6 ms·

UCLA has a $10B endowment. I find it bollocks that they and these other academic institutions can't just dip into that for their researchers to (hopefully) ride

by parkaboy 11mo ago

UCLA has a $10B endowment. I find it bollocks that they and these other academic institutions can't just dip into that for their researchers to (hopefully) ride out the current funding situation at a minimum.

intermerda 11mo ago
[flagged]
- veggieroll 11mo ago
  The vast majority of people talking about how big university endowments are don't care what the rules are on it. It's not that people don't know how endowments work; they just find the rules to be bullshit to justify universities continuing the status quo.
- dang 11mo ago
  Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dekhn 11mo ago
It's not bollocks, the endowments are contributions that have constraints on their spending. They cannot legally redirect much of the endowment towards these researchers in the way you want. Instead, they use the endowment as an investment that produces interest which is spent on operating expenses.
- tgma 11mo ago
  The way you describe it as if a widow is reaching out to interest from a nest egg to get by and I got a little tear. But since I do know better: - some of these endowments grow over time to infinity. - that's tax-free gain/interest and any hedge fund would kill to get that special treatment. As long as they have such special tax treatment, it is only fair they should stay in line with a framework that taxpayers provide.
  - dekhn 11mo ago
    No endowment grows over time to infinity; that's hyperbole (and impossible). The tax-free status - that's definitely something that could be changed by updating the laws (legislative). That sounds a lot better than the executive division starving UCLA of funds.
    - tgma 11mo ago
      - Infinity is not a number. "To infinity" means grows without bounds (under the current underlying system; now I do agree the system will at some point adjust.) - Politics operates in reality, not ideals. There would never be such a legislation without a forcing function like this.
- eviks 11mo ago
  Is this just a general dismissal or so you know the actual number? > They cannot legally redirect much of the endowment Since endowments at top universities are huge, they don't need much. So how much before it's "illegal"?
bad_haircut72 11mo ago
Maybe Tao cares about the long term health of the university, is against the policies that are hurting it (and the entire country if USA loses its top position as desirable academic hub) and wants to use his fame for something useful

intermerda 11mo ago

[flagged]

veggieroll 11mo ago
The vast majority of people talking about how big university endowments are don't care what the rules are on it. It's not that people don't know how endowments work; they just find the rules to be bullshit to justify universities continuing the status quo.
dang 11mo ago
Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dekhn 11mo ago

It's not bollocks, the endowments are contributions that have constraints on their spending. They cannot legally redirect much of the endowment towards these researchers in the way you want. Instead, they use the endowment as an investment that produces interest which is spent on operating expenses.

tgma 11mo ago
The way you describe it as if a widow is reaching out to interest from a nest egg to get by and I got a little tear. But since I do know better: - some of these endowments grow over time to infinity. - that's tax-free gain/interest and any hedge fund would kill to get that special treatment. As long as they have such special tax treatment, it is only fair they should stay in line with a framework that taxpayers provide.
- dekhn 11mo ago
  No endowment grows over time to infinity; that's hyperbole (and impossible). The tax-free status - that's definitely something that could be changed by updating the laws (legislative). That sounds a lot better than the executive division starving UCLA of funds.
  - tgma 11mo ago
    - Infinity is not a number. "To infinity" means grows without bounds (under the current underlying system; now I do agree the system will at some point adjust.) - Politics operates in reality, not ideals. There would never be such a legislation without a forcing function like this.
eviks 11mo ago
Is this just a general dismissal or so you know the actual number? > They cannot legally redirect much of the endowment Since endowments at top universities are huge, they don't need much. So how much before it's "illegal"?

bad_haircut72 11mo ago

Maybe Tao cares about the long term health of the university, is against the policies that are hurting it (and the entire country if USA loses its top position as desirable academic hub) and wants to use his fame for something useful