Bill Gates, with the B&MGF, has a decent track record of finding and boosting low-cost solutions to chronic and systemic issues. Basically, choosing where to focus resources to the best effect. I'm not saying he'd revolutionize this field, but there are worse choices than someone with his track record.
I disagree; steering basic science needs more than money to do it, and is different from finding low cost solutions. BG also has some spectacular, costly failures like in education
I'm no Gates Foundation fan, but their unlike every other group that attempted to tackle educational issues, they were relatively honest about good and bad and they documented it.
The problem is that they found what everybody knows but doesn't want to admit. The current public school system is about optimal for the amount of resource being spent. There is no mythical "pile of waste" that you can magically draw from.
They found that focused resource does help outcomes, but in far less proportion than the increase. If you want 5% improvement in achievement, you need closer to 25% increase in resource--and it needs to be sustained over years. More teachers that are better qualified is a good idea, but that is also the most expensive choice. And, your most effective option is to spend almost all your resource on the lowest achievers. All of these are highly politically unpalatable in the US.
"...optimal for the amount of resource being spent."
Belated reply, catching up on my reading.
This is a very interesting point.
I live in a largish school district. I've long believed, but cannot prove, that it's just too big. eg Scale matters. Everyone I've ever met who has ties to the district agrees with me.
I know the CFO. He crunched some numbers, comparing cost per student and outcomes. Although he wouldn't share the data with me (political suicide), he related that the it's a bathtub distribution.
So, I believe, but cannot prove, there's an optimal range for most organizations, and education reformers would get a lot of mileage out of correct sizing their districts.
Your first point may be worth taking, but I'm not sure why you say he's failed in education. The problems with education are systemic and intractable. He isn't taking an approach that attempts an overnight fix. He's taking a long-view with initiatives that attempt to slowly push the needle in the opposite direction. In the short term maybe that seems like failure because money is spent without an easily measure impact, but that is a very short-term view. I've seen first hand the benefits that some of his grants have had in this area, and that hard-won knowledge will take time to build upon and get worked into the broader world of education. It's akin to basic science in this respect.
Edit: Example. In 2010 he gave $3.5 million to charter schools in Newark, NJ. This has contributed to overall increase in success rates in such schools, which has boosted the entire city's graduation rates. They've increased significantly each year since 2013, which is about the first year you'd expect to see the results of such a grant on 4-year programs like HS.
