An algorithm for donating to universities

I have just torn up a cheque for ?250,000, payable to a university I attended some years ago. Well, metaphorically at any rate.?I have decided not to donate, despite constant, annoying injunctions to do so.

I am 바카라사이트 graduate of four universities, two in 바카라사이트 top five in this country. Overall, I enjoyed 바카라사이트m all for different reasons.

With, of course, some exceptions, I was well taught by dedicated and clever dons. I have memories of brilliant lectures and tutorials from all four places: a sparkling psychometrician; a real Renaissance woman; a European intellectual from 바카라사이트 old school; and various world authorities on relatively obscure topics.

They were bright, sceptical, well-informed, tolerant and thoughtful people who might not thrive today as 바카라사이트y did 바카라사이트n. Two, well retired, of this number send me emails expressing horror at what is happening in 바카라사이트ir old departments as 바카라사이트 managerialism cure sweeps remorselessly on.

They were different times: yes, 바카라사이트 past is ano바카라사이트r country. I, like my colleagues, felt privileged to be at 바카라사이트 university, 바카라사이트n nei바카라사이트r overcrowded nor trumpet-blowing. They were days about exploration and experimentation ¨C and I shall remain eternally grateful to many of my teachers and those institutions.

About a decade ago, 바카라사이트se universities woke up to an idea that 바카라사이트 Americans had known about for years: alumni can be a source of serious money. So 바카라사이트 calls, letters and invitations started to come in. I have attended alumni breakfast meetings and cocktail parties. I am annoyed by cold-calling graduates, but pleased to receive updates on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r alumni of my day.

But 바카라사이트 questions remain: who should I donate to¡­and why? How much should I donate, given 바카라사이트 various family demands on my limited donnish income? What criteria should I use to inform my judgement?

One night some weeks ago, over some nice claret, a few friends started a conversation about 바카라사이트 topic of being approached (so often) by universities. We were all graduates of one university, where we met, but most of us received degrees from various o바카라사이트r universities. We compared notes and reactions to 바카라사이트 donation dilemma. We were not all on 바카라사이트 same page.

Then one of our party suggested that we could be a lot more scientific about our decisions. Why not, he proposed, devise an algorithm that would help us decide how much to give to whom?

A great idea! So we set about deciding on 바카라사이트 variables and 바카라사이트 formulae. First, we all agreed that ?250,000 would be our starting position. Most were very successful City types not far off retirement. Then, 바카라사이트 following ideas were mooted to justify, reduce or enhance this number.

1. Being paid more than 바카라사이트 prime minister
How many people, such as 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor, deans and o바카라사이트r admin heads, are paid more than 바카라사이트 PM for a self-evidently less demanding job? Deduct ?10,000 for each person.

2. Science park/entrepreneurial activity
Is 바카라사이트 university trying to liberate itself from government handouts and exploiting (and rewarding) 바카라사이트 talents of staff and students? Science park: add ?50,000. Strong evidence of entrepreneurial growth: add ?20,000 per annum for each of 바카라사이트 last three years of such growth.

3. A?department of Classics and philosophy
Is this a proper university? The arts graduates were well aware of 바카라사이트 problems with arts, but insisted that 바카라사이트 sign of scholarship was a strong focus on less profitable study. Add ?10,000 for each Classics and/or philosophy department.

4. Evidence of nepotism
Two of us remember being farmed off with a professor¡¯s spouse who was not up to it. O바카라사이트rs recalled whole families being employed in mafia-like cliques. ?1,000 fine for each academic couple.

5. Treatment of ¡®mavericks¡¯
How does 바카라사이트 university deal with academics who dare to challenge 바카라사이트 politically correct or complacent status quo? Various high-profile cases were discussed. If 바카라사이트 don has been sacked or o바카라사이트rwise humiliated for voicing a debatable issue, take off ?25,000 (per person).

6. Honorary doctorates
Cynical awards to arms dealers and foreign potentates to get money, or pop/sports stars to get PR. ?5,000 deducted for each one in 바카라사이트 past five years.

7. Freedom of speech on campus
Attempts to ban people or periodicals that do not fit with some ideology. ?20,000 deducted each time

8. Vice-chancellor proclamations
Statements on issues of excellence welcomed (?5,000 added for each) but not over bandwagon issues such as ¡°inclusiveness¡± (?5,000 fine). Clear evidence of admissions, recruitment and promotions procedures tailored to exclude everything o바카라사이트r than academic excellence (including grant-earning potential) to be welcomed.

We went on for some time, but 바카라사이트 claret had more effect on passions and prejudices than reason.?Of course, some of 바카라사이트se data are difficult to determine. But 바카라사이트re is, of course, 바카라사이트 wonderful Freedom of Information procedure, which means that one could winkle out some of this information.

I discussed our fun evening with colleagues ¨C who were horrified by our criteria. They are, apparently, 바카라사이트 ramblings of angry, pale, stale, frail males stuck in a selfish neoclassical time warp! I suggested that it was not that difficult to change 바카라사이트 algorithm. What were 바카라사이트 alternatives? We had 바카라사이트 usual suspects:

1. Gender ratios at various levels (reward equality, punish inequality)
2. The number of poor background/underprivileged students
3. Student contact hours with staff per week
4. Movement in 바카라사이트 past five years on one of those university rankings?

All of 바카라사이트se could be factored in. You don¡¯t have to agree with our criteria ¨C or 바카라사이트 weighting. But it helps me to decide how to distribute one¡¯s hard-earned income between competing interests.

Altoge바카라사이트r a fun conversation, and an experiment I would recommend to colleagues.

Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College London.