[arcturus17]

OCW opens up top-notch education to anyone and everyone, regardless of social or economic background. I wouldn’t take it for granted even with MIT’s eye-watering endowment, and I doubt donations to it are going to be paying cafeteria lunches for the students.

I hope you’re donating and actively contributing to many non-profit projects and that your comment comes from being tired of the world’s injustices rather than from callous impertinence, although I suspect it does not.

[wegs]

Most money which comes into MIT passes through overhead. That means if a foundation donates to MIT, a bit over 1/3 of that money might ends up with whatever they donated to. A bit under 2/3 might go into the general budget (overheads vary by funding source, but the numbers above are from one specific project).

On paper, overhead is used for costs of running the place. In practice, it's used for things like upscale faculty clubs, million-dollar executive salaries, $200 million buildings, etc. MIT has among the highest overheads in the academy. Ironically, MIT claims its ocean yacht makes money rather than losing money (which could very well be true).

If you're okay with the majority of your money going to graft, donate to MIT. With a project like OCW, which has such a huge cost:benefit ratio, accepting the graft with the donation may be a rational decision, if you subscribe to a system of ethics like utilitarianism.

Personally, I almost never donate to a charity where the highest-earner makes more than I do. I think if everyone did that, MIT might lose some of the graft and corruption which has built up there over the years.

[mattkrause]

MIT’s current overhead rate is 50.5%, but that’s pretty standard.

Here’s a scatterplot showing lots of research institutions’ rates. When this was published, MIT’s rate was slightly higher (54%). https://www.nature.com/news/indirect-costs-keeping-the-light... showing actual and calculated rates.

This also applies to federal research grants and is meant to cover costs associated with actually hosting the research (rent, utilities, support staff). Foundations can (and often do) negotiate lower rates. I’m not sure how donations are handled, but I don’t think the same F&A rates apply.

[wegs]

The article quotes 56%, as the negotiated rate on NiH projects, not 54%, but the rate varies by funder and by project. The 2/3 number is from an actual project I had insight into as the base overhead rate.

What's a little bit hidden there is that MIT dips into these funds multiple times, in pretty complex ways. For example, a sponsor might pay overhead and graduate student tuition (which just flows into MIT's general coffers). Or graduate student tuition might be waived, and the sponsor pays just overhead. Or a donor might pay overhead when the money comes in, and again on specific purchases. Or capital expenditures might waive overhead. Etc. The level of complexity is high, while the level of transparency is low.

I'm not claiming any of this is unique to MIT by any means. It's just where I have the most visibility.

What's cute is that MIT claims to lose money on everything. In the article you cited: "'We lose money on every piece of research that we do,' says Maria Zuber, vice-president for research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)." You'll find similar statements about educating undergraduates and tuition. And just about everything else. I've worked through the numbers at some point, and MIT only loses money with clever accounts; it's good PR to say MIT subsidize everything it does, but it's often not a reality.

[Judgmentality]

I think his point is there are plenty of other noble causes that could use the money a lot more.