←back to thread

280 points dargscisyhp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.44765789[source]
UCLA has an endowment of 3.8bn$. Whilst I'm sympathetic to their desire to be further government financed for the work they do, I feel like government financing should be made available to those that actually need the money. The attitude that you have access to government funds even if you have the ability to pay yourself needs to change.
replies(8): >>44765839 #>>44765844 #>>44765941 #>>44765982 #>>44766058 #>>44766567 #>>44766832 #>>44768509 #
1. tzs ◴[] No.44766832[source]
Endowments are not piles of money that they just sit on. Universities typically spend 4-5% of their endowment every year. The endowment is invested and managed to try and make that 4-5% a year spending sustainable indefinitely.

If the policy was no government funding if you have an endowment the net result would be that endowments would be spent down, and then not only would they need government funding for the things the government now funds, they would also need government funding for the things that are currently funded from the endowment's earnings.

Also, money in endowments is often legally restricted. Donors put conditions on their donations which limit what they can be used for. For example a donor might donate several million dollars to create and pay the salary of a named professorship in a specific department. That money goes into the endowment, but it and its earnings can only be spent on paying whoever currently holds that professorship.

A typical endowments includes hundreds or thousands of such restricted donations.

replies(1): >>44766975 #
2. m101 ◴[] No.44766975[source]
I don't think there's a problem with spending an endowment down, however university administrators do, and that's a emotional step they need to get over.

Agreed on restrictions and would be good to know how large the unrestricted part is.