<p>If you're a student, then I would say that a more important figure than the endowment is how much the school is SPENDING on its students per year. Any school can increase its endowment size just by skimping on spending and reducing funding for its current programs. If you go to such a school, then that school's large endowment that isn't spent on improving the education doesn't exactly help you very much (although that endowment may help future students of the school if and when the endowment is spent). Let's face it. If you're a current student, you want money to be spent on current programs.</p>
<p>great info on this thread</p>
<p>That goes without saying Sakky. Spending on students is very important. But top universities have operating budgets that run in the billions of dollars and increase their spending on an annual basis. So the increase in the size of endowments is generally a result of sound investment and alumni donations, not of their skimping on spending. </p>
<p>Top universities spend a great deal on their students. Small universities like Brown and Dartmouth, with total student populations of 6,000-7,500 students, have operating budgets of $500-$600 million. Larger schools like Penn, Cornell and Michigan spend well over a billion dollars (not including research and graduate school spending). MIT with a student body barely scratching the 10,000 mark spends a whopping billion dollars on students, not including research. In short, top universities will spend anywhere between $30,000-$100,000 per student, depending on the size of their student bodies (smaller schools cannot benefit from economies of scale and therefore, must spend more per student than larger schools that can actually benefit from economies of scale) and the make up of their student bodies (schools like Harvard and Chicago, where 70% of the students are graduate students tend to have a higher spending per student than schools like Brown or Michigan, where only 30% of the students are graduate students).</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the size of the endowment is also important. Michigan is going to build a new $140 million Business school building and has spend over $400 million on the life sciences over the last 5 or 6 years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The two schools are at such extreme far ends of the spectrum that it's almost impossible to even compare. With just 4% of UMich's enrollment, Swarthmore can probably make do with their new $78 million science center. Conversely, U Mich could never afford Swarthmore's 8:1 undergrad student/professor ratio. It's kind of like comparing the Mall of America to a designer boutique. Both retail experiences offer things the other can't.</p>
<p>One thing is for sure, though. Both schools offer the quality they do because they have more money to spend than the typical school in their respective market segments. Swarthmore's finances are easy to sort out because it's all undergrad and it all stems from a huge endowment. Michigan's would be much harder to sort out because the revenues come from many sources (research contracting, state appropriations, etc.) and because the spending is co-mingled among undergrad, grad schools, professional schools, research units, hospitals, etc. But, without even looking, I bet that Michigan's operating budget is at the extreme top end of public universities.</p>
<p>Like anything else, the old adage "just follow the money" applies.</p>
<p><a href="schools%20like%20Harvard%20and%20Chicago,%20where%2070%%20of%20the%20students%20are%20graduate%20students%20tend%20to%20have%20a%20higher%20spending%20per%20student%20than%20schools%20like%20Brown%20or%20Michigan,%20where%20only%2030%%20of%20the%20students%20are%20graduate%20students">quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I read a rough rule of thumb recently that spending per grad student (in a regular academic department) is typically double the spending per student for undergrads. And, for professional schools like med schools, figure 3 or 4 times the per student spending. From the perspective of someone trying to compare undergrad schools, this makes studying operating budgets for universities practically useless. The top LACs are currently spending $65,000 to $70,000 per student, not including financial aid. Add another $10,000 per student if you want to include financial aid as an expense item.</p>
<p>Hard to evaluate economies of scale because they impact perceived quality issues. For example, 55% of Swarthmore's operating budget goes to faculty and staff salaries, so economies of scale would directly impact class sizes, the number of deans per student, and so forth. Likewise, economies of scale in housing would be achieved with high-rise dorms, but there are quality of life costs associated there, too. Food services is one area where there probably are real economies of scale.</p>
<p>The real impact of scale would be on things that you simply cannot provide without the scale. For example, a tiny school can't offer a nuclear reactor (or other gazillion dollar science toys). Or, it can't offer a Big-10 football program.</p>
<p>The dorm I stayed in during my overnight visit to Swarthmore was a total dump. I mean like an institutional Motel 6, but with less frills, no cleaning staff, and probably a worse lingering smell. How does a rich school like that have such shabby dorms?</p>
<p>I'm shocked that a prep school educated third-generation Yalie such as yourself has stayed in a Motel 6!</p>
<p>Try a high-rise at UMass sometime.</p>
<p>"Actually dcircle, endowments are not really used at all. In general, universities spend anywhere between 3% and 6% of their endowment on an annual basis, which in the case of most universities, is only a fraction of their total annual operating budget."</p>
<p>I wouldn't call this "not using" the endowment--a reasonably conservative draw for universities is usually around 5.5%. Even with the large returns that the wealthiest universities have been able to garner in the last ten years, drawing any more runs a significant risk of devaluing the endowment and undermining its ability to support programs in perpetuity. </p>
<p>"At any rate, how universities use their endowment is up to them. Michigan for example, funded their Life Sciences initiative (a $400 million, 6-year project to revitalize the sciences at the University of Michigan) entirely with money from its endowment. That includes the building of major facilities. The new Ross Business school building is also going to be built using money from the endowment. In the Case of the Ross school, $70 million will come from Ross' $100 million gift and the remaining $70 million will be used from the university's endowment. In other words, endowment money is certainly used to fund large proects, including the building of major facilities."</p>
<p>I am not privy to the details but I'm almost certain you are mistaken about the way the endowment was used at Michigan. It's much more sensible for a university to pay for capital projects with loans than endowment. The loans are then paid off by annual funds and capital campaigns. What does happen, and probably happened in Michigan's case, is that endowment can be designated towards a building or program--in which case, it does not pay for construction. The interest earned on it pays for perpetual costs such as maintainence and utilities (neither of which are insignificant expenses for a building that costs > $100 million)</p>
<p>Dcircle, most university "capital" projects are funded by donations that are given to the university's endowment fund for the purpose of completing those projects. When Ross gave Michigan $100 million, it was added to Michigan's endowment, but in part with the purpose of building a new Business school structure and possibly adding some faculty positions and scholarships.</p>
<p>Here's an article on the particulars of the Ross project. </p>
<p>As you ca see, Ross' $100 million was given to Michigan's endowment fund in 2004. Actually construnction and payment for the construction won't start until later this year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't understand what your problem is. Every time I see a post by interesteddad or see the name "Swarthmore" you're there to add in some sort of cheap-shot or useless insult. Your comment is by no means helpful to this discussion. Why are you so hell bent on ruining the reputation of a school? Do you really think your petty comments on an internet forum make a difference? Just let it go...</p>
<p>"Hard to evaluate economies of scale because they impact perceived quality issues. For example, 55% of Swarthmore's operating budget goes to faculty and staff salaries, so economies of scale would directly impact class sizes, the number of deans per student, and so forth."</p>
<p>Actually, at certain levels, quality of program can go UP with economies of scale, and reduced expenditures per student. At a place like Swarthmore, that would actually be easy to see. If they had more serious music students, the quality of the student orchestra, vocal programs, etc., would go up, even as the fixed costs of operating such programs was spread over a larger number of students. Same is true for theater programs, and likely, dance. At certain points - especially within smaller departments a larger number of students allows for more diverse faculty, increasing the odds that students find mentors with whom they feel some bond, or who have specialized interests with which students are in tune, or increase the odds that a sabbatical in the wrong year doesn't severely negatively impact a student's experience in a small department. This might be especially true in the sciences.</p>
<p>What the optimal size should be, of course, is a matter of opinion. But it's not "cut-and-dried" that all points more spending per student equates to higher quality for the student.</p>
<p>Things like libraries, rec facilities, specialized labs, telescopes, concert halls, etc. can serve many nearly as well as a few. The more expensive the asset the better it is to spread over more students with little negative impact to the individual student.</p>
<p>"It is estimated that the new building will cost $145 million. A lead gift for the building was secured in September 2004 as real estate developer and alumnus Stephen Ross donated $100 million to the school. Seventy-five million dollars of the gift will be directed for costs associated with construction and $25 million will go into the business school's endowment. The remaining $70 million for the project will come from additional fund raising, business school funds and other private sources."</p>
<p>to be clear, according to the above, $75 million of the gift has nothing to do with endowment. </p>
<p>the building itself is being funded through gifts and other direct support. the $25 will be invested with the school's endowment so that the interest earned on it will allow Michigan to pay for the building's upkeep for years to come.</p>
<p>the reason i even bring this up is because although endowment correlates very well with a school's wealth, it does not wholistically represent it. endowment is just one aspect of wealth. buildings are a great example of a completely different aspect that carry substantial capital value. others include sponsored support, indirect cost recovery, tuition revenue, and all the intangibles that go along with a mission-driven non-profit</p>
<p>Dcircle, you are confusing me. Ross donated $100 million to Michigan. That became part of the university's endowment. Michigan in turn decided to use $75 million of that $100 million to launch the building of a new Business School facility. I don't understand how that is not a case of a university using its endowment for the construction of a building.</p>
<p>I doubt an Internet forum's going to ruin a school's reputation. I don't understand how a school with one of the highest per student endowments can have really shabby dorms. Isn't quality of life something a large endowment is supposed to improve?</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>To be sure, scale is an important consideration in choosing an undergrad school. I actually think it might be the most fundamental consideration.</p>
<p>One of the real strengths of large universities such as UMich is that they offer breadth and depth in virtually every imaginable field. Any student attracted to the benefits of a small, boutique school must carefully consider whether that small school offers enough in the areas of his or her interest.</p>
<p>For example, my daughter had zero interest in studying opera, so the fact that Smith has a superb opera program wasn't an important criteria to her. Along a similar vein, you daughter must have made a similar calculation that a School of Nursing or a School of Architecture or a Big-10 football program were not priorities for her or she would not have chosen Smith over the U. of Michigan. Conversely, a student choosing the breadth and depth of a large university because it offers things a boutique school can't offer is making an equally valid, personal choice. </p>
<p>As parents, or forum advisors, all we can and should do is encourage students to explore the various types of schools, at least to the extent of visiting, and then make decisions based on their own preferences. For example, I insisted that we visit several large state universities and we had conversations about obvious advantages these schools offer over small colleges. It's all about tradeoffs and those can't be judged universally.</p>
<p>As for the size of departments. I suspect that even U Mich has departments that submit budget proposals suggesting they feel the need for more faculty. It's an ongoing struggle at all schools to determine the proper distribution of faculty resources -- resources that are ultimately limited by operating budgets and per student spending. I don't think there is a school on the face of the earth that doesn't ultimately have to make budget decisions that mean their school is not right for at least somebody.</p>
<p>Just for frame of reference, Carolyn posted this photo of Swarthmore's shabbiest dorm on her website a while back:</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>I think dcircle's point is that giving money to the University is not the same as contributing it to the endowment. Universities receive lots of gifts that are intended to be spent, AS OPPOSED to being accepted into the endowment. Adding money to the endowment places it under a large number of restrictions on how it can be used, and how it must be used. In some cases, schools maintain a category of "quasi endowment" for funds that they intend to hold and invest in the near term, without placing them under the restrictions of endowment. This gives them the freedom to draw down the capital without taking money out of the true endowment.</p>
<p>In this case, it sounds like there was a gift for a specific project, that was not placed into the endowment. Most colleges would be very reluctant to spend hundreds of millions of dollars out of endowment on capital costs, and most university administration people would say that this would be irresponsible.</p>
<p>The University of Texas - Austin does not have a separate compilation of its endowment apart from the UT System endowment of $11.6 billion (see below copied from "Inside Higher Ed"). However, I believe UT-Austin as the bellwether of the UT System would get a very large share of the $11.6 billion for the System (probably in the neighborhood of University of Michigan's endowment $4.9 billion endowment).</p>
<p>Top 25 Endowments</p>
<p>Rank
Institution
2005 Endowment Value
1-Year % Change</p>
<p>1
Harvard U
$25,473,721,000
+15.0%</p>
<p>2
Yale U
15,224,900,000
+19.4%</p>
<p>3
Stanford U
12,205,000,000
+23.0%</p>
<p>4
U of Texas System
11,610,997,000
+12.3%</p>
<p>5
Princeton U
11,206,500,000
+12.9%</p>
<p>6
Massachusetts Inst of Tech
6,712,436,000
+14.4%</p>
<p>7
U of California
5,221,916,000
+9.5%</p>
<p>8
Columbia U
5,190,564,000
+15.5%</p>
<p>9
Texas A&M U
4,963,879,000
+13.5%</p>
<p>10
U of Michigan
4,931,338,000
+18.4%</p>
<p>11
Emory U
4,376,272,000
-3.5%</p>
<p>12
U of Pennsylvania
4,369,782,000
+8.7%</p>
<p>13
Washington U in St. Louis
4,268,415,000
+6.7%</p>
<p>14
Northwestern U
4,215,275,000
+14.9%</p>
<p>15
U of Chicago
4,137,494,000
+14.3%</p>
<p>16
Duke U
3,826,153,000
+15.5%</p>
<p>17
Cornell U
3,777,092,000
+16.6%</p>
<p>18
U of Notre Dame
3,650,224,000
+17.9%</p>
<p>19
Rice U
3,611,127,000
+9.3%</p>
<p>20
U of Virginia
3,219,098,000
+15.2%</p>
<p>LonestarDar, I got my number from Wikipedia. </p>
<p>I am not sure if that's accurate or even official though.</p>