The following appeared in a proposal from the development office at Platonic University:
“Because Platonic University has had difficulty in meeting its expenses over the past three years, we need to find new ways to increase revenues. We should consider following the example of Greene University, which recently renamed itself after a donor who gave it $100 million. If Platonic University were to advertise to its alumni and other wealthy people that it will rename either individual buildings or the entire university itself after the donors who give the most money, the amount of donations would undoubtedly increase.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Above statement is making a suggestion regarding how Platonic University can increase its revenues to meet its expenses. The Author has also given an example of Greene University to support his claims. I would like to say that the author hasn't provided all the data required to make an effective decision.
First of all, the University needs to find actual reasons of not meeting expenses. It would be wrong to go for donations without fixing real problems. In such case after few years actual issues will reappear and once again university will be required to look for different avenues of earning more revenue.
Secondly, the author also needs to provide details of expenses and incomes for last few years (at least last ten to twenty years). Only three years of the data is not sufficient to make a decision. For example, if the Platonic University had very small loss for each year of the last three years then the University might not be required to go for donations. Also the data over last few years will provide actual trend. For instance, loss over last few years could show decreasing trend and next year University can expect to have some profit. In such case Platonic University management is not required to take any major step.
Moreover, the author should provide details of agreement done between the Greene University and the individual donor. It could be that under the agreement the Greene University made some compromises and the Platonic University might not be willing to make similar compromises. In addition to that going forward the individual donor might participate more and more in Greene University's management and that could affect overall performance of the Greene University. Therefore, it will be more helpful if the author monitors the performance and the management of the Greene University for next few years and then makes a suggestion.
To summarize, I think that far more data is required to make a correct decision.
“Because Platonic University has had difficulty in meeting its expenses over the past three years, we need to find new ways to increase revenues. We should consider following the example of Greene University, which recently renamed itself after a donor who gave it $100 million. If Platonic University were to advertise to its alumni and other wealthy people that it will rename either individual buildings or the entire university itself after the donors who give the most money, the amount of donations would undoubtedly increase.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Above statement is making a suggestion regarding how Platonic University can increase its revenues to meet its expenses. The Author has also given an example of Greene University to support his claims. I would like to say that the author hasn't provided all the data required to make an effective decision.
First of all, the University needs to find actual reasons of not meeting expenses. It would be wrong to go for donations without fixing real problems. In such case after few years actual issues will reappear and once again university will be required to look for different avenues of earning more revenue.
Secondly, the author also needs to provide details of expenses and incomes for last few years (at least last ten to twenty years). Only three years of the data is not sufficient to make a decision. For example, if the Platonic University had very small loss for each year of the last three years then the University might not be required to go for donations. Also the data over last few years will provide actual trend. For instance, loss over last few years could show decreasing trend and next year University can expect to have some profit. In such case Platonic University management is not required to take any major step.
Moreover, the author should provide details of agreement done between the Greene University and the individual donor. It could be that under the agreement the Greene University made some compromises and the Platonic University might not be willing to make similar compromises. In addition to that going forward the individual donor might participate more and more in Greene University's management and that could affect overall performance of the Greene University. Therefore, it will be more helpful if the author monitors the performance and the management of the Greene University for next few years and then makes a suggestion.
To summarize, I think that far more data is required to make a correct decision.
