I think we went through this entire process backwards. We sent out applications and got back just over 50 of them. Then, we more or less randomly decided on five finalist organizations based on which ones we thought sounded the best, or felt like they did good important work, or wrote really convincing applications. And now, we are stuck with 5 finalist organizations, which in my opinion and I am sure the opinions of many of my classmates, are not all viable options for donating our money to.
The first step should simply NOT have been to follow our hearts and pick organizations to be finalists without having done the same type of thorough research we have now conducted for these five finalists. If every student was assigned two organizations to research, make visits to, and give a brief presentation on whether or not those two organizations should be considered and why, we would not only be stuck with organizations we wish were never picked, but we would have been nearly guaranteed that the organizations who were finalists were worthy of our donations.
The decisions of who should be finalists should have been based purely on facts: management of funds, transparency, effectiveness in achieving their clearly stated mission statements etc. From there, we would have been able to asses which organizations were providing the most necessary services, asking for the most fair amounts of money, and perhaps even appealed to our sensibilities to determine our final grant recipients.
I'm certainly grateful for the tools and information I have gained from this class, and the hands on experience it has afforded me. I just feel I learned a lot more "what not to dos" than "what to dos." Which is totally fine, just maybe not what I was expecting.
Jason I don't think you should start this blog post off by apologizing. I say that partially because I agree with you and partially because I think Professor Campbell has the potential to use this post as constructive feedback and a way to make this class even better next year.
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed with myself that I did not spend more time thoroughly reviewing each organization that applied for our project. I read over everything but not as in depth as I would have liked and went along swimmingly with my group members when they choose what organizations we wanted to give the money back to. I feel like I could have picked another organization to support. What makes me feel better however is that many groups wanted to fund the same organizations. There is something to be said for the fact that in multiple presentations Moms House, the Rescue Mission, and Kopernik kept reappearing.I don't think that is a coincidence. In a class of 25 students from all different grades and backgrounds we had a general consensus on several organizations which makes me believe that even though the process could have been better, we made right choices at the end.
I appreciate your idea that each student should have researched two organizations as extensively as we have researched the top five finalists. I also agree that, that would have been the most effective way to learn about each organization that applied. However I do want to play devils advocate. I think as a class we immediately ruled out organizations that Dorothy Buffet refers to as SOB's and for the most part, religious organizations. That definitely narrowed down the list and made it easier to select organizations we, as a class, wanted to advocate for. I also think that each individual had a chance to extensively research each organization that applied but we found it too much work to go above and beyond what was required. I have found that this class really is what you put in it and while it seems that collectively our class wishes we did more research on each organization that applied, it is sadly our faults. I myself regret that and in part cannot blame how the class is structured because doing what you suggested, although super ideal, would have taken up a lot of class time that we unfortunately don't have.
I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing your idea, because I definitely agree with it and think it would have been more effective if we did it how you suggested, I just don't think it is realistic in a class setting. I also agree with you that I learned both skills of what to do and what not to do the next time I decide to donate to a charity or non-profit organization. This class has provided me insight on how to determine if an organization is worthwhile to donate to or not, what questions to ask before I donate my money, and has helped me developed my core values. I also learned that I shouldn't blindly rush into agreeing with my group, should spend more time researching organizations, and shouldn't immediately follow my heart.
Although unfortunately you and I learned the "what not to do's" later on in the process than we would have liked to, I strongly think we will apply our newly developed critical thinking skills in determining the organizations we give the money too. Its too late to go back in time and change the organizations we picked as finalists but its not too late to apply these methods when choosing the organizations we actually select as the so-called winners.
First of all, you're right the facetious apology was unnecessary. So thank you. I also agree with all the rest of the things you had said. Weeding out the SOBs and religious groups and broad things like that where we knew that nobody would want to support them later on. And of course this class is about what we put into it, where we had the chance to research the original applicants in depth, but since it was not our assignment to do so, we didn't. The one part I struggle with just a bit in your comment is where you say that organizations like Mom's House, Kopernic, and the Rescue Mission came up repeatedly in the original presentations.
DeleteI think that there is a possibility, and maybe this isn't the case, that the reasons why these same organizations kept being brought up had to do with factors such as appealing perceived missions/goals and high levels of familiarity with the names of organizations.
I am sure these were not the only factors involved in our picking of finalists, but I am also sure that it played a role. Would we have ended up with several of the same finalists had we done deeper research at first? Sure, probably. I just think I would feel a lot more comfortable with our pool of finalists if we had made more educated decisions about who are in it.
I certainly learned a lot, and I feel I may have been in a place of frustration when initially writing the blog. I don't mean to seem as though I think our work has been for naught or that our final decision will not have value, because none of that is true. I just look back and wish that we had felt as enthralled and impassioned about this decision making process the whole way through.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts.
However, I think as a class we should stay more positive. Today in class it very much felt like everyone was on the attack, ready to look for all the faults of the organization. I think the point of this class is not to be so harsh in our critques on specific organizations. I think the point of the class is to realize what some of the organizations in the local area do, to learn what the community's needs are, and to learn how to assess an organization as a whole: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
You might be right that we had to choose on a more shallow level with the 50 organizations. But I think that each of the organizations we have chosen as a class does wonderful, very important work for the community. We could sit in class and argue about blinds vesus pairing a leaking roof, but at the end of the day, doesn't it feel good to know that the money we are giving will in some way benefit the community? Won't it feel amazing to share with our friends and family that we are doing more than just academics in school and are actually leaving a legacy behind?
Maybe I'm more of a glass half full person, but I think we should stive to see the good overall. Yes, every organization (even a school as amazing as Binghamton) has its flaws. But let's remember that this process is helping not just us as students become better philanthropists but is helping a community that really needs our help.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking a lot about what you have said but have not always had the right words to articulate it. I am not sure if I agree that we did this process backwards as much as I think we did it inefficiently. Similar to what you stated, I believe are time would have been better spent investigating the initial 55 organization. Instead, of spending multiple class slots and having several group presentations on 5 finalists we now feel concerned about, I agree that we could have spent the same time understanding the initial applicants. As a result, we would have ended up making a more knowledgeable and confident decision.
In the beginning I thought it was impossible to examine all 55 organization thoroughly, so narrowing down our choices out of emotion or what appeared to be good on paper seemed inevitable. But as you pointed out, I do not think that is the case. If we had just divided up how we spent our effort I believe the process we are going through now would not only be easier but filled with more clarity. That is not to say that the organizations we have left are unworthy, I just think that a different path taken could have left us feeling more assured and prepared.
Jason, I think your opinion is valid. I also felt like this process was a bit rushed in the beginning. But I disagree with your idea that we did this in reverse. Rather, I think this was a good way to go about the process of weeding through about 55 applications.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of tackling a list of 55 organizations individually sounds crazy to me. I couldn't imagine being left to my own devices to decide on finalists. I needed to hear other peoples' values and ideas to weed out the organizations who weren't quite what we wanted; for example, the Homeowner's Association to support fracking. And if you had told me to go to every organization and assess it the way I'm assessing STAT, I would have felt sick. Personally, I needed to weed through the organizations by finding the ones I could connect with their mission, and then assess which of those is the best one for me to give to.
I understand how that could be backwards. You're totally right in thinking that we should have evaluated each and every organization, then chosen the "good" ones. But maybe sometimes we need to think a little more with our hearts before out heads step in.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But in a class of 24 students what you purpose would be nearly impossible. I believe that there should be more time deciding on the organizations that become finalists and a more in depth process. However, there isn't a clear or easy way to do that. We have to remember that we are in an academic setting, and going on site visits and writing blog posts are all apart of our grade. I truly believe that this class would be must better if we took it pass fail, or even for no grade at all. But because of the academic constraints that we are put under we can't necessarily take the time we would otherwise like to, and evaluate each organization in depth.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the organizations we chose do have faults. But there wouldn't be one organization that was fault free. For the majority of the organizations that we have in our finalists, we knew about these supposed problems just by reading the grants. And still despite that we were able to choose these organizations as the best, or the ones where our money would make the most difference. There were few surprises in this process, and now we are 'stuck' (as you say) with the organizations we have chosen. But we chose them, we advocated for them. All five of these organizations have great merit. We did not choose badly, and the process did not fail us. We just have to gain the ability to look over these small problems and see the good that we can create.