumbents keep getting reelected.
Quote from: topside on April 02, 2017, 10:14:44 AM
You'd think congress would get the pork out - the diversity of folks that don't want the pork would vet / clean up their own bills before it passed or got to POTUS. A line item veto seems so logical - wonder why it isn't available to POTUS? Say congress passes - then trump does a line-item veto, then it goes back to congress to vote on the line items - get a 2/3 majority to overcome the line item veto. A little slow but impetus for POTUS not to veto lines willy-nilly and puts a check on the pork.
If memory serves me, both Reagan and Clinton had line item veto power for a very short time.
Congress hated losing donor money because none of their pork was getting past POTUS.
Quote from: Solar on April 02, 2017, 10:28:58 AM
If memory serves me, both Reagan and Clinton had line item veto power for a very short time.
Congress hated losing donor money because none of their pork was getting past POTUS.
https://www.cagw.org/pigbook2016
Quote from: walkstall on April 02, 2017, 10:31:26 AM
https://www.cagw.org/pigbook2016
Thanks for the reference. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Solar on April 02, 2017, 10:28:58 AM
If memory serves me, both Reagan and Clinton had line item veto power for a very short time.
Congress hated losing donor money because none of their pork was getting past POTUS.
Just bill.Reagan asked for it, but congress was too chicken sh....ed to give it to him.
Quote from: s3779m on April 02, 2017, 02:11:12 PM
Just bill.Reagan asked for it, but congress was too chicken sh....ed to give it to him.
That must have been what I remember, his fight over it. Thanks.
Quote from: Solar on April 01, 2017, 02:34:00 PM
Don't assume the GOP is in favor of this. They were the ones that helped the left seize the education system, helped Wall St. invest in these so-called "Schools of higher indoctrination, er education".
That's right. The first thing W did when he became President in 2001 was
team up with Ted Kennedy to give him everything he wanted in his education bill.
Ivy League (and other) professorships are some of the cushy jobs
washed up Democrats are given
when voters finally get fed up with them and throw them out.
Quote from: je_freedom on April 02, 2017, 09:20:43 PM
That's right. The first thing W did when he became President in 2001 was
team up with Ted Kennedy to give him everything he wanted in his education bill.
Ivy League (and other) professorships are some of the cushy jobs
washed up Democrats are given
when voters finally get fed up with them and throw them out.
Fit's the evidence - a place to land when you leave office. Many of the profs and admins are paid ridiculous salaries to pump a liberal agenda into our up-and-comers. Tell me - how did the conservatives lose the heart of the colleges and universities? I would objectively expect much more diversity - maybe 50% conservative, 50% non-conservative?
Quote from: topside on April 03, 2017, 07:35:50 AM
Fit's the evidence - a place to land when you leave office. Many of the profs and admins are paid ridiculous salaries to pump a liberal agenda into our up-and-comers. Tell me - how did the conservatives lose the heart of the colleges and universities? I would objectively expect much more diversity - maybe 50% conservative, 50% non-conservative?
That happened a LONG time ago.
Woodrow Wilson was President of Princeton University
before he was President of the United States.
(We just missed observing an anniversary.
It was 100 years ago yesterday that Woodrow Wilson
asked Congress to get America in to the World War.)
The primary method by which academia has been corrupted is money.
Big shot donors have their tax-exempt foundations
donate money to schools, with strings attached.
The money is donated on the condition that it be used to fund
chairs for the rationalization of politically correct dogma,
usually with a specific "scholar" pre-selected to occupy the chair.
Or the condition is that a particular person
be appointed to the university's Board of Regents.
That person then influences the selection of ALL professors,
and the decisions to create fields of study.
This has been going on for a LONG time.
Most of the last vestiges of conservatism
were scrubbed out decades ago.
A book by Allan Bloom,
The Closing of the American Mind documents much of the trend.
Another book, by Thomas Sowell,
The Vision of the Anointed discusses the hubris of academics.
They see themselves as godlike beings, who possess ALL knowledge,
as opposed to common people, who possess NO knowledge.
This is in spite of the fact the common people LIVE IN reality,
where academics HAVE NEVER VISITED reality!
What little conservatism is left on campuses
is found in the hard sciences,
where theories have to withstand actual testing.
And those professors have been intimidated into silence
by dogmatic administrators.
Quote from: topside on April 03, 2017, 07:35:50 AM
Fit's the evidence - a place to land when you leave office. Many of the profs and admins are paid ridiculous salaries to pump a liberal agenda into our up-and-comers. Tell me - how did the conservatives lose the heart of the colleges and universities? I would objectively expect much more diversity - maybe 50% conservative, 50% non-conservative?
Short answer...
Liberal arts degrees and Fed money, think Affirmative action. Though as Je points out, it goes back even further, like the turn of the 19th century.
Quote from: je_freedom on April 03, 2017, 06:30:15 PM
That happened a LONG time ago.
Woodrow Wilson was President of Princeton University
before he was President of the United States.
(We just missed observing an anniversary.
It was 100 years ago yesterday that Woodrow Wilson
asked Congress to get America in to the World War.)
The primary method by which academia has been corrupted is money.
Big shot donors have their tax-exempt foundations
donate money to schools, with strings attached.
The money is donated on the condition that it be used to fund
chairs for the rationalization of politically correct dogma,
usually with a specific "scholar" pre-selected to occupy the chair.
Or the condition is that a particular person
be appointed to the university's Board of Regents.
That person then influences the selection of ALL professors,
and the decisions to create fields of study.
This has been going on for a LONG time.
Most of the last vestiges of conservatism
were scrubbed out decades ago.
A book by Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind
documents much of the trend.
Another book, by Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed
discusses the hubris of academics.
They see themselves as godlike beings, who possess ALL knowledge,
as opposed to common people, who possess NO knowledge.
This is in spite of the fact the common people LIVE IN reality,
where academics HAVE NEVER VISITED reality!
What little conservatism is left on campuses
is found in the hard sciences,
where theories have to withstand actual testing.
And those professors have been intimidated into silence
by dogmatic administrators.
Thanks for the rationale and references above. I'm not seeing the "why" clearly yet. The sense I get is that there is "old money" in both the Dems/ libs hands and pubs hands (RINOs and Conservatives). The libs were more aligned with the "enlightenment" going on at the colleges and their donations and appointments managed a tipping point. The Pubs / Conservatives put their money on other concerns. So we lost many of the major colleges and universities. Later this was observed and turning these institutions was insurmountable. Rather, new colleges with conservative values were founded and maintained, but these aren't as prevalent as the schools run by the libs - many of which are funded by states and by the fed. I may have that all wrong - that's just the sense I get. It's another area I need to dig into to become convinced.
I found a survey that tallies the Dim/Lib to Pub ratio. As bad as 30:1 in some schools.
https://econjwatch.org/file_download/944/LangbertQuainKleinSept2016.pdf?mimetype=pdf (https://econjwatch.org/file_download/944/LangbertQuainKleinSept2016.pdf?mimetype=pdf)
It tries to explain how this imbalance came about, but their explanation is opaque to me.
Certainly the sciences are less subjective. However, mathematics (the hardest science - most disciplined) is full of liberals even in the conservative midwest. And anyone who stays in an academic setting will, by nature, become academic whether lib or not. We probably have a lot of Blake's coming out who've drank the cool aid. Arrogant, unyielding, irrational, and loaded with propaganda. God help us all.
The feds should get out of the university funding business and student loans. Again, leave that to the states and private industry. The states could decide the mix of ideology in the campuses they fund / run. Similarly for private funded institutions. Many of the universities are stuck because of the tenure practices and unions - that would need to change to get anything to move.
I have 30 years work experience and graduate degrees to support. So I took an adjunct position at a local community college to see how it would go. I liked it and most of the kids (that worked) liked me. But many of the kids didn't work ... and so they didn't pass. I put my heart into the class - worked at two courses for about 50 hours a week while being paid 1/3 of poverty level. There were about 35 students in both classes; I took their picture the first day and learned their names. I did 12 office hours a week in an open center where students could sit down and work with me or each other. I set the rules the first day - no late work without prior agreements. And when some asked to turn in late, I would give them an extra day and have them meet me at a Starbucks on Saturday. Most stopped asking for extra time after that. There were all sorts of ways they tried to make excuses - so many deaths in families that quarter. I think God must have had vengeance on this group of families for some reason? Anyway, I didn't even allow for sickness if they didn't call and discuss it. There were a third that breezed through, a third that never caught on (failed), and a third that worked their butts off and learned something - I spent a lot of time with that middle third.
Many instructors were great - did a great job. But there was a group that were not respected at all - didn't really teach ... just required minimal work and gave passing grades. There were also help departments for students who were "at risk" meaning that they didn't have a good work ethic. At found at the beginning of my semester that a third of my students were at risk in an algebra class. I went to the "help" and they only could take on one of the students of about 15 that I asked for because they didn't have time. I went back several times and they were always in meetings and going to conferences - they didn't seem that interested in helping the students much. It was a fake program - a facade that looked good to the management but had no teeth.
I really liked the head of the math department - a very friendly and curt, matter of fact Brit - double citizenship believe. I told him I'd like to take a job teaching there and wanted $60k a year for a standard course load and was fine with being non-tenured. He quickly replied that there were no open positions and if there were they would have to do a nationwide search. I explained that I had the credentials and lived less than two-miles from the school, but I'd be fine with competing. Moreover, I told him that there were several instructors that weren't pulling their weight. He replied that he knew about it ... and that he was helpless to change it because the unions would stop him from cutting these worthless instructors that could care less about teaching. He wished me well and said he would call if there were any openings. That was two years ago. My phone isn't going to ring, is it?
My take away was this. More than half of our students are broken - don't go to college for a reason (like to get a J-O-B) and also haven't picked up a work ethic. The ones that just blow off the work are easy to see - the ones for whom the work comes easy are just as much of a problem in the long run. But the system is failing us too. There is no competition for the best instructors to teach the kids that do want to learn. You want to figure out why the US educations are going to pot relative to the world? It's because we don't teach them with the best that we have to offer. You can thank your local lib for this mess to a degree. But it's gone on under many administrations - and there is no cure in sight.
What's Devoes doing anyway? She's supposed to be a hot-shot. I haven't heard a thing.