Johns Hopkins Med School Will Be Free For Most After $1 Billion Donation (axios.com) 135
Starting this fall, most students at Johns Hopkins' medical school will attend tuition-free thanks to a $1 billion donation from billionaire Mike Bloomberg. From a report: The generous gift is intended to address "twin challenges of declining levels of health and education," Bloomberg said in a letter Monday. The donation will cover the full cost of tuition for medical students from families earning less than $300,000, Bloomberg Industries announced Monday. It will also cover living expenses and other fees for students from families earning up to $175,000.
Currently, nearly two-thirds of medical students at the school qualify for financial aid. Johns Hopkins' medical students graduate with an average student loan debt of about $104,000. The donation will also increase financial aid at some of the university's other graduate schools, including the schools of nursing and public health.
Currently, nearly two-thirds of medical students at the school qualify for financial aid. Johns Hopkins' medical students graduate with an average student loan debt of about $104,000. The donation will also increase financial aid at some of the university's other graduate schools, including the schools of nursing and public health.
For the record (Score:1)
Mike Bloomberg gave less than 1/100th of his total worth. Imagine the benefit to society if more followed suit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For the record (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, he didn't have to give anything.
And that is a problem: now your vital institutions are dependent on charity and "philanthropy" (*), they should be funded by taxes.
(*) Between quotes, because what nowadays is called "philanthropy" are often tax deduction or tax and regulation evasion schemes.
Re:For the record (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's place in society for government funded and for philanthropy funded. If someone wants to do something good with their money, we should encourage it not stop it.
Yes sir. It is also precisely why those tax breaks are there in the first place, to give some encouragement to give up wealth to your chosen charitable causes rather than have it taxed and used for whatever the government decides to piss our taxes away on today.
Re:For the record (Score:4, Insightful)
we should encourage it not stop it.
That can be debatable and doesn't really deal with the very real issue the OP describes not the mention that "good" is entirely subjective. If it's something we would consider vital for life then the possiblity of having negative externalities simply as a side effect of good intentions is increased.
For example one issue around the homeless is there is a lot of volunteer, direct action sutff; soup kitchens, church charities, nonprofits and they are doing something good for those individuals and their hearts are absolutely in the right place but on the other hand they can provide cover that allow towns to shirk their responsibility on the issue and continue shuffling it around and that really only allows continue the cycle to continue, the charities don't really have the means or expectation to correct the core issues that cause homeslessness. There is an argument to be made that if none of those charities were around would that force your town to actually do something about the issue?
So while all the people volunteering and donating have the best intentions and are doing "good" things they contribue long term to a problem that is really not solvable by chairty, only really through public action. So while it's not a question of "fault" but rather tha good intetions and actions can lead down the line to negative outcomes. We just have to recognize that when it's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
the charities don't really have the means or expectation to correct the core issues that cause homeslessness.
Who can correct the core issues that cause homelessness?
Re: (Score:2)
No one is suggesting that we should stop him from doing it. What is being suggested is that this is not the net good it is being portrayed to be. The institutions shouldn't have to rely on someone doing something like this, they should be properly funded to begin with. When institutions are reliant on these types of gifts, they also become beholden to them. So then they worry about making sure they don't do anything that could jeopardize their money. That is an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they should, but we shouldn't be in a situation where several people accumulate wealth while we are unable to fund basic services without their generosity. In a more ideal world his billions would be taxed and the government would provide necessary education.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought billionaires didn't have to pay taxes? What need does Bloomberg have for a write-off? In all seriousness, even if this wasn't a capital gains and he was able to write down pure income at the highest taxed percentage for both Federal and NY State that's still only about 47%. So at the very worst this was a real actual loss of $530M.
But we all know most of what Bloomberg pays in taxes are capital gains which so his overall tax burden is likely closer to 30%, meaning this cost him $700M.
So cry all
He kind of did (Score:2, Insightful)
So he splashes out $1bn now, which is peanuts to him, and he shuts down a *lot* of talk about tuition free college because when you point out you're being crushed by debt somebody can just shoot back "why didn't you go to John Hopskins?".
It's the same trick Elon Musk used with the Hyperloop to shut down high speed rail. He got a lot of praise and good vibes for it and got ou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Straw man argument is straw man (Score:2)
The best way to defeat a straw man argument is to point it out. Care to address the fundamental reality that the billion dollars this guy handed out has no effect on his financial life whatsoever but that it does shuts down discourse around tuition free college nationwide? No? Didn't think so. Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I opposed fascists everywhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, he didn't have to give anything.
Which really is the problem. The top 1% have seen their effective tax rate drop from 40% 50 years ago to 25% today. At the same time their share of the nation's wealth has increased by over 33%. Even getting back to a 40% effective tax rate would bring in $1.2 trillion per year in additional revenue. This one time donation is less than 0.1% what we should be requiring of the wealthy every year in additional taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what we would want. How else do you expect the market to get a signal that we need more medical schools so we can make more doctors so I don't have to schedule a dang appointment 3 months in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, no. There's no "inflation" or "shortages" when one person pays the same amount of money that many would have anyway. It's tuition for a fixed number of spots in a university. Helping med students avoid crippling is obviously good for the economy, because they will be more economically viable earlier in their careers.
A doctor has no real issue with financial viability in his early career, unless he is going to work in some underfunded clinic somewhere, in which case there are existing programs to help with those situations.
The intersectional identity types will also complain and howl about this, because given the fixed number of slots available, and the influx of people it will bring to apply, the school can afford to be as choosy as possible, only taking applicants with perfect high school GPAs and perfect SAT scores,
Re: (Score:2)
Again, "LOL, no". Elite postgrad programs in any profession prioritize the family wealth of candidates over talent, because they become alumni donor base. And while I applaud Mike Bloomberg's choice to pay for the whole student body's tuition, that's an extremely rare version of alumni gifting. More often they just endow buildings and bureaucracy, and expect power in return.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, "LOL, no". Elite postgrad programs in any profession prioritize the family wealth of candidates over talent, because they become alumni donor base. And while I applaud Mike Bloomberg's choice to pay for the whole student body's tuition, that's an extremely rare version of alumni gifting. More often they just endow buildings and bureaucracy, and expect power in return.
Babbling about some "intersectional identity" conspiracy just marks your opinion as being driven by hate and entitlement.
If now anyone can afford to attend, then either the school prioritizes based on the family's wealth over the candidate's talent and this endowment means nothing because the admitted applicants will be the exact same pool only free now, or exactly as I described, the school will be able to select based on the highest academic standard for entry.
If the former is the case, then Bloomberg would have been better off just endowing a building, at least that would employ blue collar workers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the former. I misunderstood your position as criticizing the donation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Err, I mean latter. Dammit. When will Slashdot get a post-facto editing function?
Man, I've been waiting for that since the late '90s, I think we will get fusion power plants first. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's good for them to avoid crippling too.
Re: (Score:2)
Rampant inflation and shortages due to lack of supply compared to sudden new demand would happen.
In addition to this, if multiple billionaires suddenly started selling off assets to liquidate them for usage or donation, it would cause the markets overall to come down, reducing the value of the investments they are selling off and whatever portions they are holding on to, reducing their wealth, and everyone else who owns shares of those vehicles, by some multiplier.
The effect on the overall economy would then cause a drag on people's retirement accounts, so the little people who folks like the AC are al
Re: (Score:2)
> reducing their wealth
That sound like it's their problem.
> and everyone else who owns shares of those vehicles
Depends entirely on what the "vehicle" is. Real estate not so much, because it's not fungible (A sale of an estate in East Hampton means jack shit to the price of land in Oklahoma). Stocks? Maybe, but that's partly why there are rules about how you divest large amounts of stocks.
It does not follow that liquidating a billionaire would have an immediate and lasting effect on the economy.
> T
Re: (Score:2)
Bull. Show us proof. You're one of those who opposed government intervention after capitalist-caused economic recessions... and they were *prooved* wrong after Obama intervened in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like the rumor that getting a pay raise puts you into a higher tax bracket which means you'll take home less income.
Re: (Score:2)
this theory was thoroughly debunked
This might need some kind of citation. I don't see how suddenly causing a huge influx of medical students to fill a fixed number of available slots, because there are a finite number of qualified professors to teach med school, does not cause a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Setting aside limited class space not having anything to do with inflation... if there results in an influx of new applicants because of the reduced cost, then the school can just raise the cutoff for applicants (like they absolutely already do) to be more selective.
So no, it doesn't cause a problem. Just because it's free does not mean everyone who applies gets in.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
'I don't see how suddenly causing a huge influx of medical students to fill a fixed number of available slots, because there are a finite number of qualified professors to teach med school, does not cause a problem.'
It just means that new doctors will get their first Porsche earlier. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
imagine being able to afford seeing a doctor
Most doctors leaving the field in a few years (Score:2)
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
Re:For the record (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what theory you are saying is being debunked.
If it's about increased money supply causes inflation, well, that's not a theory, that's a key component of fiscal policy for decades, increasing the money supply to ensure a modest but non-zero inflation rate.
If it's about paper billionaires all liquidating at once, then I suppose rather than inflation you might see more of their net worth collapsing, since the stock market caps are a large multiple of the entire money supply. You'd probably also see some inflation.
If it's vaguely a more mild one-time liquidation, I can't imagine how that would be debunked since it's never happened.
If you are trying to say UBI "studies" debunk it, well, that doesn't track because they only ever involve a tiny fraction of a tiny percent of a population. Great for participants, not informative at all about how an economy would adjust for something that meets all the criteria for UBI and funded the way a UBI would be funded. UBI studies have thus far only shown that medium term means tested benefits tend to help people dig out of an economic hole, but we broadly already recognize and do that today.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine what we could do if all billionaires paid their fair share of taxes.
Free higher education for all (just like most other advanced countries)
Free health care for all (just like most other advanced countries)
Until and unless they are found guilty of some kind of tax fraud, then they are, in fact, paying their fair share.
Billionaires don't just have their money sitting around in the bank earning interest, you know. Most people with appreciable wealth (and by most I would wager greater than 95%) are only "paper millionaire" or "paper billionaires" because that wealth is not in deposit funds, but in investments. Those business investments allow people to have functional retirement funds, and keep companies open a
Re: (Score:2)
So a person with $100 billion in paper is only worth $50 billion in actual assets. Thank god.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on the definition of "fair share".
Do you mean, "The same percentage as others"? Which "others"?
Or do you mean, "As much as you can squeeze out of them"?
This is why "Flat Tax" schemes are so popular. Everyone pays XX% in taxes. That's a "fair share". You make $1B, you pay XX% of it. You make $100, you pay XX% of it.
Re: (Score:2)
We can argue about what is a "fair share" but it should be better than the current system where the rich and corporations pay a much lower percentage of their income (or none at all) due to the loopholes that they have paid Congress to put into our tax system.
Re: (Score:2)
But you did not argue about what is a "fair share", you just said "they should pay a fair share". To be fair, it should apply to EVERYONE, not just "the rich".
That's where fixed-rate taxation is "more fair" than the "make the rich pay double the rate"-type taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not fixed rate versus variable rate.
The problem is that the rich and corporations pay a much lower rate than working people.
The rich and corporations have a "variable rate" which goes down the more loopholes they take advantage of.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean, "The same percentage as others"? Which "others"?
Others not in the tres comas club. This isn't difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing fair about a flat tax. People that understand economics understand that flat taxes (like sales tax) are extremely regressive - a fancy word for "unfair".
Think about it. A person who has $100 in total needs to spend every dollar wisely (or run out). Every dollar matters. Each dollar is more valuable.
A person who has $100000000 can spend their dollars recklessly. The small stuff does not matter. Each dollar is less valuable.
Flat taxes pretend that the $1 from the $100 person and the $1 from t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with that as long as we also stop sending Israel $38 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
ABout time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ABout time (Score:4, Funny)
You brought up a good point. Biden canceling debt is an official act which grants him immunity. Thanks Supreme Court!
Re:ABout time (Score:4, Insightful)
You brought up a good point. Biden canceling debt is an official act which grants him immunity. Thanks Supreme Court!
Biden couldn't cancel student debt any more now than he could before. Congress has to approve the spending.
What the Supreme Court decision means is that he couldn't be prosecuted for trying. But that would never happen anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
How is what Biden doing any different from joining the military and having tax payers fund tuition?
Re: (Score:2)
Free money for nothing in return? Joining the military implies they are giving their time to the government... How does getting free college equate? Are they working for the public for free for X amount of time? I'd bet behind that. 4 years of public service = free college. Deal. Nothing but sitting on your ass = free college, no deal.
Re: (Score:2)
How is what Biden doing any different from joining the military and having tax payers fund tuition?
The veteran's tuition benefit is funded by the Department of Defense budget, which DOES get approved by Congress.
Re:ABout time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden didn't really cancel any debt yet (Score:2, Flamebait)
You'd think we'd be talking more about how there was $150bn in illegal loans being collected on but nope. The media buried that story next to Trump's (alleged) raping 12 & 13 year old girls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ABout time (Score:5, Informative)
However, the real problem is the last 50 years the amount of middle management style administration staff have skyrocketed at large colleges. THAT is the actual problem with tuition. Fire half of them and we wouldn't have to wait for a giant donation.
Unfortunately, that is not THE problem. Though I agree that it is A problem.
Governments, federal and states, have decreased their funding in education since the 90s. That decrease has been significant. Let's pick an example. Ohio university. In 1980, UG tuition was $400; there were 14209 students. The tuition revenue for the university was $5.68Million. But their budget was $55M. So tuition was about 10% of their budget. Jump to 2024, 21k students, UG tuition of $6.1k/y that's a budget of $146M from tuition. With a budget of $650M. That's 23% of budget from tuition. The government use to fund 90% of the university's operation, now they fund 78%.
BTW, I picked ohio university randomly. But it is similar to what I have seen in other places.
Another problem is that in the US, universities are bound by state regulations, but they are forced to act as a business. They need to attract customers (students). And it turns out that to increase your customer base, the easier thing to do is marketing, not improving the education (product). We know that from the industry, marketing is more important than product quality. So universities have resorted to boost their appeal through education neutral initiatives. Things like let build a better gym, let's rebuild some roads, let's repaint our dining halls. Let's have retention officer, let's have customer acquisition offices.
Regulations on universities by states are ridiculously complicated and obscure, and so they force university to add administration just to interpret and conform with state regulations. (I'll give you one example, at $LOCALUNIVERSITY need 3 different forms to justify using an airBNB which cost less than federal housing per diem for the destination.)
These are REALLY expensive in people. And that's where you see a rise in administration in universities the most.
So if you want tuition to go down, tell your state senators to fund appropriately their universities and to stop harassing them with the most ridiculous regulations.
Source:
https://www.ohio.edu/iea/histo... [ohio.edu]
https://www.ohio.edu/iea/histo... [ohio.edu]
https://www.ohio.edu/iea/histo... [ohio.edu]
I agree with most stuff (Score:2)
I am seeing the Universities treated as business as a huge problem though. In Arizona the former governor put one of his cronies in charge of the State University. Said Crony spent $100m+ on an online diploma mill he had financial ties to. The University has a major financial crisis now and he's likely going to make off like a bandit. Even if he doesn't get direct cash I'm sure the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s an interesting analysis, but too simplistic. University budgets are a lot more complicated than the impression you are giving here. For one, total budget - tuition revenue != state appropriations. To get the actual state revenue you have to look at the audited budget which provides a lot more insight,
https://www.ohio.edu/sites/def... [ohio.edu]
In 2023, OU received $186M in appropriations from the state, which accounted for 26% of its total revenue and did not include appropriations for capital improvements
Re: ABout time (Score:2)
That ohio university, not ohio state. I explicitely did not pick osu because the football business is making the accounting weird
But that checks out, tuition used to be a couple 1000s for a whole degree early 80s. There is no way that covered all education.
Education funding has increased in raw dollars, but inflation and just the increase in number of students made that true funding per student has gone down.
That's why every university is hunting for endowment, for a succesfull sports program, because they
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take anything other than the Dems printing more money to try and bribe college students by paying off their student debts after the Supreme Court already said it's illegal.
The Supreme Court said his original debt forgiveness policy was illegal (based on a vague new standard they made up).
So he made up a different debt forgiveness policy based on different legislation that is clearly legal.
You may not like the policy (I don't) but it's not illegal nor defying the court in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because on the other side of every debt, there is a credit. Debt can't just disappear. The other side of this debt is the federal government, which people believe is funded by taxes. What will happen is bonds will get issued to pay for it after the federal debt ceiling gets raised. So instead of people paying the government, the government will be paying wall street.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the federal government get the tab for the missing $150 million?
Yes. When debt is forgiven it is essentially bought back into non-circulation at present value. In a normal economy, which is slightly inflationary, present value is always less than the original issue value. Not to mention the lost opportunity cost of a bunch of money that should have created value elsewhere but didn't. Anyway, value is lost. And when the equivalent value needs to be re-issued back into circulation, we all pay for that loss as inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
When that happens, the credit on the other side also disappears. The creditor is getting the tab.
Re: (Score:2)
In bankruptcy, lenders pick up the tab. From the POV of lenders, their loans are assets, and those assets are destroyed. The debt doesn't just "disappear", the lenders end up forced to pay.
Re: (Score:3)
What student makes $300K+? (Score:2)
These are 23-, 24-, 25-year-olds who are full grown adults usually taking on debt to pay for medical school. Plenty of them are getting help from their parents but aren't they technically not dependent on their parents' income from a financial aid perspective? Sure plenty of these students have parents earning over $300K, but is that relevant for the financial aid calculation? Isn't the student's family defined as them + spouse and
Re: What student makes $300K+? (Score:2)
Parents income is used in most cases until 25 on the (justifiable) assumption that people under 25 are not adults. Traditional timeline for a bachelor's is 4 years, so unless you're off your timeline (and likely not getting into Johns Hopkins), you'll likely still fall into the dependent category.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What student makes $300K+? (Score:2)
That is a valid workaround. But emancipation can be tricky if you're not pulling in a big salary as a child or you have abusive parents.
Re: (Score:2)
note that not all schools recognize emancipation, independent status, and so forth.
The FAFSA has its rules, but they don't bind schools.
And some (e.g., Harvard) still want parental (and trust fund!) information at *any* age.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a few come from "medical" families, and these aren't too poor, on average.
Fun fact (Score:5, Informative)
This billionaire's think tanks lobbied to cut the funding to those schools. His $1b for 1 school doesn't change that.
Just say No to billionaires.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Got any proof he his think tanks lobbied for that, or that he helped cause the funding cuts? Actually, got any proof any of the BS you say is true? Of course not. More people than ever go to college now, even though somehow it's unaffordable? That's a good one. Maybe you should have gone, to elementary school where they teach basic logic.
Dude he's a billionaire (Score:2, Troll)
And yes, college is unaffordable. The debt from it is crushing our economy. Boomers account for something like 70-80% of all discretionary spending in a service sector economy!.
This is not sustainable. We can't just keep shoveling all the money up the top and expect the system to function. Capitalism needs consumers, and we're killing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike you I have actual proof that college wasn't free in the 1960s. You fucking lying nitwit: https://archives.upenn.edu/exh... [upenn.edu]
Now what?
Fun fact, but not fun conclusion (Score:3)
in the 60s nearly all college was tuition free. From the 70s though the early 2000s government paid for 70% of tuition. Now it's 30%.
This doesn't necessarily indicate funding cuts.
In 1971, the average tuition to a public university was $1,410. By 2019, it had reached $21,370. The costs per student have increased dramatically. When costs increase so much, the percentage subsidized will decrease, even if funding has increased in absolute dollars (and it has). As a result, tuition is higher, government funding is higher, and students' costs are higher, all at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopkins and Bloomberg (Score:5, Informative)
Before you start spouting nonsense about think tanks and God knows what other irrelevant craziness, perhaps some unbiased, historical facts are in order for this specific situation. Hopkins is Mike Bloomberg's alma mater. It is also his long-time and favorite recipient for his charitable donations. He's already given the school many billions of dollars, including $1.8 billion for financial aid to low- and -middle income undergrads in 2018 [jhu.edu], over $600 millions for the purchase of the Newseum building at the foot of Capitol Hill in 2023 for the new Hopkins Bloomberg Center [baltimorefishbowl.com] and related residences (their school of international policy), massive donations to the Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (which also bears his name), and a whole lot more. Anything you ever wanted to know about his philanthropy with the school can be found at https://www.bloomberg.org/foun... [bloomberg.org]
Not everything is a conspiracy of evil Republicans trying to fuck you over. You may hate the guy because he's rich, but many thousands of Hopkins students -- a lot of them too poor to attend the school otherwise -- will benefit from his donations now and far, far into the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just say No to billionaires.
Why? Before you answer:
Let's say you were able to make a "battery" with materials you have on hand from the land that you bought. Let's say you were able to make a billion of them and sell them for a dollar. Do you "deserve" that billion dollars?
If not, then fuck off.
Wow, Mike Bloomberg just gained a ton of karma. (Score:2)
His news organization is still bullshit though.
Re: (Score:2)
For sure. But there's obviously a larger systemic issue that should be addressed regarding college affordability. There shouldn't be any need for billionaires to make personal donations.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, good, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Does not attack the problem is why med school is so expensive in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not attack the problem is why med school is so expensive in the first place.
Ummm, med school would be difficult to get into regardless of the method used. In this case, it is only partially money that is blocking the entrance.
TL;DR, the medical mafia keeps the prices high so there is less competition.
Past and future classes (Score:2)
When stories about billionaires paying off student loans or, like Bloomberg, donating a large sum to make tuition cheap, I think about the students who missed the opportunity because they weren't in the right class at the right time.
For example, in 2019, Robert F. Smith, the billionaire founder and chief executive officer of Vista Equity Partners, was the commencement speaker during Morehouse College's graduation ceremony. During his speech, he announced he would pay off the loan debt for about 400 seniors,
Re: Past and future classes (Score:2)
Your comment is akin to being opposed to a new cure for cancer, because your relative died from cancer.
Free higher education... (Score:2)
There is such a thing as too cheap (Score:2)
If tuition is "free," students will not have reason to be invested in their education. Students who have no interest in being educated, might be pushed by their parents to "just try it" only to flunk out in a year or two.
While I agree that college tuition is out of control, I don't think the opposite extreme (free) is the right answer.
This solves nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Johns Hopkins already has one of the highest standards for admissions and that won't change just because the tuition is free (in fact, it could get higher since anyone who meets the higher standards can now be admitted even if they couldn't afford the tuition).
BTW, no one is fooled by your dog whistles ("lesser qualifieds", "agenda", "third world"). If you mean "no brown people", just say it. In the Trump era you no longer have to hide your bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Would an article relating that someone actually did something decent for a change, be so criticized.
I take it you don't have a Facebook account.