Colleges and universities raise $30.30 billion in 2011

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p><a href="http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2011_Press_Release.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2011_Press_Release.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The nation’s top 20 fundraising universities (and dollars received) in 2011 are:
1. Stanford University ($709.42 million)
2. Harvard University ($639.15 million)
3. Yale University ($580.33 million)
4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($534.34 million)
5. Columbia University ($495.56 million)
6. Johns Hopkins University ($485.41 million)
7. University of Pennsylvania ($437.72 million)
8. University of California–Los Angeles ($415.03 million)
9. University of California–San Francisco ($409.45 million)
10. University of Southern California ($402.41 million)
11. University of Texas at Austin ($354.34 million)
12. Duke University ($349.66 million)
13. New York University ($337.85 million)
14. University of Washington ($334.49 million)
15. University of Wisconsin–Madison ($315.77 million)
16. Cornell University ($315.53 million)
17. Indiana University ($295.90 million)
18. University of California–Berkeley ($283.35 million)
19. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ($274.95 million)
20. University of Minnesota ($272.57 million)</p>

<p>For 2010:</p>

<p>The nation’s top 20 fundraising universities (and dollars received) in 2010 are:
1. Stanford University ($598.89 million)
2. Harvard University ($596.96 million)
3. Johns Hopkins University ($427.59 million)
4. University of Southern California ($426.02 million)
5. Columbia University ($402.36 million)
6. University of Pennsylvania ($381.59 million)
7. Yale University ($380.90 million)
8. New York University ($349.21 million)
9. Duke University ($345.47 million)
10. Indiana University ($342.82 million)
11. University of California, Los Angeles ($340.41 million)
12. University of Wisconsin-Madison ($311.85 million)
13. Cornell University ($308.22 million)
14. University of California, Berkeley ($307.51 million)
15. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($307.18 million)
16. University of Washington ($285.22 million)
17. University of California, San Francisco ($268.90 million)
18. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ($266.86 million)
19. University of Michigan ($252.10 million)
20. University of Chicago ($251.23 million)</p>

2

<p>Meh. Not a good showing by UChicago. Especially for major research institutions, fundraising can be a critical component for a school. Why is UChicago trailing some of its peers by so much?</p>

3

<p>Fiscal Year 2011 Endowment Market Value for 800+ universities and colleges</p>

<p><a href=“Page not Found”>Page not Found;

4

<p>I really do not see the problem here. Our endowment grew by one billion dollars from the end of 2010 fiscal year to that of 2011 fiscal year, which was a hundred million dollars more than Penn and just two hundred million dollars shy of Columbia.</p>

5

<p>Divine Comedy: I am unclear here - why does good performance in one area (endowment growth) excuse poor performance in another area (fundraising)?</p>

<p>Many other colleges had good years of endowment growth AND good years fundraising (see Columbia, Penn, Duke, etc.). Having one of the two doesn’t seem to be enough. </p>

<p>A good year in endowment growth means that UChicago did a good job of investing. That’s great, but, as a major research institution, fundraising - which often includes donations from foundations, corporations, etc. - needs to be strong too. </p>

<p>Shouldn’t both areas be strong? To not even be in the top 20 in fundraising is surprising and worrying to me.</p>

6

<p>I really do not get what you are trying to say.</p>

<p>Of course UChicago is going to rank poorly in fundraising. UChicago has 140,000 alumni.</p>

<p>Penn has twice as many alumni (280,000) as UChicago.
Columbia has twice as many alumni (300,000) as UChicago.
Although Duke has 140,000 alumni (which is comparable to the number of alum UChicago has), you should know that Duke is trying to create an independent $300 million athletic endowment for varsity sport scholarships.</p>

<p>We are comparing apples and oranges…</p>

<p>Using amounts of donation per alum would be a much more accurate comparison.</p>

7

<p>^ And there we have it.</p>

<p>Assuming Chicago had about the same amount of donations as last year, Chicago would be in the top 10 for donations per alumni.</p>

<p>Some people forget that Chicago’s class size has just recently gone through a big increase. Even then, the main donors are not going to be recent graduates who are still establishing their careers, but people who graduated in the 90s or earlier. And at that time, Chicago had a much smaller class size graduating each year.</p>

<p>Once again, if you look at the raw numbers, it looks like bad news for Chicago, but if you do an actual mathematical analysis, it’s quite easy to see how these things are working. I think the University is doing a fine job with donations. It’s unfortunate that there are limitations here, but it’s not like the University can alter the past to have more graduating alumni.</p>

8

<p>Divine Comedy and Phuriku:</p>

<p>If you look at the PDF david05 provided, alumni giving only amounts to 25% of total university giving. Giving from foundations, corporations, and non-alumni actually account for about 65% of total giving to universities.</p>

<p>I forget the exact statistic, but in alumni reports I’ve received, alumni giving only accounts for a % of total giving to UChicago. I forgot what the exact % is, but it certainly wasn’t something like 70-80% of total giving to the school. I’d expect this is true for UChicago’s peer schools as well - alum giving is only part of the picture.</p>

<p>So, what this tells me is that UChicago is probably behind in alumni giving, and a small class size relates to that, as you both have mentioned. Further, though, what about giving from all other sources - such as from foundations, corporations, etc.? It seems as if UChicago lags there as well, and this is an area unrelated to the size of an alumni base. </p>

<p>As a case in point, Johns Hopkins, a school with a small undergrad and not particularly loyal college alums, greatly out-performs UChicago. I imagine this is because Hopkins does a tremendous job in securing donations from foundations (and perhaps corporations as well).</p>

<p>I don’t think UChicago could do better than Hopkins here but, as a research powerhouse, shouldn’t UChicago’s fundraising be stronger? Apparently, there is a lot more to target than just a college’s alumni base. </p>

<p>What’s interesting to me is that the list david05 provided is basically a whos-who of the major american research institutions. For some reason, UChicago isn’t on this list, and it’s a bit startling, given that world-class research is an expensive, expensive endeavor.</p>

9

<p>Also, Phuriku and Divine Comedy, </p>

<p>Here are the schools above UChicago that do not have considerably more alumni than UChicago:</p>

<p>Yale (~160k living alums)
MIT (~120k living alums)
Hopkins (~150k living alums)
UCSF (~10k alums - pretty much just a post grad school)
Duke (~140k living alums)</p>

<p>Combine this with the fact that perhaps MOST of university donations do not come from alums, again, I think UChicago’s position is weak here. I am not sure why, ostensibly, corporations, foundations, etc. give considerably more to Duke, Hopkins, Penn, etc. than to UChicago. Yes, Hopkins, for example, has a major medical center, but UChicago’s medical facilities are certainly substantial as well.</p>

10

<p>You all are all missing one key issue: Capital Campaigns.
Stanford has been on the mother of all campaigns for the last few years. Hence it’s number one rating.
Chicago has not had a campaign for a few years (but just wait…), hence its lag.</p>

11

<p>maybe because chicago’s research tends to be very theoretical by nature, and this, corporations are less interested in what it does?</p>

12

<p>Balto - you raise a good point, and I briefly addressed this in the other UChicago thread on fundraising. I unfortunately for got to raise it here.</p>

<p>Certainly, fundraising efforts and capital campaigns lead to fluctuations on this fundraising list. For example, I believe Minnesota and NYU are in the midst of siginificant capital campaigns, which explain their strong showing for the past couple of years.</p>

<p>Despite this, I imagine that some of the schools - no matter the capital campaigns launched by other schools, are always on the list of the top 15 or so top fundraising schools. Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, MIT, etc. have probably all made the top 15 or so every year, despite the capital campaigns launched by other schools.</p>

<p>As I imagine this is the case, UChicago should be there too. Fundraising efforts and incoming revenue streams form the lifeblood of major research on a campus - especially for programs in medicine and science, which are much more costly than setting up elite think tanks in the humanities. </p>

<p>Given this, it seems as if UChicago needs to improve in securing funds from non-alumni groups such as corporations, foundations, and the like.</p>

13

<p>At least we took in more than Princeton and Northwestern! LOL!</p>

<p>Princeton: $236,172,907
Northwestern: $228,622,579</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/display_press.asp?id=80&ref=5[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/display_press.asp?id=80&ref=5&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I hope the 1) increased size of the college and 2) the rising profile of the University help raise that figure over time.</p>

<p>I also wonder why with such top professional schools like the Law School and Business School and the large number of billionaire alums (#6 according to Forbes) UChicago doesn’t take in more, although as others have noted foundations and corporate giving and non-alum giving also play a huge part in overall fundraising.</p>

<p>The endowment was #10 in 2010 and #12 in 2011, I believe. So in some ways we do a bit better in that respect. Interestingly, they say that the reason Harvard has such a large endowment has less to do with fundraising and more to do with some very aggressive investment policies over the years. (The same type of thing that helped cause the financial crisis, which is why Harvard took a huge hit during the financial crisis, above and beyond what everyone else was experiencing.)</p>

14

<p>Cue7:</p>

<p>Your comments have been pretty insightful, and I agree that Chicago’s net donations need to improve over time. However, I think that the future outlook of Chicago’s fundraising is quite strong, which is why I’m not too worried about this result.</p>

<p>Of course, you’re right that the big sources of income are coming from corporations, and it’s important to secure greater funds from large companies in the future. But I still think that corporate donations are correlated with alumni presence. It makes sense that Chicago could secure large funds from, say, McKinsey, MorningStar, and Bloomberg, where UChicago-affiliated people run the show. But it’s more difficult to imagine that Chicago would be getting great donations from sources where alumni presence wasn’t felt as greatly. And that’s why the total number of (successful) alumni likely correlates with corporate donations. That Yale, MIT, Hopkins, and Duke are outperforming Chicago in that respect is evidence that these schools are outperforming Chicago in the corporate world - which isn’t all that surprising. It’s more surprising to me that Chicago, as a school focused on academia and highly theoretical matters, is performing on par with Columbia and Penn.</p>

<p>Now, I’m obviously not thrilled that Chicago is getting beat here, but I remain optimistic on the issue. Why? Because at this pace, Chicago will be doing very well in a few years. As long as we keep pace with Columbia/Penn on a per alumni basis, total donations are bound to increase significantly over the next few years, as the University’s total number of alumni rises on a greater percentage basis than our peers due to increased class sizes. Additionally, as Chicago moves from being an institution focused on academia and highly theoretical matters to also dabbling into more practical issues, it will likely have a larger alumni presence in the corporate world in the future, encouraging companies to invest in the University’s research, etc.</p>

<p>Ultimately, I’m not worried at all. Chicago has been placing around or below 20th in the nation for fundraising for quite some time now, and despite that, the University is as healthy as it’s ever been, with our professors having the 3rd highest compensation in the nation and with financial aid increasing significantly over the past few years. Even if fundraising remained constant from here on out, I don’t think the University would have too much of a problem attaining what it wants to attain. Regardless, the future outlook of donations seems to be very strong as Chicago graduates greater class sizes and becomes more of a practical institution. In 10 years, I imagine that Chicago will have no problem being in the top 10 for fundraising in total dollars.</p>

<p>(It’s also significant that most of Chicago’s donations are likely coming from people who were affiliated with the institution from the 80s to the 00s, when the University was hardly at its peak. In 10 years, the primary donors are going to start coming from people associated with the university from the 90s to the 10s, where people were a little more pleased with their University experience on average.)</p>

15

<p>Phuriku:</p>

<p>Thanks for the analysis. I’ve been doing a bit more research on the issue of university fundraising, and, for the reasons I’ll present below, I don’t share your optimism for UChicago’s fundraising growth, at least in the next ~10 years or so. </p>

<p>In looking at the schools that boast the best fundraising numbers (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Hopkins, Columbia, etc.) all of these schools illustrate one fact: fundraising success is generally linked to strength and goals for a schools science/medical initiatives. </p>

<p>Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, MIT, and Penn, for example, have a number of key programs (each schools medical facilities and plant, major research labs, comp sci, engineering) that probably attract a tremendous amount of fundraising activity. For example, in 2009, Hopkins raised $3.7B, and a great deal of the funds raised went into the school’s medical facilities. You can read about Hopkins’ fundraising efforts for its last campaign here:</p>

<p>[Johns</a> Hopkins Capital Campaign Raises Near-Record $3.7 Billion | PND | Foundation Center](<a href=“http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=242200011]Johns”>http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=242200011)</p>

<p>Similarly, Yale is currently investing a tremendous amount in elevating its science facilities and medical plant, and this probably correlates to where a lot of the funds are raised and directed. As Princeton doesn’t have nearly the same range of facilities and schools (no medical school or hospital, for example), its fundraising totals lag behind Yale’s.</p>

<p>What these numbers tell me, then, is what we generally already know: UChicago’s science/medical offerings and initiatives are not nearly as expansive or reputable as those at its peer schools. UChicago has no engineering program, has a middling, extremely theoretical computer science program, and fundraising for the UChicago medical system lags extremely far behind the facilities and systems found at Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, and Duke. </p>

<p>I love UChicago, but for the areas that probably attract the most funds from foundations, corporations, etc., the school isn’t quite in the first tier. As another example of this, if you look at NIH funding, UChicago significantly trails Harvard, Hopkins, etc. Last year, UChicago received $300M in NIH funding, and Harvard received $1.7B, and Hopkins received about $500M. </p>

<p>So, Phuriku, I think that UChicago’s fundraising will improve in the years ahead, and some capital campaigns will cause a spike during the especially good years. Year in and year out, though, as UChicago’s medical/science facilities don’t have the reputation, stature, or expansiveness of some of its peers, I think it will still lag in this key area of fundraising effort. I’m not sure how UChicago can make up ground here, as its unlikely that these other schools will falter in their investment or attention to these key areas. </p>

<p>Changing admissions statistics and improving US News numbers is one (more manageable) thing, but drawing a larger share of the limited number of dollars available for university giving is another thing entirely, especially as the competition for these dollars grows ever more intense. </p>

<p>As an example, to really get in the ballpark of these other schools, UChicago’s giving would need to increase about 80-100% over the next 10 years, and all the other schools would have to stay about the same. I’m doubtful such a trend will occur.</p>

16

<p>Hmmm…well, the best news in there is that you said the biological sciences and medicine play an important role in fundraising. UChicago is making a big push to strengthen the biological sciences and medicine, which used to be very strong back in the day.</p>

<p>The Medical School is up to #12 now in U.S. News (up from #22 not that long ago). The new rankings will be out soon–a week or two.</p>

<p>You would think given the strength of the Law School and Business School (both top 5 at minimum), the University should be able to do better in medicine. On the other hand, Yale has a so-so business school and has never really been able to change that, despite its overall reputation, though it is also trying.</p>

<p>UChicago does have a smaller medical school faculty than some. You would also think its hospital could be a lot larger since its in Chicago. But University of Pittsburgh actually has a lot more patient beds. But the trend is all outpatient these days.</p>

17

<p>Truth123:</p>

<p>UChicago’s medical school elevated its ranking mostly by cutting the size of its class and increasing its admissions numbers, rather than making any significant gains in NIH funding. I believe in the past 10-15 years, UChicago’s med school has becoming increasingly focused on admissions criteria (such as MCAT score, GPA, etc.), and this has boosted its ranking significantly. The school is also 10-15% smaller now than it was years ago. </p>

<p>I doubt, however, that significant strides have been made in research dollars brought in every year. The gap is still so large between UChicago and other schools on this front, that I’m skeptical that the past ~10 years have seen big improvement on this front. The fact that Pritzker brought in $300M this past year and Harvard brought in $1.7B shows that UChicago isn’t yet in the big leagues when it comes to expansive research. </p>

<p>Also, yes, UChicago is making a push to improve its bio sciences and medicine facilities, but don’t forget, ALL of the other top schools are doing the exact same thing. Yale is making huge efforts here, Penn is continually trying to improve upon its already sterling facilities and reputation, etc. None of the top schools are complacent by any means. </p>

<p>I think UChicago has done a great job in improving the numbers that are “easy” to improve. It costs a lot less to get good admissions stats and devote more $ to financial aid than it does to try to go out and get $200M more in funds every year. Cosmetically, UChicago is a lot prettier these days, and the College is in better shape, but the University as a whole still has, welll, holes, just as it did years ago. The fields that will most likely require growth in the next decade - the sciences, medical school, perhaps comp sci, are all not quite first tier programs at this point at UChicago.</p>

18

<p>Well, hope springs eternal. There is a halo effect from rising prominence that does help. They did just recruit someone from Berkeley to lead the Molecular Engineering Institute, which is a good sign.</p>

<p>The other schools you mention do have larger faculties, so obviously a school with more faculty will get more funding. Pritzker ranked third in the country on research funding per faculty member, with average annual NIH grant support per researcher of $344,600, behind only Stanford and Yale. (From the University’s press release. LOL!)</p>

<p>Never say never. You can say it’s impossible, but historically UChicago did it before. By 1925 UChicago had the #2 faculty in the country, just behind Harvard. UChicago was basically dominant in every field and it helps to have that kind of history behind it because it’s not exactly a new school in any field of science. </p>

<p>OK, so UChicago does need to regain lost ground. But I think the University is doing the right thing to make the effort rather than adopting a defeatist attitude. Yale has a second-rate business school and can’t remotely compete with UChicago in that regard. But if you just went based on the HYP hysteria, Yale’s business school should blow UChicago away; instead, it can’t even get recruiters to show up on campus.</p>

<p>Anyway, I understand your point about the challenges. And all university’s have their strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, as you know, UChicago does have more Nobel prizes than Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton, which says something about its science pedigree. Why don’t HYP blow it away in this regard?</p>

<p>Anyway, time will tell.</p>

19

<p>I know more about this subject (the status of the biological sciences and medical school in the University) than I should. I will just say this to put it in context.</p>

<p>I’m going to be intentionally vague. The Dean of the Biological Sciences Division years ago told me that, despite its early prominence, for whatever reason things slid over time and at a certain point the University basically wrote off the medical school and biological sciences and wasn’t spending any money on it, at least from the faculty’s point of view.</p>

<p>In addition, the hospital was losing tons of money–bleeding money. At one point, the University even considered closing the hospital.</p>

<p>They formed a committee evaluating the BSD and decided to re-organize the Hospital, which was spun off into a separate corporation (a subsidiary of the University.).</p>

<p>About the same time along came the U.S. News rankings and it was kind of an embarrassment for the University. Lot of things changed. They dropped the Education Dept. and Geography Dept. because they were ranked too low. They suddenly wanted to raise the medical school up to the level of the Business school and Law school.</p>

<p>And they started spending money. The faculty couldn’t believe it when they actually built the new medical school building several years ago–and a lot more has followed.</p>

<p>In the meantime, the re-organized Hospital, free from the University bureaucracy, actually began to make money. The medical component of the University is unique in that it is basically a business. Although technically non-profit, the hospital made about $100 million last year (and has revenue of over a billion dollars a year, which is used to support programs) The University transfers about $25 million a year to the medical school and biological sciences–money it wouldn’t have had in the past. (That’s about a billion dollars over ten year period.)</p>

<p>So, yes, it takes time to improve things. But there is a much stronger effort now to make a change than in the past when nothing was being done.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>False. You do not see a single UChicago’s peer spending close to a billion dollars building an entire hospital just for cancer care. I think the University’s strategy is very clear - to become known for the single, most lucrative and research-intensive speciality.</p>