<p>
[quote]
The year saw 61,337 gifts from 45,696 donors. Forty percent of alumni of the College made gifts to the University in FY 2013, sustaining the milestone first achieved in FY 2012 and maintaining one of the highest undergraduate alumni participation rates in the country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Donors</a> support UChicago priorities with historic $459 million fundraising year</p>
<p>Meh. To put this in perspective, Stanford raised more than $1 billion (!) in past fiscal years, Harvard raises in the $600-700M range, and Yale is usually in the $500-600M range. Johns Hopkins also regularly draws in some major donations (in the $500M range). </p>
<p>This past year was an uptick for UChicago because it’s gearing up for a major capital campaign. Even in the quiet phase of the campaign, though, it’s a comparative middleweight on the fundraising front. It’s not raking in money like the big boys.</p>
<p>All due respect Cue, $459 million is not meh. At this level, UChicago would be #8 on the list in 2012. [Note: UChicago was #20 in 2010 and out of the top 20 in 2011 based on my quick check.] What will be interesting to see is if you are right, Cue7, that the increase is due to the onset of a major capital campaign or whether it is due to real “forward momentum” as claimed by the Chief Development Officer.</p>
<p>Definitely not “meh” considering that not more than 8 years ago it took 5 years for UChicago to raise 500m. And most of it were for the BSchool.</p>
<p>Although today’s graduating classes at Chicago are not much smaller than Harvard’s or Stanford’s (~1,500 vs. ~1,650), that has been true only for the past 4-5 years. Chicago first expanded its entering class above 1,000 about 10 years ago, and there was a point in the late 70s or early 80s (I think) when the college class size was around 600. Meanwhile, the class size at Harvard (counting Radcliffe) and Stanford has been stable for at least about 50 years.</p>
<p>The point being that Chicago has a lot fewer living college alumni than Harvard or Stanford, maybe even less than half the larger schools’ number. So even if they had the same giving percentage (which they don’t) and the same average gift (which they don’t), Chicago would be far behind in the number of dollars raised annually from college alumni donations. That, in fact, was one of the main reasons for expanding the class size and admissions criteria at Chicago – the college could never be as strong institutionally as the Ivies unless it had an Ivy-sized alumni base with Ivy-like alumni enthusiasm (and Ivy-like alumni wealth, too). </p>
<p>That is the project of a couple of generations, not a few years. $459 million is a huge step forward for Chicago. It can’t possibly compete with Harvard or Princeton for the Alumni Fundraising Championship until today’s graduates are approaching retirement, but it’s clearly doing well enough to be solidly in the first division, and that’s new news and a big deal.</p>
<p>I’ll clarify my response of “meh,” which echoes comments I’ve made in previous posts:</p>
<p>For major comprehensive research universities, money and fundraising are the lifeblood of the institution. There’s a rough correlation between research output and money flowing into the university (especially in STEM fields). A glance at the top fundraising universities generally reveals those with the largest research footprints. The big heavyweights (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley + UCSF, etc.) have pretty massive fundraising machines, and they’re separating from the rest of the pack. </p>
<p>UChicago’s past campaign was fine, and it may be gaining ground on some other comparably-sized middleweights (like Duke), but it’s still a far cry from the top of the pack. So, to me, when many (especially on this board) represent UChicago to be a competitor with the biggest fish in the pond, the most meaningful statistics (outside of ones that are easier to change - such as acceptance rate) indicate otherwise. </p>
<p>UChicago’s very best days still seem to be at the turn of the 20th century - when it actually had the resources and monetary clout to rival Harvard (and Stanford was still a bit of a minnow). Looking forward, though, the school does not seem particularly well positioned to make a run for the very top of the comprehensive research university heap, both because of lack of a fundraising history and an absence of strength in some of the “key” 21st century fields (which, so far, appear to be STEM fields).</p>
<p>Now, if we are to celebrate a good fundraising year for UChicago - by its own standards - and note that it compares favorably to Cornell, Duke, Hopkins, etc., than that’s fine. Given UChicago’s strongly aspirational nature (e.g. to be with the big boys in terms of research clout), though, with a smaller footprint in STEM fields and less general fundraising chutzpah, these figures aren’t too heartening. </p>
<p>The gap at the top, to me, at least, seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. </p>
<p>(Oh, and referencing JHS’ point above, number of living alumni is an important part of giving, but corporations/foundations actually account for a great deal of giving as well. This explains why places like Hopkins, MIT, and UCSF rake in lots of cash. None of these places have particularly large alumni ranks, or even particularly loyal alumni. They all have big time science programs, though, and these programs tend to rake in money - in a way that UChicago’s STEM offerings have not.)</p>
<p>Even with your clarification, I find your dismissal to be somewhat lacking in both understanding and nuance. </p>
<p>To put your “meh” in perspective, Princeton’s last major fundraising campaign got it $1.8B, which is less than 1/3 of Harvard’s current campaign (recently unveiled), and Stanford’s most recently completed one – both of which have top numbers above $6B. I think you would have a hard time contending that Princeton is not a top research institution. </p>
<p>Moreover, Hopkins, which is head and shoulders ahead in many fields in the biological sciences (my brother-in-law has been a full, tenured professor in biology at both Stanford and Hopkins, so I have some knowledge of the issues here), generally has had little luck raising money regularly through its donor pool (unless you count the support of Mike Bloomberg). So how does Hopkins do it? A large part of its research budget runs off grants (NIH, NSA, etc.), not donations. </p>
<p>Finally, there are some fields of research that are not terribly money-intensive, such as computer science, history, linguistics, and mathematics (to give a range of disciplines). I don’t know how you feel about them, but I think it is silly to pretend that they don’t exist – or at least don’t exist when assessing the research profile of an institution. And of course, there are some fields that are so money-intensive that they are beyond the reach not only of the wealthiest universities (i.e., Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale), but beyond the reach (or will) of countries, including the USA. The obvious and glaring example, of course, is particle physics, in which every serious physicist in the world relies on a single international consortium facility at CERN. (Yes, we might be able to build something like CERN, but we scuttled those plans under Bush I, and it would take decades to catch up, if at all, at this point).</p>
<p>In short, there is only a very rough correlation between research tout court, on the one hand, and the category of fundraising we are talking about here, namely: donations.</p>
<p>2manyschools,</p>
<p>Unless my analysis is wrong, UChicago’s past fundraising effort puts it in line with many (probably at least half a dozen) of its peers - Cornell, Duke, Columbia, NU, etc. The effort puts the school well behind the frontrunners of the pack (Stanford and Harvard). </p>
<p>To me, such news isn’t really noteworthy. If the headline read “UChicago’s 2012 fundraising in line with bulk of peers, well behind pacesetters Harvard and Stanford” would we really rejoice at this? </p>
<p>To present this from another angle, 6-7 years ago, when UChicago was ranked #10 or so in US News, such “news” wasn’t really news. People sort of collectively shrugged, and that was it. Heads really only turned the next year, when the school jumped to #4, and people took notice. </p>
<p>The fundraising news, at least to me, is akin to noting that a school is in the middle of a pack. Heads would turn much more if UChicago gained some distance from its immediate peers, but that seems unlikely to happen. </p>
<p>(Finally, regarding Princeton, it’s not as comprehensive a research university as Harvard or Stanford. It doesn’t have a medical school, law school, education school, etc. etc. It’s numbers are very good for a school of its size and scope, and it is a fine research institution for the fields it invests in. UChicago, on the other hand, resembles the size and scope of Harvard or Stanford more closely.)</p>
<p>So it s not Harvard. Not top 10 fundraiser. But raising 459 in 1 year vs 5 is still an advance. </p>
<p>If we keep the trajectory. It will be in the $B league in less than 10 years of not less.</p>
<p>FSratford,</p>
<p>I’d certainly agree with that, except, especially with a range of posters on this board, UChicago’s direct competitors/peers would be Harvard, Stanford et al. They’d point to increasing selectivity figures as evidence that UChicago is “closing the gap” with these other schools.</p>
<p>A far more important figure to a major research university, dollars brought in, however, indicates otherwise. If we’re to celebrate that UChicago is probably in the second tier of fundraising (a place with very good company - Duke, Cornell, etc.), that’s well and good. Many, however, don’t lodge UChicago in that place.</p>
<p>(Additionally, the institution itself is strongly aspirational, and, at least in rhetoric I’ve heard, fancies itself as a major center of learning perhaps only rivaled by the tippy top schools I mentioned above. The most recent fundraising figures indicate that the gulf between UChicago and these other institutions may, in fact, be widening.)</p>
<p>To close, UChicago is a wonderful institution, and a comprehensive research university that is probably one of the top 15-20 centers of learning in the country. Purporting to be one of the very big heavy hitters, though, may be off base.</p>
<p>Maybe. But that’s the next step isn’t it? It was top tier in scholarship. Now it’s top tier in selectivity, popularity and rankings. Next, is fund raising an alumni participation. These are harder to do so it makes sense that it’s the last to go up. One challenge at a time. </p>
<p>UChic has always done more with less $$. So these increase will only strengthen prior successes. </p>
<p>Hopefully alums like you won’t take this “insult” of being second tier fundraiser and actually fix it. This is one hurdle that the school alone can’t fix. It’s the alums, the board and their connections in industry and non-profits that will put it up there.</p>
<p>I’ve heard my wife say that you can’t never be to skinny or too rich. Is there such a thing as a school having “enough” money in their endowment? In other words, would a school act any different if it had $8B, $12B, or $15B in their endowment? Or will it just feel different?</p>
<p>I think you have a somewhat strange view of what constitutes “research universities” and “peers.” Let’s start with your assertion that we not compare the U of C, Harvard, and Stanford to Princeton, because Princeton doesn’t teach medicine or law. Princeton’s endowment, per capita, according to the last figures I was looking at, the largest in the world. That is, larger than Harvard, larger than Stanford, etc. It just hasn’t raised a comparable about to those places in its most recent capital campaign. In other words, rather than being behind in arguambly the most important way of measuring endowments, Princeton not only is not at a disadvantage, it is actually ahead of Harvard and Stanford.</p>
<p>But behind your argument is the notion that in order to compare universities, they need to be offering more or less the same fields of instruction. I think that misconstrues what is going on at the top universities in the country. All universities teach some fields and lack others. Yes, Princeton doesn’t have law and medicine as graduate professional programs, or a business school – though it does offer a graduate degree in finance. The U of C, by comparison lacks engineering (a matter much commented on here). Which disciplines or programs do you choose to making the comparison? For whom: Undergraduates? Graduate students? Faculty? Writing one or the other university out of a comparison, at a certain point, is obviously arbitrary. The reality is that all the best schools are competing with each other across a range of metrics, where some perform better than others in some areas and others in other areas. (Which is just another way of saying what should be obvious: There is no <em>best</em> school by any universal measure.)</p>
<p>Perhaps a better way of getting an idea of what is really going on in terms of the relationship of fundraising is to look at which academic departments or schools within a university (or even a college) are driving its fundraising, and whether these efforts are used to support the school in other areas. </p>
<p>The U of C is handicapped in terms of its fundraising and donor base. That is undeniable, and it is a direct result of policies begun in the 1930s by Hutchins. That the school is trying to redress this is also undeniable. I think this discussion started with you dismissing the recent fundraising amount for a number of reasons, but mostly because it was more along the lines of Yale’s, Columbia’s and Duke’s fundraising and fell short of Harvard’s and Stanford’s. I’m not sure what your dismissal is supposed to prove, though, other than that as a matter of raw numbers, the U of C is not as wealthy as Harvard or Stanford, which I don’t think anyone was seriously disputing. </p>
<p>Your focus solely raw numbers doesn’t take account of another dynamic here, which we have not touched on: That is how efficiently schools use their endowments. Princeton, for instance, is not terribly efficient with its money. Projects regularly balloon out of control and cost far more than originally planned or are far less effective than anticipated, and – for the most part – the place doesn’t worry about that too much. They just throw more money at the problem to solve it. That leads to an odd complacency in the ethos of the place. I would hazard to say (without much more than anecdotal evidence) that the U of C does more with less than many of its peers. From that perspective, adding 1B to the U of C’s endowment has more of an effect than adding 1B to Harvard’s. Or perhaps even than adding 4B. I don’t mean this just as a matter of percentages, but also as a matter of institutional culture. </p>
<p>In other words, again, the raw numbers only tell part of the story – and are, at best, a very rough guide to what is probably going on.</p>
<p>[Investment</a> Performance | Office of Investments | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://investments.uchicago.edu/page/investment-performance-0]Investment”>http://investments.uchicago.edu/page/investment-performance-0)</p>
<p>[University</a> investments outpace benchmarks for fourth straight year | UChicago News](<a href=“http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/09/26/university-investments-outpace-benchmarks-fourth-straight-year]University”>University investments outpace benchmarks for fourth straight year | University of Chicago News)</p>
<p>End of fiscal year 2012 with a market value of $6.57 billion</p>
<p>End of fiscal year 2013 with a market value of $6.73 billion</p>
<p>Said marking a 6.6 percent return on investments during 2012-2013</p>
<p>0.459 billion fund raised.</p>
<p>Why is the end of 2013 fiscal year balance only 6.73 billion? How much did UChicago spend from the endowment fund? Just curious.</p>
<p>UChicago endowment spending policy is similar to most universities: they spend 4.5 - 5.5% of the prior year’s endowment balance. </p>
<p>The exact amount of endowment “spending” for FY2012 can be found through the link below (couldn’t find 2013, but 2012 is around $372 million):
<a href=“http://finserv.uchicago.edu/pdf/2012FinState.pdf[/url]”>http://finserv.uchicago.edu/pdf/2012FinState.pdf</a></p>
<p>You’re right, there are missing pieces here. I’m not an expert on financial endowments. Maybe someone will read this who knows will weigh in.</p>
<p>UChicago’s performance was, also, meh. 6.6% isn’t great, and the school now trails two of its close peers, Columbia at $8.2B and Penn at $7.7B. </p>
<p>See here: [The</a> Daily Pennsylvanian :: Penn leads in endowment returns across Ivies, peers](<a href=“http://www.thedp.com/article/2013/10/penn-leads-in-endowment-returns-across-ivy-league]The”>Penn leads in endowment returns across Ivies, peers | The Daily Pennsylvanian)</p>
<p>Hopefully UChicago’s upcoming fundraising campaign will be big. It needs to be.</p>
<p>[20</a> biggest college endowments - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57567214/20-biggest-college-endowments/]20”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57567214/20-biggest-college-endowments/)
By the end of 2012 fiscal year, UChicago had 6.5 billions while Penn had 6.7 billions. But now Penn’s endowment is 1 billion larger than UCicago’s. Surprising!</p>
<p>Not surprising. Penn spent the last year in the throes of a major capital campaign to raise that billion, and more. Zimmer hasn’t done his signature capital campaign yet, although I am sure it is coming. Amy Gutmann took office in 2004, Zimmer in 2006. I bet Chicago has a major capital campaign going before his 10th anniversary.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>it wasn’t just the campaign - Penn posted a very good return this year. Uchicago did not. The 6.6% return by uchicago was toward the lower end of the pack for this year. Penn was around 14% for the year. </p>
<p>To really move the dial given some of the campaigns other schools have launched, uchicago’s initial goal for its campaign should be in the $4.5-5B range. Rumor is its in the quiet phase now, but not sure how that’s going.</p>
<p>Cue7 - I hope you will reach deep to support that capital campaign!! :)</p>
<p>Maybe they will name that new dorm after you!</p>