Penn's budget is $4.7 billion (just the university, not including the hospitals). Even with a $22 billion endowment, they can only fund a fraction of that off of investment income.
And what are you even talking about "coming back to the taxpayers"? This isn't like a sports team holding a city hostage to get a new stadium. They apply for competitive grants to do particular research projects, then they do those projects. They aren't asking for a handout, they are being paid to provide a much-needed service (health research).
Penn has a $22B endowment, and pulls around 5% out of that annually. That seems to be a reasonably safe number that will give them a good chance of at worst keeping the endowment's size constant. Sure, they can take out more every year (they'd have to take out more than 4x that to match Penn's current budget), but then their endowment would reduce in value every year and eventually run out. That would not be a good outcome.
Usually impractical and heavily politicized stuff like "colonialism studies".
Activism is not necessarily bad, but the current university environment, for some reason, seems to produce activists who are just unbelievably cringe and naïve.
The idea that you can have an economically sound career talking about historical colonialism is a bit far-fetched. There are a few authors who probably scrape by a living writing books on this topic, but that's about it (and they don't need a degree to do this). If you get one of the handful of academic jobs where you teach this topic to other students, it is something of a racket, where you are teaching students to get a degree in a field where the only job is teaching other students this topic. There is certainly inherent value in some fields that don't have a direct application, like philosophy, but can still inform other pursuits.
As for the politicization of the field of colonialism studies, generally, these sort of topics are viewed through a pseudo-religious lens today, the religion being utopianism, the idea that there can be survival and satisfaction for all. Under the utopianist worldview, practical concerns are ignored and the topic is judged under a lens of morality and dogma. That makes it an unserious field and marred by activism. Very true for many humanities and social graduate degrees. Might as well go to seminary and spend half a decade learning to be a theologian. The outcome is similar, dogmatic and removed from reality, makes it hard to transfer into a real world setting.
A lot of discuss here--sorry if my thoughts are a bit jumbled, but:
> The idea that you can have an economically sound career talking about historical colonialism is a bit far-fetched
I don't believe all careers need to have economic soundness as their pursuit.
> the idea that there can be survival and satisfaction for all
I feel that it's wrong to dispossess people of their lands and resources just because you can. I think that perspective is underrepresented in our society. I think there is usefulness in teaching "the other side" of history. I also believe a wealthy society should invest in jobs that are not "economically sound".
> practical concerns are ignored and the topic is judged under a lens of morality and dogma
What do you mean "practical concerns"? What other lens is there than morality? I don't believe morality can be dogma, but interested to hear your view.
> dogmatic and removed from reality
Present reality? No room for moral correctness or the study of it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the thread of your comment is that everyone should have an "economically sustainable job". Why is that so important?
> Sounds like a history class to me--but please tell me why it isn't..
History, in general, has always been a somewhat "activist" degree. But it's a huge area of research, and it's not _necessarily_ politically charged.
"Colonialism studies" almost always degenerate into "all civilization bad, need to destroy all humans and return to the stone age" nonsense.
That's not to say that real research in this area is impossible, this year's Nobel Prize in economics was given for the colonialism research.
> I'd be curious to see some examples.
Recent Gaza protests in Seattle, for example. The protesters were handing out communist propaganda. Not in any roundabout way, but literal Communist Manifestos. Or another example, Seattle's ex-councilmember campaigned _for_ Trump, to help speed up the "destruction of capitalist oppression" ( https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/a-big-sea... ). I can go on, with more examples, but they are mostly local to the Seattle area.
For less political examples, the "just stop using oil" protesters who keep defacing art.
> "Colonialism studies" almost always degenerate into "all civilization bad, need to destroy all humans and return to the stone age" nonsense.
How does studying colonialism lead to that conclusion? "Almost always"? Based on what survey?
> For less political examples, the "just stop using oil" protesters who keep defacing art.
The essence of protest is grabbing attention, disruption. This means inconveniencing the comfortable. I concede that I'm not sure the anti-fossil fuel protesters defacing famous art are earning sympathy for their cause.
> The essence of protest is grabbing attention, disruption.
That's not the point. The point is that shitheads think that "just stopping oil" at the drop of a hat (by 2030) _is_ an option. That governments can just "sign a treaty" and stop all the fossil fuel extraction in less time than it takes to design and build an average HVDC power line.
I actually spoke with one of their members on WhatsApp, and they do believe that.
> Sorry, what exactly is nonsense about the linked paper?
Basically, that everybody is just trying to displace poor natives with pollution.
> Dream big!
Yeah, that's the part that is cringe and naïve. Adult people kinda need learn to distinguish between dreams and reality. And actually work on improving the reality.
> Basically, that everybody is just trying to displace poor natives with pollution.
If by "everybody" you mean "Capital", then that's probably true, overall. It's how the system works.
> Yeah, that's the part that is cringe and naïve.
Pretty depressing that that is your take. Dream big, go in the right direction, get wins where you can. Better than aiming small and getting even less done. My take, anyway.
It absolutely is. Capital is appropriative. Capital destroys the natural world for growth and imposes tyranny on the working classes. So, agree to disagree.
> The violence to force that "dream" is.
Violence? You mean protests? Or policy changes that you disagree with?
The administrators, athletic coaches, and non-productive tenured professors all cost a lot, and their hands were in the pie before these students' were. By the way, the students in question are for the "activist degrees" you mentioned - they seem to all be in the humanities.
