<p>Beyphy, </p>
<pre><code>Donations to the university amounted to $1.2 billion dollars, not the operating budget.
</code></pre>
<p>Sparkeye, #39:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a quote of a staff editorial from the student paper, sparkeye.</p>
<p>“In other words, the people doing the majority of the undergraduate teaching are receiving less than 13 percent of the faculty budget.”</p>
<p>“Teaching” is the important key word here. TA’s don’t teach according to my definition of the word. Do they have a large load, leading sections and grading and such? Absolutely, but they do everywhere. What they go through is essentially a rite of passage – just as with residents in the medical world having a high workload at little pay – in being welcomed to the world of professorship. Btw, if you want to make this a war between OSU and UCLA, we can arrange this. 
</p>
<p>I’ll be the first to say that the academic senate at UCLA, and probably many other universities wields too much power and is out of touch with current times. The UC system as a whole will continue to have these academic types who effectively run the u’s, certainly its course offerings, who have no concept of reality or what should be offered current-day students … for example, should UCLA have an undergrad b-school? Btw, I actually like not having a b-school in a way because recruiters are open to more of the whole student body instead of focusing in on just the b-students. And the UC’s will continue to have funding problems of pensions and getting these people to retire by the time they lose 85% of their peak brain capacity.</p>
<p>Generally, I’m not a fan of the administration at UCLA. They’re a bureaucratic mess and too top heavy as is a problem with a lot of public u’s. They’re too busy congratulating and patting themselves on their backs for what UCLA has become, but if UCLA were in Riverside, it’d just be UCR (…which is a very good university in itself don’t get me wrong. One can randomly choose any of the UC’s and still have essentially the same options as if this same person chose UCLA or Cal.) </p>
<p>But it’s the ancillary things, which has so many people from all over the world as well as from CA who hold UCLA as their ultimate dream university whether because of the weather, the CA lifestyle, sports teams, night life, the social life … as well as top-tier academics. This is besides having a high degree of [hot](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJjL4tf0wA]hot[/url][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PPRsRQsiw”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJjL4tf0wA)people, two links btw, or certainly a higher degree of them in relation to the vast majority of top-tier universities and colleges. I’m not saying UCLA is ASU in this department.</p>
<p>So I definitely have a love-hate relationship with UCLA. Generally, love the people who go/went there, the school itself, the atmosphere, what the school offers atmospherically within and without of the academic world; dislike (not at its ultimate degree, more of a non-feeling of like, an anti-feeling) the people who run it from the Governor down to the admissions people (these are included because of their standards at times of ‘less is more’ wrt admittance qualifications.) </p>
<p>I’m not a fan of many of the Regents from the system itself, including the governor who should be recalled. If he keeps doing as he does, he will be recalled. He has brought more havoc since he entered into office in less than one year than the governator ever did in his whole term. But what does one expect of a Cal grad? Yudof is an absolute moron and this is an understatement.</p>
<p>I will say this and therefore end on a positive: </p>
<p>Students are graduating timely, ~ 70%, which would be much higher except for the E students who push 220 credits at the time of graduation … and graduation rates won’t dip anytime soon despite the fear mongering on this board. The U is a very smoothly run operation despite being extremely large, which is a good 2x’s smaller than OSU. The U is making up state shortfalls in undergrad education by enrolling a lot more non-resident students, so undergrad funding shouldn’t be a problem, though I wouldn’t like to see a 30% non-resident enrollment.</p>
<p>JCB: Nice response to beyphy. He conceded and you said “good enough.” LOL…</p>
<p>Most of the UCLA budget is just money that flows thru the hospitals for patient care. It has little to do with running the school. Many schools have made the hospitals a separate entity off the school budget.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the point is about apples and oranges in numbers. Jeez, people get so manic. Medical schools are massive attractors of donations (just ask Marc Benioff, founder of Salesforce and USC grad) who just gave a massive amount to UCSF.</p>
<p>I think it’s hard to argue that UCSF is meaningfully a part of Berkeley as a fully connected institution. It is separate. However, it is likely a hell of a lot less separate than let’s say Cornell med school (located as it is in Manhattan, not Ithaca) is from Cornell. And I’ll bet massive amounts of money without looking at the data that Cornell’s fundraising looks phenomenally better when including med school fundraising.</p>
<p>UCSF is indeed separate from Berkeley, but there are more ties between the two schools than have been listed ad nauseam here. Historically, it was really Berkeley’s med school. And its grouping with Berkeley in terms of fundraising prowess just illustrates the apples to oranges nature of comparing fundraising totals between school with and without med schools.</p>
<p>To suggest that Berkeley is crappy at fundraising based on its placement on this list is ridiculous…No doubt Berkeley could stand to do better, but this comparison of UCB/UCSF = Harvard/MIT is silly and misses a really basic point.</p>
<p>For the schools, the %age improvement stats are hugely important and fantastic news for the schools that have been improving so well.</p>
<p>
Awwww, ad nauseam, bedhead? Really? Haha!</p>
<p>
Interesting that the top two performers from 2005 to 2010 don’t have medical schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for rehashing the rehash. You’ve added nothing … no value added … especially since beyphy already conceded some things.</p>
<p>Regarding the first bold – dumb comparison.</p>
<p>Regarding the second: Who cares if they were historically joined? </p>
<p>We’re talking about present times. As bluebayou noted, UCLA was originally the Southern Branch of the University of California, or whatever they called it. … <strong><em>micro shrug</em></strong></p>
<p>phantasmagoric liked to say how UCLA was a ‘Cal wannabe.’ Completely different schools, and UCLA is nowhere near a wannabe. They are completely different schools, entirely different atmospheres, different student bodies.</p>
<p>Wrt JCB’s list, this was just a five-year snapshot. Trends of those starting ‘low’ won’t continue. But they must be maintained to be viable fundraisers.</p>
<p>I will say this though, if UCLA’s and Cal’s % of Donations factor within USNews are as low as it reports, this bodes well for both if the % of alumni-giving goes upwards. There’s massive potential in giving totals based on these supposed low giving %'s.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, an almost meaningless side of the story. Go try to buy car or qualify for a mortgage by telling them what a sparkling percentage your salary increased over last year. Schools can’t spend a percentage either; they spend dollars. </p>
<p>If school A raised a half million dollars last year and increased it by a whopping 100% this this year, and school B raised 20 million dollars last year and increased it by only 10% this year, which school is better off?</p>
<p>
The UC giving report that I posted the link earlier paints an interesting picture:</p>
<p>Campus: Percent of Donations Raised by Individuals; Percentage of Individual Donation from Alumni
Berkeley: 47.1% / 64.8%
UCLA: 21.7% / 49.4%
Riverside: 13.2% / 28.8%
Irvine: 11.1% / 20.2%
Davis: 30.9% / 13.4%
San Diego: 28.9% / 6.3%
Santa Barbara: 23.2% / 6.2%
San Francisco: 21.7% / 6.0%
Merced: 37.1% / 0.5%</p>
<p>Interesting how San Diego’s alumni percentage is low. However, SD does have a prestigious medical component and probably attracts large donations from outsiders.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha ha. Actually, if I added nothing, it’s probably because people are too stupid to get things the first time about apples and oranges comparisons.</p>
<p>I don’t need to argue any point. The fact is Berkeley is (historically) a public school and has a premier performance on many levels. It has educated far more poor people than the Ivy League as a whole and seen many go on to do great things; many of its alumni don’t give because far more didn’t start school driving a Porsche. For me, that’s value worth flaunting. For you, I imagine, it’s a fact to be pitied. </p>
<p>For dipwads who want to parse numbers to see whose reputational schlang is the longest and who miss the importance of some crucial driving denominators because of stupidity or small-mindedness, I really don’t have any time. Signing off. </p>
<p>Flame away and get me barred from this site, I care not. I don’t plan on returning anyway…</p>
<p>Yes, this is an interesting table, UCB, uhhh, JCB…what it obviously shows is that UCLA has more company/firm donations (institutional giving) with alumni connections vis-a-vis Cal, which is more individualistic, encompassing more persons, a bit more alumni, probably smaller in quantitiy given … but which can change quite a bit from period to period, undoubtedly. Thanks for the info. </p>
<p>But I believe the % of donations of alumni stat within USN would be total no. of bac-recipient alumni who gave within an academic year?/total no. of bac-recipient alumni. I think you know this, but, USN reports both u’s as not involving a high % of this type of alumni giving, or at least compared to those which are at the top. </p>
<p>A lot of this problem of involving alumni for both is because both are publics. People who pay less … generally, for their education tend to reinvest less as compared to those who’ve attended privates; the former are more detached in feeling towards their alma maters compared to the latter. </p>
<p>And this is why Alexandre showed how some private u’s game the system by spreading smaller donations over a period of time to encompass more alumni giving in this USN variable. And for those who are asking for proof can’t expect these u’s to admit to this.</p>
<p>It’ll be a hard stigma to overcome for UCLA and Cal the idea that both have “detached alumni,” especially since both don’t care to game the system to pump up their %'s of persons who’ve given and thereby ascend the USN rankings. </p>
<p>Bedhead, sorry about my seeming “diatribe.” I seemed a bit more scathing in my response than what I intended upon reflection.</p>
<p>I just thought you brought up something that was put to bed when beyphy conceded, which you might have missed. Don’t leave on account of these small things, and these are really small unimportant things. ;)</p>
<p>another correction if I may:</p>
<p>‘this is an interesting table, UCB, uhhh, JCB…what it obviously shows is that UCLA has more company/firm donations (institutional giving) with alumni connections vis-a-vis Cal’</p>
<p>Of course, the bold s/b switched to a more general term of “non-individual” giving, which would be a “non-direct” giving by individuals, generally, instead of specific companies, firms, etc. This type of giving would include foundations, etc. Indivdual giving would probably be those persons who gave money to the u’s directly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there are two other critical factors involved, one of which I believe Alexandre mentions frequently. Public Unis, by definition, receive tax dollars so some (many?) instate alumni feel that they already ‘contribute’ to the educational cause. Secondly, which I think is a bigger issue, is that the top alumni giving schools have wealthy student bodies to begin with. It’s a whole lot easier to ‘give’, when one is giving away daddy’s money. For example, Dartmouth has a 99% senior class giving rate (one or two holdouts each year). Since those college seniors have zero income for the most part, they are using financial aid or, primarily, parental assets to donate. Yes, the Ivies have been recently accepting more lower income folks, but are still ~50% are full pay, i.e., top 5% of income in the country/world.) Some/many private colleges are 65% full pay. Contrast that with each UC campus which is comprised of 33% Pell Grantees, and a system that is not generous with finaid. Such kids are scrambling to eat every month.</p>
<p>Except for a very small number of students, alumni are no longer Pell grantees. </p>
<p>Alumni giving does indeed depends on one’s income, but it mostly reflects how students recognize the value of the education received. And, fwiw, the bar for alumni statistics is placed very low. A few bucks per year should not create people to miss meals.</p>
<p>I do not know where the report is getting its data from. Rutgers University received $578.60 millions in donations from October 2010 to September 2011 (2010-2011). Maybe the report is just covering fiscal year 2010.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source, please? (besides USNews)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AND wealth, which comes from family generally. Even a former Pell Grantee who graduates and does get a job is still not nearly as well off as those full pay graduates who have attended a private college, or those who have attended private (prep) schools are through life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless you have ever been on food stamps, or jobless for a long period of time, or lacking health insurance with large medical bills, don’t presume what folks could be able to do with what little cash that they have.</p>
<p>I am not presuming anything. I believe you might be confusing the family income from applicants and post graduation income from alumni. Should one not fairly assume that the education provided by a flagship state education should lift one from poverty?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that itself a “presumption”? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>btw: no I would not assume that any college education – whether state flagship are elite Ivy/LAC – will lift someone from poverty. There are thousands of unemployed college grads, or underemployed, i.e. working (temp) retail.</p>
<p>BB, yes we should not assume or presume what people do with their money! However, setting semantics aside, I believe that you will find plenty of surveys (if not evidence) that public schools have not compiled a very successful record of alumni donation, especially not from the people who (as you said) were not wealthy in the first place.</p>
<p>Common reasons cited for the lack of donation is the assumption (haha) that state schools are funded by the state, that the school mismanages the funds by investing in pet projects or construction all the while paying fat cat admins, or that graduates have done their part and paid enough in tuition. “Older” alumni are particularly negative about the unending growth of expenses (room/board ten times higher than 25 years ago) and administrative expenses. </p>
<p>Reports do indicate that alumni are more responsive when football programs do well and when fundraisers can be dedicated to the DIRECT well-being of current students. The cynical view for a public university is that the best way to augment alumni donations is to invest in a strong athletic department and minimize the admissions of low-income students. Yet “common” alumni do not support massive infrastructure projects Based on that it is not hard to see why a school such as Cal is torn between various alternatives and has remained at around 8-9 percent participation --at least that is number I assume to be true, Michigan seems to be slightly higher at 12 percent; perhaps because Alexandre funds the difference through thousand of small donations. :)</p>
<p>All in all, there are plenty of reasons why public schools face a uphil battle in changing the culture of its alumni when it comes to non-developmental donations.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>We can speculate as to the reasons why alumni of private colleges with wealthy student bodies tend to donate more than alumni of public schools, but it is just that, speculation absent any data. So, let’s get back to the statement you made in post #53, “Alumni giving…mostly reflects how students recognize the value of the education received.”</p>
<p>I realize that such is USNews’ stated rationale for including it as a factor in its rankings, albeit at 5%. My question is whether you believe that statement to be true and, more importantly, if you have any sources/studies to show that it is true? </p>
<p>btw: I have an older hardcopy of USNEWs and it shows Cal’s alumni rate at 13%. UMich at 17%. Of course, both trail UVa and Georgia Tech (in the 20’s) which have wealthier student bodies, i.e., more full pay students.</p>
<p>Interestingly, top LACs without football teams are in the 50’s and 60’s percent giving rates.</p>
<p>Rushed for time … have to go! Here is a source that happens to be the same as the … OP’s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more at [UC</a> Alumni Reluctant to Donate - The Bay Citizen](<a href=“Bay Citizen”>Bay Citizen)</p>