Confirmed everything we already knew.
That said, higher education is a joke. The ROI isn't worth it. Tuition at UO doubles in a matter of years because an outside source contributes a lot of money for unnecessary projects. The university falls short for complete payment, and students need to fill the gap. so wether it's Knight or the federal government pumping money into the system, the students are the ones who are screwed in the end.
snippit smith wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/how-nike-screwed-students-with-its-generous-college-donations/discus...
Mac Wilkins, Oregon alum, Olympic champion--discus
If giving someone a billion dollars is castration, I never thought I'd say this, but I'm ready to be castrated.
This story tries to paint Phil Knight as the bad guy. If he is only affecting personal decisions in the athletic department that should not affect UO academic mission. I'm mostly seeing incompetence of state government and University officials.
Dur wrote:
If giving someone a billion dollars is castration, I never thought I'd say this, but I'm ready to be castrated.
This story tries to paint Phil Knight as the bad guy. If he is only affecting personal decisions in the athletic department that should not affect UO academic mission. I'm mostly seeing incompetence of state government and University officials.
How long have you worked for Nike?
This whole article is a joke. Trying in anyway to make knight out to be a bad game is comical. He has donated literally billions to that university to help make it what it is. As another poster said, if anyone is to blame it would be the university officials for not having the balls to draw a line in the sand. They don't HAVE to give him what he wants in the same way he doesn't HAVE to donate them that money. If I had that much money and was going to donate it, I would also like a say in what's going on and if they don't want to listen, that's fine, But maybe I won't donate my money there. University of Oregon is 1000× better off with knight than without him having ever contributed.
fab four wrote:
snippit smith wrote:
https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/how-nike-screwed-students-with-its-generous-college-donations/discus...
Mac Wilkins, Oregon alum, Olympic champion--discus
Multiple Mac ate steroids like M&Ms.
So Phil McKnight is a bad guy for actually holding a public university accountable? I see.... Move along.
Oh I love this line:
"After Oregon voters passed a measure in 1990 cutting funding for state universities by 20 percent, the publicly funded University of Oregon sought out corporate money."
I guess Oregon voters should have properly funded their university, eh?
To me, only one of the things in the article was truly DISTURBING. Like mainly his annual $1 million donations to try to cure the disesease that killed all 3 of the University president's daughters and then he withheld it one year when he was pissed. That is basically extortion. But much of the article is a joke, poorly written and lacking in a basic understanding of economics. The logic makes no sense. For example, how does attracting more higher paying customers hurt in-state students that actually are there (I can see it hurting would be in-state students who no longer get in as there isn't room)?
By Larry Getlen wrote:The University of Oregon’s winning reputation also allowed it to attract more out-of-state students, who pay much higher tuition than in-state students. At a certain point, this made it harder for the college to meet its true purpose: providing affordable education for Oregon residents, who saw tuition and fees double from 2008 to 2018.
That excerpt makes no sense. If you are taking in more money out of state, then you are helping those that do get in in-state. Without the out of state money, the tuition rises would have been even more.
Now, I guess one could argue the state has withdraw funding as they view it as Phil Knigh'ts job but that's an argument that isn't made.
And the way the article starts is a joke.
By Larry Getlen wrote:
In 2005, Nike Chairman and co-founder Phil Knight issued a shocking mandate to his alma mater, the University of Oregon.
He told the university’s athletic director, Bill Moos, to fire his track and field coach Martin Smith..
What is SHOCKING about a guy who gives billions to the sports program demanding that the track coahc be fired? I mean it pissed me off at the time but history has shown that it was a very smart move. TrackTown USA, Olympic Trials, etc are the rest of the story.
Well Bill Bowerman did urinate on Phil Knight.
Sick.
Dril wrote:
So Phil McKnight is a bad guy for actually holding a public university accountable? I see.... Move along.
there is NOTHING that bothers academia more than being held accountable for anything
rojo wrote:
What is SHOCKING about a guy who gives billions to the sports program demanding that the track coahc be fired? I mean it pissed me off at the time but history has shown that it was a very smart move. TrackTown USA, Olympic Trials, etc are the rest of the story.
Every time Oregon scores a point in a field event or a sprint event, I feel angry on the behalf of Martin Smith. Knight and the Lame Ducks wanted Martin Smith gone because they wanted Rupp to come to Oregon, and he wasn't coming without Salazar. Oregon was doing OK in the PAC-10 under Smith, but he didn't have a distance powerhouse, and that is what the alumni wanted. And that is exactly what they got with Vin. But Vin left, and they turned into a Track & Field program again. They are not the team now that the Lame Ducks wanted, the team that Pre built. They're a great track & field team, but this isn't the direction that they were trying to go.
I forget what year it was exactly, but one time a Martin Smith coached XC team beat Oregon at NCAAs. That was amazing. Maybe 2012? It was a while ago, before they opened the Cheesecake Factory in Eugene.
The thing about donations is they don't come with strings attached, I don't think you can classify phils contributions as such.
Is there any proof he's not making money off the school?. It's my understanding that billionaires aren't in the business of giving things away, and it would seem that any college seeking corporate funding would be borrowing money as a loan and not a donation.
This seems especially true when you consider that most of what UO has done in the past ten years to enhance its "campus" has been almost exclusively athletic and very little to improve academics; the main thrust being, I'm sure, athletics generate money.
Slripe24 wrote:
The thing about donations is they don't come with strings attached, I don't think you can classify phils contributions as such.
Is there any proof he's not making money off the school?. It's my understanding that billionaires aren't in the business of giving things away, and it would seem that any college seeking corporate funding would be borrowing money as a loan and not a donation.
This seems especially true when you consider that most of what UO has done in the past ten years to enhance its "campus" has been almost exclusively athletic and very little to improve academics; the main thrust being, I'm sure, athletics generate money.
Phil's donations do have strings attached. Nothing wrong with that. It's his f'n money. Oregon can take it or leave it. I think more donations should come with more detailed qualifications. Provides structure and accountability, which are totally lacking in academia. Can't just give massive funds to these children. They need guidance.
Dril wrote:
Oh I love this line:
"After Oregon voters passed a measure in 1990 cutting funding for state universities by 20 percent, the publicly funded University of Oregon sought out corporate money."
I guess Oregon voters should have properly funded their university, eh?
Yeah, heaven forbid we not "properly fund" our university sports teams to the tune of how many millions of dollars????!!!
Johny boy! How is the weather up there in your tower?
I never said phils terms were unreasonable even if I think they are. I said his contributions don't represent a donation. Okay?
Standing in line at grocery store cashier asks if you'd like to round up and donate to breast cancer awareness/cure?
Johny Utah: "yes I will donate but only to American born Caucasian teets with a conservative leaning"
Kind of lacks that fundamental altruism
Slripe26 wrote:
Johny boy! How is the weather up there in your tower?
I never said phils terms were unreasonable even if I think they are. I said his contributions don't represent a donation. Okay?
Standing in line at grocery store cashier asks if you'd like to round up and donate to breast cancer awareness/cure?
Johny Utah: "yes I will donate but only to American born Caucasian teets with a conservative leaning"
Kind of lacks that fundamental altruism
I do not agree. I don't think you can limit "altruism" to an undefined ideal or concept. I don't think it's any less altruistic to have a vision and specific purpose. I would argue that it's even more altruistic because you've likely given it more thought and have a great concern for results and effectiveness of the program. Using absurd examples does not prove anything.
John Utah wrote:
Slripe26 wrote:
Johny boy! How is the weather up there in your tower?
I never said phils terms were unreasonable even if I think they are. I said his contributions don't represent a donation. Okay?
Standing in line at grocery store cashier asks if you'd like to round up and donate to breast cancer awareness/cure?
Johny Utah: "yes I will donate but only to American born Caucasian teets with a conservative leaning"
Kind of lacks that fundamental altruism
I do not agree. I don't think you can limit "altruism" to an undefined ideal or concept. I don't think it's any less altruistic to have a vision and specific purpose. I would argue that it's even more altruistic because you've likely given it more thought and have a great concern for results and effectiveness of the program. Using absurd examples does not prove anything.
And for the record, after reading Shoedog I'm not a massive Phil Knight fan, although I respect what he created from literally nothing (with others) in Nike. He likes to think he's a Steve Jobs kind of guy, but he's really just a solid accountant and businessman (not there is anything wrong with that).
It's striking what confluence of events leads the New York Post to actually do, or at least report on, real journalism that uncovers the ruthless corporate and corporate university practices that show that, despite all the pr, they live the motto that nature is red in tooth and claw. The NY Post would never report such a thing if it had not been for Nike's use of Colin Kapernick in an ad. The fact that Kapernick's cause, ending racist police brutality, is absolutely just, his means of protest respectful and innocuous, and his personal and professional sacrifices, worth tens of millions in lost wages and his profession, enormous, means nothing to the Post, because it is all about punishing Nike for that one appearance. Nike has a lot to answer for in other areas. Track fans could see there was something there when Knight pushed the destruction of the old Hayward Stadium. Tradition means nothing, nor do people. And the university, already poorly funded because of the cut in public funds, only suffers from all its donors giving only to sports teams that use and promote Nike.