<p>preliminary results are in, and indicate that 58.6% of undergraduate alumni contributed a total of $36,976,959 to princeton's 2004-05 annual giving campaign. when gifts to other campaigns are considered, alumni giving should once again exceed 60%, far above the next best university. </p>
<p>most remarkable, though, is the following:</p>
<p>"Cumulatively, 89.5% of all undergraduate alumni, including those in the youngest classes, have participated in Annual Giving at some time."</p>
<p>This looks like an effort to invent a new stat to compensate for the apparent fact that the annual giving percentage <em>declined</em> for FY 2005.</p>
<p>the full paragraph:</p>
<p>"The percentage of alumni participating in Annual Giving is an important objective as well. The participation rate in 2003-04 was 59.2%. Cumulatively, 89.5% of all undergraduate alumni, including those in the youngest classes, have participated in Annual Giving at some time."</p>
<p>this paragraph was obviously written following LAST year's campaign, when the alumni giving percentage rose from 59.0% to 59.2%. it was not, as you suggest, written to hide any decline in giving percentage, but rather to offer another, broader measure of alumni giving over the years. stop spinning.</p>
<p>".....alumni giving should once again exceed 60%, far above the next best university...."</p>
<p>Oh, really?</p>
<p>According to VSE, for fiscal 2004, 43.6% of Princeton alumni contributed, and 47.5% of "those solicited" contributed.</p>
<p>VSE reports that there were 76,995 alumni, and 71,045 were "solicited".</p>
<p>So what is this 60%??? The percentage of <em>undergraduate alumni</em> who were <em>solicited</em> who contributed? It doesn't seem to line up with any numbers reported elsewhere.</p>
<p>Just trying to make sure we're talking about apples & apples when making comparisons.</p>
<p>first of all, that's my quote, not the university's or the campaign's. and yes, we're talking about UNDERGRADUATE alumni giving here, as we almost always are. that is the measure used by u.s. news in its undergraduate rankings (that source seems to be once again acceptable to you, now that harvard is #1 again, albeit with princeton). from the rankings methodology:</p>
<p>"Alumni giving. The average percent of undergraduate alumni of record who donated money to the college or university. Alumni of record are former full- or part-time students that received an undergraduate degree and for whom the college or university has a current address. Graduates who earned only a graduate degree are excluded. Undergraduate alumni donors are alumni with undergraduate degrees from an institution that made one or more gifts for either current operations or capital expenses during the specified academic year. The alumni giving rate is calculated by dividing the number of appropriate donors during a given academic year by the number of appropriate alumni of record for that year. These rates were averaged for the 2002 and 2003 academic years. The percent of alumni giving serves as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school."</p>
<p>the rankings: <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php</a></p>
<p>princeton is extremely transparent about its calculations of giving percentage. see the detailed spreadsheet below, breaking down giving by undergraduate class:</p>
<p>you, evidently, are trying to discredit these numbers by using percentages for ALL alumni. as totaled at the bottom of the spreadsheet, princeton has 54,782 undergraduate alumni and 18,706 graduate alumni. of those 54,7872 undergraduate alumni, 58.6% contributed to this year's annual giving campaign. others, of course, donated to other campaigns or gave to the university in other ways, and their numbers will push the number over 60%. according to the last u.s. news rankings, the average alumni giving rate at princeton was 61%, while at harvard it was 48%.</p>
<p>Doesn't US News rank Pton #1 for Alumni giving?</p>
<p>Just to be sure we're comparing apples to apples ...</p>
<p>That compares with 61% claimed last year, if we're talking about the same stat reported to USNews.</p>
<p>What is unclear is whether we're talking about 58.6% of "living alumni" or 58.6% of "alumni solcited" or 58.6% of alumni "for which Princeton has an address" or some other base figure.</p>
<p>While this may or may not be true in the case of Princeton, I have heard that some schools have a policy of declaring alumni who have not contributed in the previous 5 years "legally dead."</p>
<p>i suspect that it's 58.6% of ALL undergraduate alumni. just looking at the spreadsheet, the numbers of alumni listed per class seem to track the actual numbers of graduates per class. note, however, that u.s. news excludes from the definition of alumni graduates whose addresses can't be ascertained. it also averages giving over a two-year period. these two methodological quirks may explain the 59-61% discrepancy. more likely, though, i think, princeton includes gifts OUTSIDE of the annual giving campaign as alumni giving, as they should. surely you can conceive that some alumni give to the university outside of this channel, with gifts to other campaigns, to individual departments or schools, or through bequests.</p>
<p>If the annual giving campaign did well, it's because of that video. sighh</p>
<p>Lumina Princetonia. So. Freakin'. Gorgeous. Wow.</p>
<p>What is not absolutely clear to me is whether Princeton calculates this number in precisely the same way other schools do. </p>
<p>So they exclude people "whose address "could not be ascertained?" Is this people who didn't respond over 5 years when asked for money? How hard did they try to track them down via the internet?</p>
<p>And they count money other than annual fund contributions? what type of contributions are these? Alumni Association dues? Contributions to athletic team endowments? Subscription to alumni magazine? Capital fund contributions?</p>
<p>Whyat I'm wondering, in short, is whether USNews monitors this category as closely as they should, given the fact that not all schools seem to follow the same "rules".</p>
<p>I thought US News was Hahhhvard's best friend? Now when they say Pton is the best, suddenly they may not be following procedure and they may be neglecting certain stats...</p>
<p>For god's sake Byerly. Everytime you post an interesting Harvard statistic on the Harvard board, we don't go over there and interrogate you on it.</p>
<p>I've heard that Princeton sends each undergraduate student all over the world to knock on the doors of all alumni. Now, first, the students ask for money for the annual fund. If the alumnus/alumna does not wish to give money, the Princeton student is then instructed to tie them up for ransom and use the ransom money as their "donation" to the Princeton annual fund. However, some less intelligent students fail to obtain the money. The university is now considering implementing an expulsion policy for undergrads who fail to obtain this money, as well as arming the students with guns to create more of a pressure on the alumni "donors." Also in the talks are using grad students (however, there is controversy here since its mainly dealing with the undergraduate insititution). Now you know why our average alumni giving rate is so high. ;)</p>
<p>Would you care to comment on how Hahhhhhhhhhhvard calculates its Alumni giving rate?</p>
<p>Its just that the number reported by Princeton to USNews doesn't seem to match the number reported by VSE, that's all. What is not clear to me is why this discrepance exists.</p>
<p>the number reported by VSE includes graduate alumni.</p>
<p>Wow Byerly. Just. Wow. </p>
<p>What is your purpose? What is the use of all this energy being spent villifying every post that even attempts to try to put Princeton under a good light?</p>
<p>Fact of the matter is, Harvard clearly loses this one.</p>
<p>Don't be silly. Nobody is "villifying." And the question isn't only about Princeton.</p>
<p>It is simply that this stat (the USNews % of alumni contributing" stat) seems to raise as many questions as -</p>
<ol>
<li><p>the "selectivity" stat (where EA/ED programs artificially reduce the % admitted to many schools;</p></li>
<li><p>the "% of matriculants in the top 10% of their class" stat - which is often based on data for 50% of the class or less;</p></li>
<li><p>etc</p></li>
</ol>
<p>There is a lot of fudging that goes on when it comes to the reporting of data - particularly data not called fot in the CDS forms. The reporting is, of course, voluntary, and USNews doesn't have a squad of auditors to check the numbers.</p>
<p>OMG ^ is back for hounding with little facts, mind and silly obsession.</p>
<p>What Byerly does is called FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - in marketing circles. Where he may lose he tries to cast doubt, even on trivial issues as long as it creates smoke. Then where he can win he is cast iron consistent and says the same thing every time.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, the statistics where Princeton defeats Harvard are 1) alumni giving percentage 2) alumni reunion attendance. The interesting thing about these stats is that they are proxies for a larger issue - alumni loyalty and affection for their alma mater. People who go to Princeton love it.</p>