Tuesday, June 6, 2017

An Endowment Shall Not Save Institutions From Inter-Generational Realities

Vox Day posted about the decline of men going to college, yesterday:
This is socially disastrous and societally dysgenic, as it not only demonstrates the declining value of a college degree, but due to hypergamy, functionally sentences half of the USA's most intelligent women to barren celibacy. Women always tend to drive men out of previously male occupations, and education is no exception.

I made an offhand comment:

They ought to pay me to go back. I guess the larger institutions just see their huge endowments and imagine it will let them skate through anything, but if your alumni aren't having children, then they won't be sending their children to college...

And Ominous Cowherd responded:

If you have fewer students, you can spend more of that huge endowment on administration. Alumni not having children may be a feature rather than a bug.

The thread has, of course, overshot anything approaching reasonable with regard to answering Cowherd and hoping he or anyone else seeing the thread would know what I was talking about, so I thought I'd point something out here on my on blog.

Right now, academia is part of the parasite parade. But as enrollment drops below a certain threshold, academia starts looking like the monasteries did to King Henry the 8th.
In fact, it will be worse for these falsely vaunted institutions of higher learning because it won't be plausible for them to say they are doing anything good. They will just be sitting ducks, and a hungry wasteful government will eat up their endowments under one pretext or another.

In other words, without alumni who get married, have children, and then send their children to college, a college will die, no matter how much money it starts out with. There's a lot of wiggle room here with regard to timing, but eventually, this will bear out. Not only for inter-generatonal stability with regard to attendance, but also with regard to keeping the other parasites at bay. In other words, if the government starts making noise about taking the endowment, you want lots of alumni (in the heirarchy) calling up and saying no. Otherwise, you are just a pot of money, especially if you are no longer churning out people useful to the regime.

And I wonder if I should have made that point more explicitly, although I would assume that if anyone would think about this, about being student now, perhaps dealing with some of these idiotic protests on campus- seeing a toxic, feminist driven hook-up culture that endangers men with rape accusations and is inimical to appropriate family formation; then think about the many children who won't be, and/or the few who will be. Those few children who will be will probably be told to stay the hell away from whatever is left of that campus, especially with superior knowledge products available on the internet.

Sure, in the near term, perhaps some administrators will imagine fewer students means they can spend more on themselves. But when the administrators start thinking that way, the insitutions shall not remain for long upon this Earth.


Unknown said...

Are childless liberal University administrators really capable of looking that far ahead?

Ominous Cowherd

August said...

Probably not. Perhaps a few know, but don't care, due to how perverse their incentives are.