<p>
[quote]
A little context: Total contributions received by each of the Ivies: FY 2004
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Byerly, are those simply alumni donations for "arts and sciences", or what gets counted into these numbers?</p>
<p>Ivy League
1 Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) $556,850,207
2 Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) $336,831,966
3 University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) $326,023,965
4 Columbia University (New York, NY) $299,331,445
5 Yale University (New Haven, CT) $290,955,260
6 Princeton University (Princeton, NJ) $178,061,735
7 Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH) $105,197,760
8 Brown University (Providence, RI) $86,979,316</p>
<p>Per capita?</p>
<p>Ivy League / FTE enrollment/ FY2004</p>
<p>1 University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) 20,612.0
2 Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) 20,292.0
3 Columbia University (New York, NY) 18,478.0
4 Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) 18,429.0
5 Yale University (New Haven, CT) 11,241.0
6 Brown University (Providence, RI) 7,496.0
7 Princeton University (Princeton, NJ) 6,654.0
8 Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH) 5,585.9</p>
<p>harvard $30,216
princeton $26,760
yale $25,883</p>
<p>That's accurate, based on the 5-year average total annual donations.</p>
<p>In FY 2004 - the last year for which data is available for all schools, the "per capita" donations were as follows:</p>
<p>Harvard: $31,612
Yale: $23,851
Princeton: $19,008</p>
<p>He has done some jiggery pokey. What is it?</p>
<p>I wonder why Harvard NIH grants plumetted. Sub-standard research I guess.</p>
<p>Perhaps NIH grant officers are frequenting and following some posts. They just might have concluded that all that glitters is not gold and empty barrels make lots of noise and dwell in trivialities.</p>
<p>Harvard leads the nation in NIH grants by a wide margin, just as it has every year since the program was initiated.</p>
<p>Stanford's per capita fundraising for FY 2004, Byerly and Alumother, still leads all of the Ivy League, coming in at $35,310.17 according to Stanford.edu and VSE.</p>
<p>So what, then, matters more?
a) total fundraising
b) alumni giving percentage (USNEWS)
c) per capita fundraising</p>
<p>This seems to be at the heart of the debate.</p>
<p>"Harvard leads the nation in NIH grants by a wide margin:....:</p>
<p>then why is it ranked 12th (your numbers, I thought it was ranked 30th or so)? year after year Harvard's share is declining, because no useful work comes out of there. Money goes where useful/productive/promising research is conducted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what, then, matters more?
a) total fundraising
b) alumni giving percentage (USNEWS)
c) per capita fundraising</p>
<p>This seems to be at the heart of the debate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While a) is the only relevant measure for the financial muscle of the institution, c) tells us something about the proportional potential to increase its endowment, whereas b) only tells us something about the degree to which alumni bond with their alma mater. </p>
<p>I would consider b) the least relevant in a financial context.</p>
<p>Actually the most relevant for students would be endowment per capita.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually the most relevant for students would be endowment per capita.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Annual spending - or investment in non-financial assets- per student appears to me the most relevant, if you ask for the benefit an average student has from the financial standing of a university.</p>
<p>A more easily measured version of the same number - and perhaps with most relevance to students, is the fraction of the operating budget paid from endowment earnings.</p>
<p>To be sure, part of the purpose of accumulating a large endowment is to undertake large capital expenditures: laboratory and research facilities, new dorms, classrooms, recreation facilities, etc.</p>
<p>But equally important is to build up the endowment to the poinr where it pays a good share of the operating costs. This makes more money available for financial aid, etc., and reduces the fraction of those costs dependant on tuition.</p>
<p>At HYP, a third or more of the operating consts are paid from endowment earnings. At most other schools, the fraction of costs paid from the endowement is far lower.</p>
<p>at H the NIH funding plumetted pushing down Harvard's rank out of top 10. Some suspect it because of weaker research at H compared to the top NIH grant recepients.</p>
<p>That's silly. At Harvard, the huge NIH funding for the university-affiliated hospitals is accounted for separately, not combined with funding for other parts of the institution, as at most schools.</p>
<p>How childish that a year old post is re-incarnated. But for the record even for 2006 H lost in NIH funding race.</p>
<p>Not true. You are either absolutely clueless or simply untruthful on this issue.</p>
<p>Facts have never been your forte.</p>