<p>Is there any correlation or dependency?</p>
<p>No, the endowment of a university is entirely dependent on whether it got plastic surgery (if it’s a girl university) or if it takes extenze.</p>
<p>But I don’t think location would have anything to do with it. There might be correlation, but I doubt dependency.</p>
<p>I don’t think so Prince. The 10 wealthiest universities are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard University ($27 billion)</li>
<li>Yale University ($18 billion)</li>
<li>Stanford University ($14 billion)</li>
<li>Princeton University ($14 billion)</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($8.3 billion)</li>
<li>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor ($6.6 billion)</li>
<li>Columbia University ($6.6 billion)</li>
<li>Northwestern University ($6.3 billion)</li>
<li>Universty of Texas-Austin ($6.3 billion)</li>
<li>University of Chicago (($5.6 billion)</li>
<li>University of Notre Dame ($5.6 billion)</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania ($5.6 billion)</li>
</ol>
<p>That’s 6 East Coast schools, 4 Midwestern schools, 1 West Coast School and 1 Southern school.</p>
<p>^Actually what I mean is that…since Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Northwestern, Chicago and UPenn are all located in urban/major cities, I was thinking perhaps they receive more endowment? Or am I totally wrong…?</p>
<p>No. It’s not a dependency. There however a correlation. If you want to examine historically old schools, well… 1) schools were typically built in cities to make them more accessible to people. 2) Those schools that have a long history helped, at least partially, to build the cities in which they are located. (E.g. the fact that there are a number of top schools in Boston contributes to it’s economy since these top schools attract a number of large corporations looking to hire the best/brightest.) Somewhat “newer” schools would have developed within the cities, e.g. their locations fostered their growth, therefore they grew in prestige. You might say location in a city helps to potentially foster a school, but it’s not a requirement. E.g. Williams is NOT anywhere near a city, yet is still a very wealthy LAC. Cornell is also not in a city. There’s obviously a much better explanation that could be given, but that’s the gist of it.</p>
<p>
Your information is now outdated Alex.</p>
<p>Here are the new endowment figures (as of the end of 2010 FY):</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard University ($27.4 billion)</li>
<li>Yale University ($16.3 billion)</li>
<li>Stanford ($15.9 billion)</li>
<li>Princeton ($14.4 billion)</li>
<li>MIT ($8.3 billion)</li>
<li>UT Austin ($7.2 billion)</li>
<li>Michigan ($6.6 billion)</li>
<li>Columbia ($6.5 billion)</li>
<li>Northwestern ($6.3 billion)</li>
<li>Duke ($6 billion)</li>
<li>Penn ($5.7 billion)</li>
<li>Chicago ($5.6 billion)</li>
<li>Notre Dame ($5.5 billion)</li>
</ol>
<p>Duke is now wealthier than Penn, Chicago and Notre Dame while UT Austin is wealthier than Michigan is the richest public school.</p>
<p>Not really, OP. Most LACs are not in urban areas, and have huge endowments. Grinnell has a bigger endowment than BU (1.26 bill vs 1.02 bill) despite BU being in Boston and many times bigger than Grinnell. </p>
<p>Endowment size is mostly based on
- (Financial) success of its graduates
… - Age of the school</p>
<p>*Most top LACs</p>
<ol>
<li>Success in the financial markets</li>
</ol>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Source?? And is it impossible for you to NOT ever mention Duke in every post of yours?</p>
<p>LDB, can you please provide us with a source? Last I checked, UT-Austin did not have an independent endowment figure, but it is generally esptimated at 40% of the total UT system endowment, which currently stands at $14 billion as of June 30, 2010. 40% of $14 billion is $5.6 billion. Furthermore, your $6 billion figure for Duke is as of February, 2011. Please stick to June 2010 figures. You conveniently used the endowment figures effective June 2010 for all universities except for Duke, for which you used February, 2011 figures.</p>
<p><a href=“Page not Found”>Page not Found;
<p>“You conveniently used the endowment figures effective June 2010 for all universities except for Duke, for which you used February, 2011…figures.”</p>
<p>Just added a few periods to emphasize your point. :-)</p>
<p>Alexandre, what are Feb 2011’s figures?</p>
<p>
</a>
[University</a> of Texas at Austin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“University of Texas at Austin - Wikipedia”>University of Texas at Austin - Wikipedia)
I know that Wikipedia’s not always a reliable source but unless you show me some other data service which actually points out that UT Austin’s endowment is only 40% of the entire UT system, I’ll be inclined to stick with the guy who provided the $7.2 billion figure on the Wikipedia article. I feel like someone would have edited it if it had been as far off as you claim it is.</p>
<p>As far as Duke’s endowment figures, why would I show anything besides the latest data? Why stick with June 2010 figures when Duke has February 2011 figures readily available? Once Michigan and all the other schools have their endowment valuations up to date for the current FY, please feel free to update this list. I will stick to the most current up-to-date data. We can’t assume that all universities had positive returns on their long-term pool of investments when the majority of them all but crashed two years ago.</p>
<p>I don’t see Chicago or Notre Dame surpassing Duke although Penn might.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it’s intellectually dishonest and you know it. You’ve got to compare apples to apples. Honestly, blue devil, you do more to discredit your own university than anyone I’ve ever come across on CC. Do you hate Duke?</p>
<p>Simple solution. The Dow is up about 23% since June 2010 so just give everyone an extra adjustment of 23%.</p>
<p>Our Duke rep has all the necessary qualities to be an investment banker.</p>
<p>Yeah, you obviously can’t cherry pick certain 2011 values while using 2010 values for other universities - all of them should have had a decent year in the past, so you have to do an apples-to-apples comparison as an endpoint. The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) seems to be the best source to do so. Looking at that link, though, gives slightly different numbers than the ones you got Alexandre. Unless I’m missing something. I’m seeing this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard University ($27.6 billion)</li>
<li>Yale University ($16.6 billion)</li>
<li>Princeton University ($14.4 billion)</li>
<li>Stanford University ($13.8 billion)</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($8.3 billion)</li>
<li>Columbia University ($6.5 billion)</li>
<li>University of Michigan - AA (assuming AA is 97% of system endowment = $6.4 billion)</li>
<li>Northwestern University ($5.9 billion)</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania ($5.7 billion)</li>
<li>Texas A&M? ($5.7 billion system wide; not sure % just for A&M)</li>
<li>University of Texas-Austin ($5.6 billion using your 40% figure)</li>
<li>University of Chicago ($5.6 billion)</li>
<li>University of Notre Dame ($5.2 billion)</li>
<li>Duke University ($4.8 billion)</li>
</ol>
<p>Not that it’s that significant of a difference. By the way, Duke’s endowment is NOT $6.0 billion in 2011 either. That is the figure for Duke’s long-term pool of investments. It’s not the same thing. It includes the endowment, plus pension funds, funding for certain campus organizations like the student newspaper, medical center reserves, etc. It would be nice if they had made that split for us, but they didn’t. Duke’s endowment at the beginning of 2011 is still shy of $6.0 billion, but hasn’t been released.</p>
<p>
UT Austin has always received 45% of the UT system endowment. Its portion as of June 2010 would be 6.323 billion, placing it between Michigan and Northwestern. </p>
<p>Michigan does not release endowment data by campus. Ann Arbor has 95% of expenditures, but a similar percentage of endowment would yield $6.288 billion, which seems much too low to be accurate…I would wager Michigan maintains the highest endowment among the publics, though perhaps not by much.</p>
<p>Texas A&M has 50% of the A&M system endowment, so with $2.869 billion, it’s much lower than the others.</p>
<p>I would guess very little UM endowment goes to the other UM campuses. As in under 1%.</p>
<p>What portion is for the medical schools?</p>
<p>What about public universities that have seperate endowments for retiree funding? UC manages $66 billion combined. </p>
<p>What about subsidies a school receives from the state?</p>
<p>Apples to apples?</p>