Well said. The sticking point for me is always the "average Joe." I have to go along with you that their contributions, at a school with a relatively small number of living alumni like Seton Hall, don't move the needle much. I still think that their engagement, even at modest levels of giving, is very important. I read that Helen Lerner, who graduated in the 70's, consistently donated $50-100 a year until winning the lottery 20 years ago, and then made a large gift. This almost never happens, but the engagement/ownership - like the Green Bay Packers' "shares" - is important.
Funny enough, I was recently on the Kean campus for the first time, recently. Very impressive.
I want to be clear about this: Giving in general is important, at almost any level, and I don't want to give the impression that I don't think so. If the school can get alums to engage even at negligible levels -- $50 a year or whatever -- yes, you're 100 percent right that the person is indeed engaged and is likely to give more when and/or if they are able.
There is a book that is a bible in the development world called "The Millionaire Next Door" that speaks to how regular folks like teachers very often become significant donors down the line, primarily in estate gifts. They're not likely to produce the mega-million-dollar gifts that have become the white whale of educational philanthropy in the past 30 years, but those people still do often wind up giving gifts of, say, $5 million, which obviously move needles and more. These are often directed toward specific things, but are also often put into the general pot. The reason behind it is often attributed to "wanting to give back and give others the opportunity I had." It resonates and what could be more noble than wanting to pay it forward?
Even if that kind of estate gift (and to be sure, plenty of those occur in life, too!) is not in the cards, even nickel-and-dime giving still boosts alumni giving rates, which is also a helpful metric. And it's not like those annual-giving-type things don't add up to anything. It just isn't significant in and of itself.
The linked story is simply about the myth that the success of funding player payroll (the correct term for the "NIL" misnomer) hinges on the willingness of Joe Fan. It simply does not, and there is massive and growing resentment across college-sports fanhood over that implication, especially when the refusal to give does not indicate a desire not to "give back and create the same opportunities I had." It's much more transactional: "I want to win." And hey, there's nothing wrong with that. It's your money to do with as you please. But it's also not a moral failing to decline to direct-fund the salaries of people who make more money this year than you do.
