ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:23 pm
It looks to me like they're trying to exploit the same psychological response as the "tipping culture." Not demand payment up front, or at least make it a smaller payment requirement, but require the students to sign pledges so that hopefully they will feel a psychological pressure to give, give, give later in life. Sattler basically says as much, just in "sanctified language" - they think they can collect more this way than by collecting tuition up front.
Yes, and I think they are right. Before the change, the students were paying a fraction of the actual cost. Offering free tuition takes away the pretense students were actually paying for their college. Before there was no obligation to give after graduation, but there should have been because they were not actually paying the true cost of their education.
I can actually see being a positive thing by creating more stakeholders instead of just one (Finny). After graduation, alumni will feel an obligation to give but they will also want to have some voice in how the college is operated.
RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:27 pm
This system works great for many universities. And it works alright as a way for Mennonites to find nonprofits.
The unique aspects that may prohibit this from working at Sattler that I see?
1. Will alumni feel that their donation dollars are best given to Sattler, or will they prioritize other nonprofits and their churches? Where will their loyalties lie, to their church, or denomination, or missions, or Sattler?
2. Sattler has no church constituency to fund and support them. Will this matter?
3. Is a religious schools graduates going to hew more towards business or towards service? If service, then will the funds even exist in their bank account to give at all? It’s not like Sattler is a business school like Wharton, where they will be focused on turning out businesses people who will be able to cut hefty checks to their alma mater.
But as long as Finney keeps funding it, they probably can experiment with their funding model for quite a while.
I think if I was an alumni I would be more inclined to donate if my donation made an impact. If I think Finny is raking in tens of millions per year, then I'd be less inclined to donate and give to more fragile causes.
With donors also comes donors expecting a seat at the table. I don't give to my former college (now a university) because I don't appreciate the direction they've taken. All of my siblings went there, both my parents taught there, and none of us are interested in donating anything anymore. (They also are on hard financial times - although probably not because of our lack of donations...)
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:23 pm
It looks to me like they're trying to exploit the same psychological response as the "tipping culture." Not demand payment up front, or at least make it a smaller payment requirement, but require the students to sign pledges so that hopefully they will feel a psychological pressure to give, give, give later in life. Sattler basically says as much, just in "sanctified language" - they think they can collect more this way than by collecting tuition up front.
This system works great for many universities. And it works alright as a way for Mennonites to fund nonprofits.
Is this true? That it works great for many universities?
I know there are a couple of smaller Christian schools that are trying tuition-free college or suggesting that they will. But have any schools actually implemented such a program and made it work over the long-term? Hope College in MI is the one that started this trend, but as of today they are only giving free tuition to a tiny select group of students while they spend a decade trying to raise enough funds to do it for everyone.
I have my doubts. And I also question the social need to provide free college education to largely middle class kids given all the other competing needs in this country.
This study is 7 years old, but it shows that the median family income of college students in the US is about $100,000. https://www.newamerica.org/education-po ... -colleges/ and I suspect it is significantly higher today. Yes, we need to provide ways for children from all walks of life to attend college. But that doesn't mean making it free. And I say this with children in college. I think it is good for both children and parents to have "skin in the game" so to speak. It tends to focus the mind and clarify purpose.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:23 pm
It looks to me like they're trying to exploit the same psychological response as the "tipping culture." Not demand payment up front, or at least make it a smaller payment requirement, but require the students to sign pledges so that hopefully they will feel a psychological pressure to give, give, give later in life. Sattler basically says as much, just in "sanctified language" - they think they can collect more this way than by collecting tuition up front.
This system works great for many universities. And it works alright as a way for Mennonites to fund nonprofits.
Is this true? That it works great for many universities?
Well, not “many” as a percentage. I was thinking about those colleges or universities with large amounts of money donated to them and have large endowments, that’s what I had in mind. The biggest example of what I had in mind would be Harvard, who really would be fine without charging tuition, as long as they actually cared about being careful with their spending.
RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:27 pm
This system works great for many universities. And it works alright as a way for Mennonites to fund nonprofits.
Is this true? That it works great for many universities?
Well, not “many” as a percentage. I was thinking about those colleges or universities with large amounts of money donated to them and have large endowments, that’s what I had in mind. The biggest example of what I had in mind would be Harvard, who really would be fine without charging tuition, as long as they actually cared about being careful with their spending.
Spot on, RZehr. Those scholarships that are handed out at public universities operate from the same principles: to encourage donations from wealthy alumni through the psychology of "school spirit" and loyalty to the entity that gave a debt free start to young gifted individuals; additionally the tax shelter it provides is an enticement. I do not see any difference between the secular and the Christian schools in this regard.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35 Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Speaking of Sattler, I’ve got two pdf’s, one wrote by Dean and the other by Marlin.
I’ll have to fiddle with my setting on gmail before I can share it, but in the meantime, if you want to read it, I can email it.
Dean starts with the question
Should I send My Child to Sattler College?
He lists off several reasons as to why not and concludes its a bad idea.
The pdf is too big to post here but again, happy to send it.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone Soloist, but my wife posts with me Soloist, but I believe in community Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
jahertz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:20 am
Interesting.
Would anyone happen to know offhand how many of Dean's children continued earning their degrees and graduated at Sattler after he wrote this letter?
Rather than cracking on Dean, maybe it would be better to point out that if this is true, which I will know for sure later today, that they have answered one of my VALID criticisms of Sattler.
