Education, free or not?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 6:27 am

Absolutely.

Originally posted by Aegis
I think we have to keep in mind that some of the best education is received outside of the class room, in the real world.

Well said, Aegis. However, these stuff that we learn outside the classroom make us a better person, unfortunately it does not necessarily mean that it would make us qualified for jobs that require a certain level of competence on a certain field of expertise.

But yes, there are people with their doctorates and masters plastered on their foreheads yet they fail to understand the grander scheme of things.

josh · Post by **josh** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 6:28 am

Down here, the payment for fees for the educational institutions before university can be lessened if you have difficulty paying it.

At university, students can choose to defer their fee payments and start to pay it back when they start earning above a certain amount as tax. University isn't free but fees can be paid back at a later date. I personally like this system.

GandalfgalTTV · Post by **GandalfgalTTV** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 9:25 am

Over here, the first years are free, except for a small donation. And when you reach the age of 16 you pay about $1000 a year. Which will be paid by the government if you don't have the money to do so.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 11:12 am

I just typed this all up and lost it! Arg! Trying again.

@ C Elegans: How interesting that you use the terms "greed" and "egotism" to indicate that my system could not work - because (IMO) it is precisely "greed" and "egotism" which would promote my system.

Because, as I have said, if a person sits down and thinks about their society, and their community, and they determine that properly funded educational facilities are in their best interest, and they decide to contribute to them -- then they have acted in a "selfish," "greedy," "egotistical" manner, have they not?

Take everybodys favorite example of "big business." Big business is "greedy," right? Interestingly enough, though: it is always the biggest companies who contribute the most to non-profit organizations. Well, that is true here in the US - I don't know about Europe. Where I come from, one of the biggest companies around is Target (it has a whole chain of hundreds and hundreds of stores across the US), and they pay out HUGE sums of money each year for "charity" or "cultural endeavors." They even contribute to a cute little avant-garde dance troupe that I frequent, and keep the price down for me.

Why? Because it is good business! It gets their name plastered on all sorts of "good" things, and people come away with a good opinion of them, which then produces better customers. Pretty greedy and egotistical of the company, right? You betcha! And look at the fine results of that greed.

Now would that money (as you fear) have some negative impact on ciriculum? Would the wealthy dictate what is taught and learned? I don't know, but I don't believe so. In my opinion, money that comes from the government may have more "strings attached" than money from private sources. The way I see it, government has the ability to tell schools how to teach - they have standards, and laws, and guidelines. I do not know that money from private sources would have this kind of power. But, again, I do not know. Certainly, large companies today contribute to funding of certain programs (drug research is big, I guess), but is that bad? Maybe you have more insight on this subject than I? (You being in academia, and me just an engineer.)

You use the term "cynical" to describe your view and to cast doubt on the practicality of my system ("my system" - that sounds really wierd, but you know what I mean). I agree. I agree that your view is cynical, and I agree (as I have said) that at this point in the philosophical development of the world, my system would not work.

This is all a rather acedemic discussion, then.

But I am glad to have had the opportunity to expound on my views, and to have heard others. It is important that we discuss and question, and I hope that some of my views, while seemingly outlandish, make you at least look at things from a new angle.

I would especially like you to reconsider your concept of "greed" and "egotism." Perhaps it is worth a new thread?

On that note: I concede the point regarding Soviet culture, with only one caveat: you mention writers, but didn't the Soviets jail the most famous writers? Again, I really have a hard time seperating out "achievements" in a state such as the Soviet Union, when so much evil was perpetrated on people who did not believe in the system. In any event, I accept your more authoritative view on the subject.

Whew!

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 8:26 am

Originally posted by C Elegans

It's my personal revenge at you for never posting part III of the parts v whole questions

I am sorry about that and flattered that you remember.

I will try and get it done.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 10:11 am

Originally posted by Tom

I will try and get it done.

Looking forward to that whenever it happens!

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 10:23 am

Take everybodys favorite example of "big business." Big business is "greedy," right? Interestingly enough, though: it is always the biggest companies who contribute the most to non-profit organizations. Well, that is true here in the US - I don't know about Europe. Where I come from, one of the biggest companies around is Target (it has a whole chain of hundreds and hundreds of stores across the US), and they pay out HUGE sums of money each year for "charity" or "cultural endeavors."

Corporations can be very big donors to non-profits, and there are federal laws giving them significant breaks for setting up foundations to do so. All of this information is publically disclosed, so you can actually find books about all federal and state grants programs, along with their sums awarded in previous years, and the subject of those awards, at your local library. If this information isn't available there, it can be requested directly from the individual corporation. (I became very familiar with these books when I was first a public radio station manager, and later a grantswriter for a few years.)

However, most corporations don't contribute to non-profits: the image of corporate greed is, alas, all too accurate. And there are more than a few who have established dummy non-profits to absorb most or all of the cash provided on a yearly basis by the corporations, thus receiving the tax breaks established for corporate charitable foundations while contributing little to the community, itself.

On that note: I concede the point regarding Soviet culture, with only one caveat: you mention writers, but didn't the Soviets jail the most famous writers? Again, I really have a hard time seperating out "achievements" in a state such as the Soviet Union, when so much evil was perpetrated on people who did not believe in the system. In any event, I accept your more authoritative view on the subject.

The sheer amount of artistic development in the Soviet Union was staggering. It was early recognized as an area where a nation that had been ignored for very long could shine, and the government made a concerted effort to develop and push arts with massive funding and psychological support: if you were a good opera singer, composer, playwright, etc, you were being patriotic, and you could (and frequently did) receive state awards in the same manner that the British hand out OBEs to celebrated artists. To that extent (and that extent alone), the Soviet Union was a meritocracy. It rewarded the development of such gifts, and it used education and promotion to press for their appearance.

Yes, artists could be jailed for subversion, or simply for the most stupid of misunderstandings; although a more typical form of punishment was simply being sidelined into a deadend job without recognition. It was a one-party system, with all the benefits and drawbacks of such. The ability to completely remake a society went hand-in-hand with the lack of political freedoms. Nearly all political historians agree that the "Bolshevik experiment" couldn't have made the kind of changes it did to a completely failed aristocratic bureaucracy if the more gradual, democratic program of the Mensheviks had been adopted, instead.

At the current time, under a sort of unrestrained capitalism, there is no money for teachers, and there are no public schools. The very wealthy can afford private schools, where some of the public school teachers now teach. The state is trying to regain a sense of pride in its accomplishments, but it doesn't have the money to push that. In short, the educational dream, however skewed in realization under the Soviets, is completely gone under a system that acknowledges the only people who deserve schooling are those who can afford to pay for it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Feb 05, 2002 8:23 pm

Today, we shall all learn that popular dance step, the Bump and Grind.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 2:34 am

I hate when that happens Lazarus, good you made the effort to do all over again!

Originally posted by Lazarus
@ C Elegans: How interesting that you use the terms "greed" and "egotism" to indicate that my system could not work - because (IMO) it is precisely "greed" and "egotism" which would promote my system. Because, as I have said, if a person sits down and thinks about their society, and their community, and they determine that properly funded educational facilities are in their best interest, and they decide to contribute to them -- then they have acted in a "selfish," "greedy," "egotistical" manner, have they not?

Whereas I agree with you that acting out of greed and egoism often makes people contribute to society as a whole since they are the society, I see a problem in the combination I mentioned I my former post: greed, egoism and the common human lack of long term perspective. I fear many people would not see the benefits of contributing to an educational system, if it wasn't directly beneficial to them. Some people don't think education is important at all, especially not beyond compulsory level. And what about education for children with special needs? Many children with disabilites or other conditions will never be able to contribute to society's economy, on the contrary they will consume medical care and special social services. Still, their education will be much more expensive than ordinary kid's. So who will fund their expensive special teachers, equipment and other facilites?

Take everybodys favorite example of "big business." Big business is "greedy," right? Interestingly enough, though: it is always the biggest companies who contribute the most to non-profit organizations. Well, that is true here in the US - I don't know about Europe.

A problem is that big business mostly make contributions for goodwill, just as you describe. If it is to be profitable for the company they must donate to causes they believe will look good in the eyes of the consumers. And what will look good to the consumers is often things that have got a lot of media attention. Less catchy areas may suffer, the problem might be similar to what is discussed in this thread.

Now would that money (as you fear) have some negative impact on ciriculum? Would the wealthy dictate what is taught and learned?

All education systems contain elements of indoctrination since the very purpose of education is to make us all suitable and profitable citizens and willing to work and perhaps even sacrifice for the society we live in. I don't necessarily think a privatly funded school would have a more "weighted" curriculum than a governmentally funded, but whereas the goverment has been democraticly elected and thus represents the will of the majority, a small aristocracy of very wealthy people has not necessarily any foundation at all in the wishes of most people.
And again, my (theorietical) worries are about groups in society that are largely invisible, minorities, challenged, groups that don't have wealthy spokesmen.

Companies providing for education programs is IMO a good idea, here, this is common mainly in the tech industry. However, these programs are usually limited to what the company in question have a demand for, they are always applied (at least here). Now, we all know that a vast majority of the important discoveries and innovations comes from basic research, not applied. So scientific education would still need to be paid for by somebody - but basic science is risky business, it is often very slow in progressing and it's very expensive in some fields.

you mention writers, but didn't the Soviets jail the most famous writers?

Fable has of course already answered to this, but a note about Michail Solochov, the author of "Quiet Don". Solochov was awarded both the Lenin and Stalin price in literature in Soviet, and he got personal permission by Stalin to portray the Civil war as he did (his description includes negative images of both sides). He was later awarded the Nobel prize in literature. For years, I avoided reading his works despite my big interest in literature, mostly because I had the idea that it must have been "communist propaganda". Not so. Quiet Don is a magnificent work, regardless of whether is was used as propaganda or not by the Soviet state.

Let me conclude this with a little anecdote about a friend of one of my friends - it's one of his closest friends, so I don't doubt it's true: This guy has his own business, and he earns good money from it. Without doubt, he would belong the group who would pay the maximum 57% income tax, if he paid any tax. But he doesn't, instead he takes "black" jobs and uses every loophole in the law he can find in order not to pay any tax at all. Instead, he devouts a percentage (about 30% I think) of his incomes to charities of his choice. He donates money to research, to organisations for disabled, rehabilitation of drug addicts etc. He also works as a volonteer with rehab of youths with criminal records and/or drug addiction, and he takes a lot of money out of his own pocket to organise activites for youths and children. Now, this guy seems to have entered the philosophy that would make "your" system work!

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 6:28 am

Originally posted by fable
Today, we shall all learn that popular dance step, the Bump and Grind.

Fable and gratutitous bumping? *Tut*

J/K.

My thoughts on this vary. When I look at Britain's system, I can understand why lower level schooling is free. It's important and will help. When I look at college's and 6th forms I understand too why they are there. College will provide more vocational skills and 6th form more academic skills.

It's University's that puzzle me. I can understand why they charge the amount they do, but I don't really like it. It doesn't attract anywhere near as much students as they would like. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to University, I feel that it's best option but I have very academic and talented friends who want to go, but can't because either they can't afford it (even with financial aid) or they need to go out and earn money because they want too...

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Wed Feb 06, 2002 7:40 am

Why the rich can get quality teachers...

I do believe and I surely wished that quality education (and that means also getting excellent teachers) should not only be made available to those of the upper strata of society.

But teachers are people too who also have families to think of, and bills to pay.

Personally, I do not have the ambition to earn millions and millions of moolah just to tell my son that I have finally made it in life. I would like to be the best teacher that I can be.

But somehow knowing that one is not well compensated for the QUALITY of work that he renders surely makes one think of working somewhere else... or end up still where he is but his work is not done at its best (at times even mediocre).

What I'm trying to say is, I'd rather have problems and spend time trying to make my lessons much better and challenging for my students than having problems and a lot of time just figuring out how to make ends meet. Afterall, it's easier to think when your stomach isn't empty.

I don't want my family to go hungry, and I want my son to be equipped with the necessary tools for him to survive in this world on his own - and a good education is one of them.

Maybe teachers do not have to be paid A LOT in terms of monetary value, but I wish that we teachers would get those extra privileges like free (tertiary level) education for our children, discounts in grocery items, medicines, health services, etc.

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 12:51 pm

I wholeheartedly agree with whoever posted about the after 7th grade thing, but I'd personally go with 8th grade.

I think there should be high school entrance exams, like in other countries, and if you don't pass, you have to repeat 8th grade. I mean, there are too many dummies in high school who just aren't ready for it. And they fall so far behind that they just give up and just sit there and distract people all day long.

I myself am smart, and very eager to learn. I easily pcik up things, but too many times in Spanish and English class the kids act up so bad that the teacher can't get a thing done. We are still on Chapter 2 in Spanish, while other classes are in Chapter 7 or 8.

I mean, if these kids don't want to be there, then why do they have to be? all they do is hold everybody up. For the people that want to learn, we just can't. And it's not our fault.

I don't understand why people try to be such troublemakers. Maybe they should just stay home.

In my Algebra class, about five of us out of twenty are actually passing. Not to brag in any way, but I never get below a 90 in this class. I am constantly studying and urging others to do so too, which is why I don't post that much anymore. I'd rather get good education than waste my last years of adolescence goofing around all the time. I don't consider spamming to be goofing around though, since you guys are mature enough to discuss something.

If you look at foreign countries school, like say Japan. (Only Japan because I know quite a bit about it.) Their school days are quite long, they may start around 8 and get out at 3:30. At least that is what I was told. A few schools around the world start around 7 and get out at 4:30 or 5:00. As you can see school is supposed to be an important part of a person's life. That is why I study so much. If these people can study a lot why can't I?

I have to run now. I have to study for a Chemistry quiz (Blech) on naming Polyatomic ions, and it is fill in the blank so it will be quite difficult. See you all later!

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Thu Feb 07, 2002 1:07 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Back in the early 80s, when Department of Education budgets began getting slashed for other programs, the number of teachers per school was cut. Our school system had a number of people (mostly men) who were hired exclusively to be sports coaches, especially football, baseball and basketball. When the budget cuts came down of the top, some teachers were let go and the coaches were told they had to teach something in order to keep their jobs. Usually, they ended up teaching world history, American history or pre-algebra.

Some of the coaches turned out to be fabulous teachers, but in most cases they didn't know the defensive line from the Maginot Line. As a result, they taught whatever the book told them to teach (even if it was wrong). I know a lot of people who absolutely detest history and when I ask them if their high school history teacher's first name was "Coach", they usually say yes.

My history teacher, that happened to him too. He teachers America History now, very well too, but he used to coach basketball... he's a very smart guy and they couldn't have picked a better guy for the job.

Though he sounds like he's from the Mafia.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 2:35 pm

Sorry to bump this, but a few things left to be said.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Whereas I agree with you that acting out of greed and egoism often makes people contribute to society as a whole since they are the society, I see a problem in the combination I mentioned I my former post: greed, egoism and the common human lack of long term perspective. I fear many people would not see the benefits of contributing to an educational system, if it wasn't directly beneficial to them. Some people don't think education is important at all, especially not beyond compulsory level. And what about education for children with special needs? Many children with disabilites or other conditions will never be able to contribute to society's economy, on the contrary they will consume medical care and special social services. Still, their education will be much more expensive than ordinary kid's. So who will fund their expensive special teachers, equipment and other facilites?

@C Elegans: Ah! This paragraph has a few great points to answer. Remember back in my previous post that my view of people is: they have the ability to think? You seem to disagree. Now, now – I know you have directly stated that you agree that people can think, but your above statement belies that position. You say that humans “lack a long term perspective.” Do they? Do I? Does fable? Do you?

If you say: “Yes, we all lack proper long term perspective,” then taxes will not help in any event, since the government is simply made up of people like you and me and fable.

If you say: “Well, no not everybody lacks proper long term perspective,” then what you have said is: there are certain people who do not deserve the chance to choose the allocation of their money.” Instead, you are implying: the majority of people are ignorant, and must be forced to do the right thing.

Personally, I view the latter position as the first step towards statism (and, what is essentially the same thing, dictatorship). You would have the “masses” believe that they do not have the “proper perspective,” and that they should not be given the freedom to keep what they have earned. Do you see the implications of this? Will you be the one to say how I should spend my earnings? By what right?

I only ask you to really and truly examine the philosophical implications of your view on taxes: it is not simply a matter of taxes providing all sorts of “good” things. Tax money does not come from nowhere. It is earned by individuals, through hard work and perserverance. If you take what they have earned, you have turned them into slaves.

Originally posted by C Elegans
A problem is that big business mostly make contributions for goodwill, just as you describe. If it is to be profitable for the company they must donate to causes they believe will look good in the eyes of the consumers. And what will look good to the consumers is often things that have got a lot of media attention. Less catchy areas may suffer, the problem might be similar to what is discussed in this thread.

Reading through that link, I would only lend my voice to yours when you say: “Then the next moment, I think what HLD writes: it's not the purpose of the entertainment business [to raise social awareness]. And it shouldn't be either …” This is exactly the same issue as we are discussing above: either you are willing to leave the entertainment industry free to choose what it will do, or you wish to take the position of an “Entertainment Czarina,” and tell them that they are free to make money only so long as they do so in (what you consider) a morally respsonsible and community-minded manner.

Don’t forget: the entertainment industry only respsonds to consumer demand (IMO, though one can make the “chicken-and-the-egg” argument about this). As such, it may not have a great deal of “choice” about what it shows. A film-maker can certainly make every attempt to produce something “meaningful” or “socially conscious,” but maybe such things are not being done because people do not want to see them - ? Will you be the one now to tell people what they should want to see on TV?

Do you see the trend here? Do you understand that by wishing to “elevate” people’s thinking, you are put in the position of demanding or forcing them into action? Again, this is just the first step towards a dictatorial stand on all issues.

Originally posted by C Elegans
All education systems contain elements of indoctrination since the very purpose of education is to make us all suitable and profitable citizens and willing to work and perhaps even sacrifice for the society we live in. I don't necessarily think a privatly funded school would have a more "weighted" curriculum than a governmentally funded, but whereas the goverment has been democraticly elected and thus represents the will of the majority, a small aristocracy of very wealthy people has not necessarily any foundation at all in the wishes of most people. And again, my (theorietical) worries are about groups in society that are largely invisible, minorities, challenged, groups that don't have wealthy spokesmen.

I disagree with you when you say that the “purpose of education is to make us all suitable and profitable citizens and willing to work and perhaps even sacrifice for the society we live in.” Egads! Maybe in Nazi Germany! No, I attend college because I wish to learn and because I know that I will be able to live more comfortably if I earn a degree. I don’t care one whit about being profitable to the society. Nope. But, you should also note that merely by trying to be the best person I can, I will be of benefit to society. Take my boss (he actually has some of the same ideas I do about taxes), but he employs 50 some people. He provides a living to each of these people’s families; he builds engineering systems which help people do whatever it is that they are trying to do (and so do I!). We are contributing to society, if you wish to justify our existence that way – I don’t.

I like your bringing up the point about the government being democratically elected. You may think from what I have written that I am anti-government. Let me assure you that this is not so. I believe that a government is of primary importance to a society, and that it must be democratic in nature. I simply believe that it should be much, much, much less pervasive.

Your worries about: “invisible, minorities, challenged, groups” is well-taken. Do you think that these people are served properly in today’s society? I don’t, but I don’t think taxes will change this. It gets back to the same fundamental view of people: either you wish to leave them free to choose, or you wish to tell them how they may be of service to others.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Companies providing for education programs is IMO a good idea, here, this is common mainly in the tech industry. However, these programs are usually limited to what the company in question have a demand for, they are always applied (at least here). Now, we all know that a vast majority of the important discoveries and innovations comes from basic research, not applied. So scientific education would still need to be paid for by somebody - but basic science is risky business, it is often very slow in progressing and it's very expensive in some fields.

Agreed. My same arguments apply here: leave it up to people decide what they wish to research. People will make the right choices, if you give them the chance.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Fable has of course already answered to this, but a note about Michail Solochov, the author of "Quiet Don". Solochov was awarded both the Lenin and Stalin price in literature in Soviet...

My literary background is limited: I’m an engineer! But what Russian stuff I have read may not be “propaganda” – it’s just depressing. Bleak. Sad. Anyway, as I said, I’ll take back my comments on the lack of Soviet culture.

Originally posted by C Elegans
Let me conclude this with a little anecdote about a friend of one of my friends - it's one of his closest friends, so I don't doubt it's true: This guy has his own business, and he earns good money from it. Without doubt, he would belong the group who would pay the maximum 57% income tax, if he paid any tax. But he doesn't, instead he takes "black" jobs and uses every loophole in the law he can find in order not to pay any tax at all. Instead, he devouts a percentage (about 30% I think) of his incomes to charities of his choice. He donates money ...

Ah! Thanks, CE!!!

Here is my last comment on the subject: would you rather live in a world like the one this guy is building (and where he belongs); or would you rather live in a world where people are told they are too ignorant to know what is good for them, and further told that they must sacrifice their possessions and their lives for the good of others? That is, truly, the two possibilities here. Freedom or slavery. Choice or dictatorship. All other issues (education, the poor, minorities, the disabled, entertainment, etc) are determined by your fundamental choice of human nature: are we capable of directing our own lives? If not …

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Feb 08, 2002 2:37 pm

Originally posted by fable
Corporations can be very big donors to non-profits, and there are federal laws giving them significant breaks for setting up foundations to do so. All of this information is publically disclosed, so you can actually find books about all federal and state grants programs, along with their sums awarded in previous years, and the subject of those awards, at your local library. If this information isn't available there, it can be requested directly from the individual corporation. (I became very familiar with these books when I was first a public radio station manager, and later a grantswriter for a few years.)

However, most corporations don't contribute to non-profits: the image of corporate greed is, alas, all too accurate. And there are more than a few who have established dummy non-profits to absorb most or all of the cash provided on a yearly basis by the corporations, thus receiving the tax breaks established for corporate charitable foundations while contributing little to the community, itself.

@ fable: hmmmm. I hate to do this, but I am just going to say that my anecdotal evidence cancels out yours. I don’t doubt that you have some basis for your statement that “corporate greed” is a fact; I also know that there is solid basis for my statement that corporations are generous in their contributions.

Final point: don’t misunderstand me: I do not believe that giving is a virtue, nor that corporations are somehow morally obligated to give money away, nor that such donations are the primary benefit of such companies. My point is only that corporations can and do contribute sums of money each year that individual donors could not hope to match.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 1:56 pm

Sorry!

Sorry to bump this, but I need it handy for people reading the "Government and taxes" thread.

Sorry!

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 3:17 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus

@ fable: hmmmm. I hate to do this, but I am just going to say that my anecdotal evidence cancels out yours. I don’t doubt that you have some basis for your statement that “corporate greed” is a fact; I also know that there is solid basis for my statement that corporations are generous in their contributions.

But my views on this, at least, are not based on anecdotal evidence. I worked in this field. I *had* to know who was offering money, for what purpose, with what conditions attached, and how much was being distributed, both nationally, and statewide. And I can tell you that on the national level, and in at least a couple of states, many corporations provide either nothing, or next to nothing. It's there, in print, at your library. Simply ask a reference person where you can view the latest books (they're issued annually) on federal and statewide grants and foundations.

Final point: don’t misunderstand me: I do not believe that giving is a virtue, nor that corporations are somehow morally obligated to give money away, nor that such donations are the primary benefit of such companies. My point is only that corporations can and do contribute sums of money each year that individual donors could not hope to match.

No argument by and large with your last point, though there are (and always will be) exceptions. However, I do believe that people with a great deal of wealth are morally obligated to support the educational and/or cultural life of the communities they reside within. No one gains by hoarding and denying others the opportunities to develop educational and critical facilities.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 3:36 pm

Originally posted by fable
But my views on this, at least, are not based on anecdotal evidence. I worked in this field. I *had* to know who was offering money, for what purpose, with what conditions attached, and how much was being distributed, both nationally, and statewide. And I can tell you that on the national level, and in at least a couple of states, many corporations provide either nothing, or next to nothing. It's there, in print, at your library. Simply ask a reference person where you can view the latest books (they're issued annually) on federal and statewide grants and foundations.

"Federal and statewide grants and foundations" - ? I thought we were talking about privite investment and donations? Maybe I am not understanding your point.

I quickly thought up two of the biggest baddest corps that I know, and did a check on their websites:

Target

And The Gap

Now, as I have said: these companies donate to look good, and no doubt their websites may make an attempt to emphasize these charitable acts. Nevertheless, even if but a tithe of what they claim makes it's way into the communities they claim to support, it is far, far more than you or I could contribute.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:00 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus

"Federal and statewide grants and foundations" - ? I thought we were talking about privite investment and donations? Maybe I am not understanding your point.

But when you write,

Take everybodys favorite example of "big business." Big business is "greedy," right? Interestingly enough, though: it is always the biggest companies who contribute the most to non-profit organizations.

...the way in which corporations contribute to non-profits is through grants and foundations. Occasionally they'll give small donations-$500 to a local public television station, $100 to a local charity, etc--but we were discussing this in the context of much larger amounts than nearly any individual could contribute. And that money is always funneled through the administrative system of grants and foundations to 501c3 non-profits, so that it is properly accounted for and furnishes a corporate tax break.

I quickly thought up two of the biggest baddest corps that I know, and did a check on their websites:

I don't know what's so big or bad about the Gap or Target, but perhaps it would help if we determined what you meant by those terms.

Now, as I have said: these companies donate to look good, and no doubt their websites may make an attempt to emphasize these charitable acts. Nevertheless, even if but a tithe of what they claim makes it's way into the communities they claim to support, it is far, far more than you or I could contribute.

Yes, but I've never denied the point, so why make it again? Corporations can and do provide more money than most individuals manage to non-profits; but very few corporations actually do this, when compared to the sheer number of highly successful ones.

As an example, were you aware that until a very few years ago, Bill Gates had a "no donations" policy at Microsoft? Neither he, nor his company, gave a red cent back to the US community, despite the fact that at the time, Gates was (and remains) the wealthiest man on the planet, and Microsoft one of the most successful and wealthiest worldwide corporations. I consider that morally obscene.

(As a side anecdote, I should mention that a couple of personal friends work in the very large hotel/casino outfit run by Siegfried & Roy in Vegas. About eight years ago, Gates was the "honored guest" at COMDEX, the world's biggest computer convention, and S&R were handling the Microsoft account. Gates and wife got the free Presidential Suite. They arrived with tons of luggage. I was there, when a messenger came to my friends, passing the word among the staff (and word spreads swiftly by this underground method) that Gates had stiffed his bellboy.)

It was only after Microsoft began attracting negative national attention for its monopolistic practices (onlya decade or so late), and Ted Turner shamed him publically, that Gates began realizing he could reap PR rewards from giving back an infinitesimal sum of the gross profits Microsoft makes in a year. But for years they didn't do it, and most corporations still don't.

Curry · Post by **Curry** » Thu May 13, 2010 4:32 am

Of course all education should be entirely free. If it is not in your country, you're living in a third world country.