$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School (nytimes.com) 85
Dr. Ruth Gottesman, a longtime professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, is making free tuition available to all students going forward. From a report: The 93-year-old widow of a Wall Street financier has donated $1 billion to a Bronx medical school, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, with instructions that the gift be used to cover tuition for all students going forward. The donor, Dr. Ruth Gottesman, is a former professor at Einstein, where she studied learning disabilities, developed a screening test and ran literacy programs. It is one of the largest charitable donations to an educational institution in the United States and most likely the largest to a medical school.
The fortune came from her late husband, David Gottesman, known as Sandy, who was a protege of Warren Buffett and had made an early investment in Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate Mr. Buffett built. The donation is notable not only for its staggering size, but also because it is going to a medical institution in the Bronx, the city's poorest borough. The Bronx has a high rate of premature deaths and ranks as the unhealthiest county in New York. Over the past generation, a number of billionaires have given hundreds of millions of dollars to better-known medical schools and hospitals in Manhattan, the city's wealthiest borough.
While her husband ran an investment firm, First Manhattan, Dr. Gottesman had a long career at Einstein, a well-regarded medical school, starting in 1968, when she took a job as director of psychoeducational services. She has long been on Einstein's board of trustees and is currently the chair. In recent years, she has become close friends with Dr. Philip Ozuah, the pediatrician who oversees the medical college and its affiliated hospital, Montefiore Medical Center, as the chief executive officer of the health system. That friendship and trust loomed large as she contemplated what to do with the money her husband had left her.
The fortune came from her late husband, David Gottesman, known as Sandy, who was a protege of Warren Buffett and had made an early investment in Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate Mr. Buffett built. The donation is notable not only for its staggering size, but also because it is going to a medical institution in the Bronx, the city's poorest borough. The Bronx has a high rate of premature deaths and ranks as the unhealthiest county in New York. Over the past generation, a number of billionaires have given hundreds of millions of dollars to better-known medical schools and hospitals in Manhattan, the city's wealthiest borough.
While her husband ran an investment firm, First Manhattan, Dr. Gottesman had a long career at Einstein, a well-regarded medical school, starting in 1968, when she took a job as director of psychoeducational services. She has long been on Einstein's board of trustees and is currently the chair. In recent years, she has become close friends with Dr. Philip Ozuah, the pediatrician who oversees the medical college and its affiliated hospital, Montefiore Medical Center, as the chief executive officer of the health system. That friendship and trust loomed large as she contemplated what to do with the money her husband had left her.
Medicine? (Score:1)
I'll take Misnamed Schools for 100, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
medicine
noun: medicine; plural noun: medicines
1. the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease (in technical use often taken to exclude surgery).
2. a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease.
Re:Medicine? (Score:4, Funny)
Allow me to write you a prescription for that WHOOSH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Looks like some of the moderators need that prescription. I just got moderated as a Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist...
That's physicist, not physician.
Re:Medicine? (Score:4, Informative)
Einstein used to be the medical school of Yeshiva University. Samuel Belkin, then-president of Yeshiva University, began planning a new medical school as early as 1945. Six years later, Belkin and New York City Mayor Vincent Impellitteri entered into an agreement to begin its construction with funding from Henry H. Minskoff and Phillip Stollman. Around the same time, physicist and humanitarian Albert Einstein sent a letter to Belkin. He remarked that such an endeavor would be "unique" in that the school would "welcome students of all creeds and races". Two years later, on his 74th birthday, March 14, 1953, Albert Einstein agreed to have his name attached to the medical school.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I knew there must have been some reason. Still, a medical school named after a physicist (not physician) is good for at least a raised eyebrow if not a laugh.
Re: Medicine? (Score:2)
Why? What's so odd about a medical school named after a non-doctor?
Schools are commonly named after donors, as are hospitals and arenas - why does the namesake for a facility have to in a field related to the activity within the facility?
I think you're trying to hard to spot an issue where there really is none.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What's so odd about a medical school named after a non-doctor?
It's like playing word association. I say "water", most people say "wet". If someone says "lemonade" you stop for a second because it was unexpected. It's not wrong, just unexpected. Now you have to stop and think: yeah, you need water to make lemonade...
They first thing that comes to mind when someone says "Albert Einstein" is "physics". So when you see "Albert Einstein school of Medicine" your brain goes "That was unexpected". Now you have to stop and think about it: wonder why a medical school was
Re:Medicine? (Score:4, Funny)
Remember that his brother Frank tried to assemble a creature out of inanimate body parts, and has been the subject of numerous films, even black and white ones.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the other brother who won the Nobel Prize for inventing bagels?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: $$$$ money money money money (Score:2)
Tuition is paid to cover the expense of the school, spending the donation to cover all operating expenses and eliminating tuition payments is the same thing.
Distinction without a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Took me way to long to get this one...
Nope (Score:1)
That’s socialism and I won’t stand for it.
Re: (Score:3)
If they are cars or doctors, we have a functional unit with a lower base price. I am sure insurance companies will adjust their rates just after all the savings from the ACA arrive in my mailbox.
So for 1/40th of a twitter, we might get 50 to 80 doctors per year. Best investment made off of wall street in the Bronx in the past 10 years.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
This is unfortunately considered socialism by too many people.
America, in its decades-long mission to eliminate the 'scourge' of socialism and communism, so brainwashed its citizens (esp. the south) that they vote to increase their own poverty and civilization decline.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Increase the tax on billionaires and use that to increase funding for colleges and universities
I don't know much about the topic of 'controlling distribution for societal benefit', but if this isn't socialism, then what is it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not socialism, because it wasn't compelled. The transaction was 100% free will gift and not demanded by anyone and no vote was ever taken, short of the Lady Dr herself.
THIS is free enterprise (not capitalism) and thus is okay. The benefits of Free Enterprise is that people can do what they want with their money, free from dictates from others. Socialism demands compliance and fails when people can opt out. It eventually fails anyway, because people can't opt out.
See also "Charity" (in the classical def
Re: (Score:2)
Increase the tax on billionaires and use that to increase funding for colleges and universities
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically everything a government does is controlling distribution for societal benefit. There's no news in that, and politics is the question of the society deciding who gets to pay, where do you invest, and who gets to benefit. In practice you will usually find that politics is for sale and thus the society pays, nothing is invested and special interests get to benefit.
Socialism is the social ownership of means of production. This has nothing to do with anything as far as US politics is concerned. No one in the US seems to have any idea about this though, because in the US socialism is a boogeyman used to steer people away from their own interests. If you are running a government where society pays and special interests benefit, you need powerful narratives to keep the masses sedated. Fear and hate are your friends there. As long as you can appear to protect the people from something you yourself make them fear or hate, you can pretty much get away with anything.
To put it in other words, politics is an interests game masquerading as a principles game. It takes quite some time for this game to play out, but in the end the no investment part of politics will start to show. You might recognize that by trains going off the rails, and planes falling out of the skies. You might recognize that by two thirds of the country being one hospital visit away from being homeless. You might recognize that by cities running empty and whole communities running out of work. You might even recognize that by people electing you consider to be the end of the world to be the prez, in the blind hope that a different kind of bullshit is going to save the day. And most importantly, you might recognize that by the fact that somehow you have ended up hating the other half of the country, instead of the leadership that got you there. Divide and rule, once again...
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is the social ownership of means of production.
So what would this look like; everyone would "own" all companies? I'm ignorant about this topic overall...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really my area of expertise, but I can give it a shot. The long story short is that nobody really knows, workable examples are few and far in between.
You might look at the Soviet Union, where all economy was declared as being owned by everyone. Didn't really help that much, everything was still bottlenecked by an incompetent leadership that required everything to be decided centrally. Add to it the state violence, to the tune of millions of lives, that was needed to keep the whole thing together... Didn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Increase the tax on billionaires and use that to increase funding"
More than half of all Americans pay no net taxes at all (they contribute less to taxes than they take in public compensation services). The top 1% of earners pay for 42+% of all taxes collected (2020) and it has been going up.
We have a SPENDING problem (which also causes a debt problem), not a "tax the rich" problem.
Re: (Score:2)
>"you might wonder why the economy is doing so well in spite of the "spending" and "debt problem."
Because there is still faith in the US paying its debtors. When that fails, which is probably coming, the house of cards will fall apart. The money to service the $34 TRILLION dollars the US has "borrowed" is insane. It is now a quarter million per tax payer (of which half the country isn't, and the other half are not paying anywhere near what is being spent on them). The interest is now approaching the
Re: Nope (Score:2)
No, 47% of taxpayers get direct, issued as a check from the government, refunds that equal or exceed all income taxes collected from them through payroll deductions.
The government services they receive are pure gravy, in addition to their cash refund.
Re: Nope (Score:2)
Why do you think colleges and universities need more money? They need to reign-in spending and focus on teaching students, rather than building glorious buildings after generous donors and raising tuition to astronomical heights.
If this medical school can eliminate tuition fees because of a $1BN donation, why can't universities with existing $1BN+ endowments accomplish the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Charitable donations aren't socialism, doofus. If the government seized the $1bn and redistributed it, THAT would be socialism.
This woman is donating funds that her husband earned from decades of investing. And not on some building with their name, or some vanity project, but on actual, direct assistance to students in need.
And STILL people bitch about it. She does an undeniably good thing, and still there are posts just a few down from here taking the opportunity to bitch about billionaires, and posit conspiracy theories about her true intent.
No matter how good a deed is, there's always going to be some miserable asshole there to
Re: (Score:2)
If the government seized the $1bn and redistributed it, THAT would be socialism.
Redistribution of wealth is not socialism.
Socialism is government or worker ownership of the means of production.
Good for her (Score:2, Interesting)
Good for her - as the saying goes "your last coat has no pockets". I'm sure lots of people will benefit directly and indirectly over the coming years.
I'm a bit mixed about this sort of thing though. It's one school getting a (much needed) boost, so that's good, but what's to say that another school down the road wouldn't benefit from far less? What if that billion was spent supporting Ukraine, or whatever? Wouldn't it have been better for that money to have never been earned, and instead used (via the gover
Re: (Score:1)
>Wouldn't it have been better for that money to have never been earned, and instead used (via the government) as wealth redistribution to help the poorest of society?
If people didn't earn money, who would the government take it from to redistribute?
Re: (Score:1)
There is also the complication of disadvantaged people wasting these type of resources. That is, they get access but are either incapable of using it or lack the drive to use it. A partial solution may be to focus on helping getting these people to a better position to be able to use the resources rather than just handing it to them.
Tough situation. I definitely don't think these type of resources should continue to ONLY fund top-tier assholes. That's the whole problem with the current wealth inequality.
Re: (Score:3)
Good for her - as the saying goes "your last coat has no pockets". I'm sure lots of people will benefit directly and indirectly over the coming years.
First the rational setup statement. You know something is coming after this.
I'm a bit mixed about this sort of thing though.
The setup.
It's one school getting a (much needed) boost, so that's good, but what's to say that another school down the road wouldn't benefit from far less? What if that billion was spent supporting Ukraine, or whatever? Wouldn't it have been better for that money to have never been earned, and instead used (via the government) as wealth redistribution to help the poorest of society?
I don't have the answers to all that, but at least that money's getting used for something useful and not being kept under the bed any longer.
And there it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good for her (Score:2)
Is this woman's estate the only donor in the world? Can't someone else help the smaller schools with lesser needs?
This school will pump out doctors with no student debt in perpetuity, perhaps some of those newly-minted debt-free doctors will donate to these other schools with lesser needs when their children attend them?
The societal impact of this donation will be felt for decades, as qualified students who lack the means to attend medical school are accepted here. What a fantastical impact her gift will ha
Hope they don't raise the tuition (Score:3)
Would be slimy of them to raise the tuition to reduce the number of students that could get in courtesy of the donor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the point though. There's only a $1 billion donation. How many students do you think can get in before that donation is eaten up by tuition and fees?
When student loans started becoming a big deal decades ago, university tuitions rose as well. Lots of money chasing a limited supply of product or service drives up prices, unless someone intervenes to artificially stymie price action. It was never the intention of student loan advocates to increase the cost of an education for everyone, n
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the point though. There's only a $1 billion donation. How many students do you think can get in before that donation is eaten up by tuition and fees?
School tuition is $58,121 [usnews.com]. Assuming that the $1 billion is invested in a high dividend fund yielding 4% or $40 million per year, those dividends could support 688 students. Not counting post-docs, the school has around 1000 students. Some of those students already receive aid from the school, so it's not unreasonable to think that the $1 billion dollars could producing ongoing income to support all of its students or at least come close.
Re: (Score:3)
And what do you suppose happens when the tuition goes up to $70k or higher?
Re: (Score:2)
Endowments do sometimes go underwater.
Re: Hope they don't raise the tuition (Score:2)
So what? Tuition will go up - inflation is a thing - and the fund will cover it.
Why assume that the schools only source of income will be from this gift, and if/when the gift runs out the school must do what? Shut down?
Re: Hope they don't raise the tuition (Score:2)
Did you even bother to read the fine summary?
The 93-year-old widow of a Wall Street financier has donated $1 billion to a Bronx medical school, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, with instructions that the gift be used to cover tuition for all students going forward.
That last word is "forward" not "forever" - she's covering the next billion dollars of tuition, after that, you're on your own as far as tuition goes.
It's not that ... (Score:2)
Too generous? (Score:2)
Given that medical doctors have a VERY high earnings potential, letting them save the cost of their tuition entirely seems dubious. Though I guess they've still living costs to pay, so it won't be a totally free ride.
Re:Too generous? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US it's a bit of a complex system. Doctors earn more than in other countries but they also rack up a lot more school debt (as they have to do more school relative to those other countries, many other countries don't require undergrad, you can jump right into medical school out of HS) and they also have increased costs with insurance and staffing to deal with the wacky insurance and billing systems we use.
We do have a doctor shortage still though so this is a good thing but you are correct in some skepticism as this doesn't really address and in some ways exacerbates the systemic issues we deal with.
Artificial shortage? (Score:2)
My understanding is that the AMA has prevented medical schools expanding as much as they should to create the shortage.
https://www.economist.com/unit... [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the residency cap is just bad policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that medical doctors have a VERY high earnings potential, letting them save the cost of their tuition entirely seems dubious.
That's a problem. Medical students get into tremendous amounts of debt to go through medical school. Because of this huge debt, they have to find high-paying positions, which makes it difficult to lure doctors to serve poor and rural communities that don't have huge reservoirs of money to fund doctors. You can't find a doctor to make house calls any more because it simply isn't enough money per hour.
Another consequence of that is that there is now a very strong incentive to restrict the supply of doctor to
Re: (Score:2)
In my fantasy land, we'd have a variety of medical professionals with levels of expertise that all can be called "Doctor". My best example is the modern RN, whose knowledge and skill exceed that which were called Doctors 70 years ago. Literally better suited to be Doctoring than those of yesteryear.
In 90% of my health care needs, I'd rather have a RN than a Doctor. But the laws and regulations say I can't because they are not "doctors". (Nurse Practitioners are exception to SOME of those rules).
My point is
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, six years vs eight years .... "pales in comparison"
Re: (Score:2)
Four (BSN) versus twelve (BS/MD/residency), but you tried.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nursing Program at our local University requires BS degree just to get in. It's two years after that.
Residency is after 4 years of Med School, after completing Doctorate. It is technically supervised practice of Medicine, not education.
And if you wanted, you could tack on specialization studies for those that require even MORE.
Re: (Score:2)
Then wise people should not enroll at your local university, because a bachelors of any stripe is customarily a four year degree, and direct BSN programs aren't exactly rare [collegetransitions.com]. Of course, I'm willing to bet that like many other in-demand majors, what actually happens is you apply to the major near the end of your second year of college, get in, and complete the major and graduate within four years. Not s
Re: (Score:2)
>"In my fantasy land, we'd have a variety of medical professionals with levels of expertise that all can be called "Doctor". My best example is the modern RN"
We already have that in the US. They are called Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The duties are essentially the same and in most States they can diagnose, treat and also prescribe most medications. Their work is overseen by an MD. Their roles are typically used for heal
Re: (Score:2)
Or, we could call them what they are, "physicians".
The misappropriation of "Doctor" for physicians is rather recent; for thousands of years, the word meant someone who had both acquired significant knowledge *and* contributed to that knowledge.
The modern MD was created because nineteenth century medicine tended to be lethal to the patient, coming from half (or less) trained trained barbers and sawbones.
Creating the MD was a deliberate attempt to borrow the legitimacy and reputations of the doctors of the un
Re: (Score:2)
Given that medical doctors only achieve that earnings potential at an average age of 30 (4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, 4 years of residency) as a non-specialist, with your average FP making $228K [salary.com], that's a hell of a lot of opportunity cost before we begin to get the physicians
Re: Too generous? (Score:2)
That some doctors won't have student debt from medical school is a problem? It would likely enable them to consider practicing medicine in rural communities where the need is greatest and the standard of living is much more affordable. Taking that $250-500K student debt load off their shoulders frees them to accept lower-earning positions.
Billion dollar makes a mark (Score:2)
40 full classes can do a full ride without interest or tuition hikes.
Universities are going to invest that for a while and probably get 50-60 years out of it.
You bet your ass tuition is going to go up. Colleges are like Wall Street. They'll take your money.
Accreditation (Score:2)
Another billion should go to build two new medical schools. We have a massive undersupply of clinicians.
Trouble is AMA has a monopoly stranglehold on accreditation and they deliberately keep supply below demand to keep salaries jacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Another billion should go to build two new medical schools. We have a massive undersupply of clinicians.
Trouble is AMA has a monopoly stranglehold on accreditation and they deliberately keep supply below demand to keep salaries jacked.
The bigger problem is that being a medical doctor has become such an expensive, litigation-riddled hassle, that doctors are telling young people that they wouldn't go into medicine if they had it to do over again.
This is wonderful... (Score:2)
Re: This is wonderful... (Score:2)
We have over 1 trillion in student debt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"philanthropy" seems a better word than "charity" for covering the tuition at a medical school in an economically weak area in perpetuity . . .
A single billion dollars isn't nearly enough to make every institution of higher learning in the US free forever, but it *is* enough to do it for this one school.
Money (Score:1)