N.Y.U. gives away FREE tuition for all medical students...?

[Scott Mayers]

I just saw this report on CBS's "60 Minutes" and find that this is suspect. Re: Tuition-free Medical school

How they are doing this and why has it not been already done if it was realistic? While I welcome this move, as with extending this to all education, I find this particular move suspect in light of those capitalists who should lose by such an extensive financial loss.

There also happened to be a story just before this one regarding some generous Multi-billionaire claiming to give away half his wealth. I'm guessing these stories may be correlated to some political purpose because they seem to be 'selling' us the virtue of these ABSURDLY wealthy people. To me, guilt may be a factor. It's not like they are giving away their total wealth. Even 50% of a Billion is still $500, 000 and not likely going to mean these people are actually 'sacrificing' anything.

Something is greatly amiss. Maybe this is in anticipation of something more likely to be revealed about these wealthy people that such 'generosity' is a kind of inoculation of something worse to come?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In days gone by the US produced some of the greatest philanthropists. Perhaps it still has a few left who aren't doing it for what they can get out of it. Don't be such a cynic

[Scott Mayers]

In days gone by the US produced some of the greatest philanthropists. Perhaps it still has a few left who aren't doing it for what they can get out of it. Don't be such a cynic

I'm happy for the idea. I question why this hasn't been proposed before though if it was so easy. Also, the particular favor is obvious for the poorer classes who normally could not afford it. But considering the stats they presented that demonstrate the kinds of people normally going into the profession as coming most specifically from the wealthier classes, the 'savings' seem to trivialize the fact that it will be that wealthy class who will have the maximum advantage....it is a welfare policy for the rich.

The question about the school doing this when education is as profit driven as well, makes you ask why this action has been proposed unless they hope to make up the loss from increased costs elsewhere.

NOTE too that their consideration will NOT affect the student's cost of living and any loans offered for that for a school like NYU would still default to favor the wealthy. For my own experience, if you are poor, you count on the living cost loans that go along with the tuition and materials ...such that without, even in a less popular university, this often is enough to prevent you from continuing school, ....even if you are a good student!

The 60 minute segment doesn't sufficiently question the underlying question of 'why' the school is doing this, who in particular the school's leaders are with respect to their invested interest, etc.

On the related issue of the other story about the wealthy 'giving', I have a reasonable doubt about the moral virtue of a Billionaire's philanthropy because they are not 'sacrificing' the power they've gained but actually enhancing it. The proposed NYU's actions needs skepticism because of the nature of benefits of those already getting in to BE children of wealthy parents predominantly.

[Who, by the way, is one who is 'not' cynical for questioning any institution for the best of reasons?]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In days gone by the US produced some of the greatest philanthropists. Perhaps it still has a few left who aren't doing it for what they can get out of it. Don't be such a cynic

I'm happy for the idea. I question why this hasn't been proposed before though if it was so easy. Also, the particular favor is obvious for the poorer classes who normally could not afford it. But considering the stats they presented that demonstrate the kinds of people normally going into the profession as coming most specifically from the wealthier classes, the 'savings' seem to trivialize the fact that it will be that wealthy class who will have the maximum advantage....it is a welfare policy for the rich.

The question about the school doing this when education is as profit driven as well, makes you ask why this action has been proposed unless they hope to make up the loss from increased costs elsewhere.

NOTE too that their consideration will NOT affect the student's cost of living and any loans offered for that for a school like NYU would still default to favor the wealthy. For my own experience, if you are poor, you count on the living cost loans that go along with the tuition and materials ...such that without, even in a less popular university, this often is enough to prevent you from continuing school, ....even if you are a good student!

The 60 minute segment doesn't sufficiently question the underlying question of 'why' the school is doing this, who in particular the school's leaders are with respect to their invested interest, etc.

On the related issue of the other story about the wealthy 'giving', I have a reasonable doubt about the moral virtue of a Billionaire's philanthropy because they are not 'sacrificing' the power they've gained but actually enhancing it. The proposed NYU's actions needs skepticism because of the nature of benefits of those already getting in to BE children of wealthy parents predominantly.

[Who, by the way, is one who is 'not' cynical for questioning any institution for the best of reasons?]

If it's free then there won't be any advantage to being either rich or poor. I take it that's the point. It's nice to know there are actually some decent people left in the world.

[Scott Mayers]

In days gone by the US produced some of the greatest philanthropists. Perhaps it still has a few left who aren't doing it for what they can get out of it. Don't be such a cynic

I'm happy for the idea. I question why this hasn't been proposed before though if it was so easy. Also, the particular favor is obvious for the poorer classes who normally could not afford it. But considering the stats they presented that demonstrate the kinds of people normally going into the profession as coming most specifically from the wealthier classes, the 'savings' seem to trivialize the fact that it will be that wealthy class who will have the maximum advantage....it is a welfare policy for the rich.

The question about the school doing this when education is as profit driven as well, makes you ask why this action has been proposed unless they hope to make up the loss from increased costs elsewhere.

NOTE too that their consideration will NOT affect the student's cost of living and any loans offered for that for a school like NYU would still default to favor the wealthy. For my own experience, if you are poor, you count on the living cost loans that go along with the tuition and materials ...such that without, even in a less popular university, this often is enough to prevent you from continuing school, ....even if you are a good student!

The 60 minute segment doesn't sufficiently question the underlying question of 'why' the school is doing this, who in particular the school's leaders are with respect to their invested interest, etc.

On the related issue of the other story about the wealthy 'giving', I have a reasonable doubt about the moral virtue of a Billionaire's philanthropy because they are not 'sacrificing' the power they've gained but actually enhancing it. The proposed NYU's actions needs skepticism because of the nature of benefits of those already getting in to BE children of wealthy parents predominantly.

[Who, by the way, is one who is 'not' cynical for questioning any institution for the best of reasons?]

If it's free then there won't be any advantage to being either rich or poor. I take it that's the point. It's nice to know there are actually some decent people left in the world.

You're missing the point. When absurdly wealthy people and their private institutes 'offer' free deals, it begs skepticism when their own wealth is gained by taking EXTREME advantages of others by default of their 'capitalistic' power. This CAN occur if there is a relative monopoly by those offering the 'gifts'. If you are confident in NOT losing anything for giving, the act of 'giving' is itself more likely some politically motivated action to inoculate others into looking at your own faults closely.

What is suspect is that those offering these 'gifts' are not 'sacrificing' anything. It would be like Donald Trump offering some beggar on the street a hundred dollar bill. Even if he offered up half his wealth to a unique cause, while the benefactors may have a hard time NOT saying 'thank you,' there is still reasonable doubt about the sincerity of the act given he also would not freely release his own tax records. This is even MORE questionable if the gifts are from people we know less about personality-wise than someone more obvious as someone like a Donald Trump. The reason many say they like that Donald speaks "how it is" is not necessarily because they like WHAT he says but THAT his personality is more obvious to read. So for even those who selectively appear to be generous who are also more mysterious of their intents, makes questioning the motives of 'kindness' suspect unless they prove themselves 'sacrificing'. For the wealthy, a "sacrifice' needs to be as extreme as giving up ALL their wealth and power or the 'gift' is itself more likely a con. They don't get absurdly wealthy for actually being intrinsically giving,... but for just the opposite.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm happy for the idea. I question why this hasn't been proposed before though if it was so easy. Also, the particular favor is obvious for the poorer classes who normally could not afford it. But considering the stats they presented that demonstrate the kinds of people normally going into the profession as coming most specifically from the wealthier classes, the 'savings' seem to trivialize the fact that it will be that wealthy class who will have the maximum advantage....it is a welfare policy for the rich.

The question about the school doing this when education is as profit driven as well, makes you ask why this action has been proposed unless they hope to make up the loss from increased costs elsewhere.

NOTE too that their consideration will NOT affect the student's cost of living and any loans offered for that for a school like NYU would still default to favor the wealthy. For my own experience, if you are poor, you count on the living cost loans that go along with the tuition and materials ...such that without, even in a less popular university, this often is enough to prevent you from continuing school, ....even if you are a good student!

The 60 minute segment doesn't sufficiently question the underlying question of 'why' the school is doing this, who in particular the school's leaders are with respect to their invested interest, etc.

On the related issue of the other story about the wealthy 'giving', I have a reasonable doubt about the moral virtue of a Billionaire's philanthropy because they are not 'sacrificing' the power they've gained but actually enhancing it. The proposed NYU's actions needs skepticism because of the nature of benefits of those already getting in to BE children of wealthy parents predominantly.

[Who, by the way, is one who is 'not' cynical for questioning any institution for the best of reasons?]

If it's free then there won't be any advantage to being either rich or poor. I take it that's the point. It's nice to know there are actually some decent people left in the world.

You're missing the point. When absurdly wealthy people and their private institutes 'offer' free deals, it begs skepticism when their own wealth is gained by taking EXTREME advantages of others by default of their 'capitalistic' power. This CAN occur if there is a relative monopoly by those offering the 'gifts'. If you are confident in NOT losing anything for giving, the act of 'giving' is itself more likely some politically motivated action to inoculate others into looking at your own faults closely.

What is suspect is that those offering these 'gifts' are not 'sacrificing' anything. It would be like Donald Trump offering some beggar on the street a hundred dollar bill. Even if he offered up half his wealth to a unique cause, while the benefactors may have a hard time NOT saying 'thank you,' there is still reasonable doubt about the sincerity of the act given he also would not freely release his own tax records. This is even MORE questionable if the gifts are from people we know less about personality-wise than someone more obvious as someone like a Donald Trump. The reason many say they like that Donald speaks "how it is" is not necessarily because they like WHAT he says but THAT his personality is more obvious to read. So for even those who selectively appear to be generous who are also more mysterious of their intents, makes questioning the motives of 'kindness' suspect unless they prove themselves 'sacrificing'. For the wealthy, a "sacrifice' needs to be as extreme as giving up ALL their wealth and power or the 'gift' is itself more likely a con. They don't get absurdly wealthy for actually being intrinsically giving,... but for just the opposite.

Strangely I don't think that is the case here, and I'm usually the first to spot self-serving 'altruism'.

[Scott Mayers]

Why is it 'strange' for you to doubt?

What makes you 'trust' by default some gift giver's intent when we know nothing of the GIVER other than that they are from the class of those who only prove most successful for their expertise at TAKING?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why is it 'strange' for you to doubt?

What makes you 'trust' by default some gift giver's intent when we know nothing of the GIVER other than that they are from the class of those who only prove most successful for their expertise at TAKING?

I have no idea what you are getting at. Could you be more specific?

[commonsense]

How they are doing this and why has it not been already done if it was realistic?

How should be obvious (donations).

Why not sooner? Because widespread scholarships for medical students were not realistic when first considered by NYU officials. Not until there were sufficient funds was it possible to make NYU’s medical school free for its students.

[commonsense]

...the kinds of people normally going into the profession as coming most specifically from the wealthier classes, the 'savings' seem to trivialize the fact that it will be that wealthy class who will have the maximum advantage....it is a welfare policy for the rich...The proposed NYU's actions needs [sic] skepticism because of the nature of benefits of those already getting in to BE children of wealthy parents predominantly.

Rather than a welfare policy of any sort, NYU is reviving the notion of merit scholarships.

How so? Indeed, before now primarily those who could afford to take on student debt populated NYU’s (and all others’) medical school. Now, what poor student, or, for that matter, any other student, would not want to apply to NYU for their medical studies?

De facto, the pool of applicants grows. Accordingly, standards for acceptance go ballistic. One med student informed me that it will take a max’d MCAT score and a GPA no less than 4.0 to qualify for admission to NYU’s school of medicine. A poor applicant whose academic performance meets admission standards will have an equal chance of acceptance with any other applicant who has the same scholastic achievement, without regard to affordability.

My prediction: the best students will go to NYU, not Harvard. Subsequently, Harvard will need to find a way to become competitive again. Might that be to follow NYU’s example of offering full scholarships on the basis of merit?

[commonsense]

When absurdly wealthy people and their private institutes 'offer' free deals, it begs skepticism when their own wealth is gained by taking EXTREME advantages of others by default of their 'capitalistic' power. This CAN occur if there is a relative monopoly by those offering the 'gifts'. If you are confident in NOT losing anything for giving, the act of 'giving' is itself more likely some politically motivated action to inoculate others into looking at your own faults closely.

I’d say this is all true, but inapplicable to the NYU situation.