<p>Wow, Haverford got hammered. Bates wasn’t far behind.</p>
<p>alex,
As noted at the outset, I’m not completely comfortable with the reports for several of the publics, including the ones you mention. As I get more complete info, I will repost a new list.</p>
<p>IMO, an interesting way to look at this is to compare schools of similar selectivity as students will be looking at these colleges in groups. </p>
<p>08-09 Change in Endowment , School (publics in CAPS)</p>
<p>TOP TIER
-22.8% , Princeton
-26.1% , Caltech
-26.7% , Stanford
-28.6% , Yale
-29.8% , Harvard</p>
<p>-20.1% , Swarthmore
-22.1% , Williams
-23.4% , Amherst</p>
<p>NEXT TIER</p>
<p>-16.6% , Georgetown
-16.8% , U Penn
-18.9% , Vanderbilt
-19.8% , Columbia
-20.9% , Emory
-21.6% , Rice
-21.7% , Johns Hopkins
-22.8% , Dartmouth
-23.0% , Notre Dame
-23.2% , U Chicago
-23.7% , Wash U
-26.4% , Cornell
-26.6% , Brown
-27.5% , Duke
-29.4% , Carnegie Mellon</p>
<p>-17.2% , Bowdoin
-20.1% , Carleton
-21.0% , Middlebury
-21.4% , Wellesley
-22.0% , Harvey Mudd
-24.3% , Claremont McK
-24.8% , Northwestern
-25.7% , Pomona
-26.4% , Davidson
-26.9% , Wesleyan
-35.5% , Haverford</p>
<p>NEXT TIER</p>
<p>-15.4% , New York University
-17.8% , Boston College
-21.4% , Lehigh
-21.6% , Brandeis
-22.8% , Wake Forest
-23.7% , Tufts
-23.8% , Tulane
-24.0% , U Rochester
-25.6% , U of Southern California
-26.8% , U Miami</p>
<p>-12.6% , Washington & Lee
-19.7% , Smith
-20.3% , Colgate
-21.4% , Bryn Mawr
-22.4% , Vassar
-24.5% , Colby
-24.5% , Mt. Holyoke
-26.9% , Grinnell
-27.1% , Hamilton
-27.7% , Oberlin
-31.2% , Bates</p>
<p>NEXT TIER</p>
<p>-20.6% , Case Western
-22.1% , Boston University
-22.8% , Rensselaer
-24.0% , Fordham
-24.2% , Worcester
-26.3% , Southern Methodist U
-27.2% , Yeshiva
-3.8% , Pepperdine
-33.2% , Syracuse</p>
<p>-16.8% , U Richmond
-17.9% , Macalester
-19.9% , Kenyon
-20.2% , Bucknell
-20.7% , Furman
-20.7% , Holy Cross
-21.4% , Sewanee
-21.5% , Lafayette
-21.6% , Scripps
-21.8% , Occidental
-22.1% , Barnard
-22.4% , Whitman
-22.8% , Trinity</p>
<p>STATE UNIVERSITIES</p>
<p>-12.6%, UC DAVIS
-14.7% , WILLIAM & MARY
-14.8% , RUTGERS
-15.1%, UCLA
-15.8% , UC IRVINE
-15.8%, UC IRVINE
-16.0% , PURDUE
-16.3%, UC BERKELEY
-18.1% , U IOWA
-18.3% , MICHIGAN ST
-18.7% , Colorado College
-19.0% , U N CAROLINA
-19.2% , U FLORIDA
-20.4% , OHIO STATE
-20.7% , INDIANA U
-20.7% , PENN STATE
-20.7% , U MICHIGAN
-20.7% , U MINNESOTA
-20.7%, UC SAN DIEGO
-20.9% , U WISCONSIN
-21.3% , U PITTSBURGH
-21.4% , CLEMSON
-22.4% , U CONNECTICUT
-22.7% , U VIRGINIA
-23.0% , U GEORGIA
-23.7% , TEXAS A&M
-23.7% , U WASHINGTON
-24.8% , U DELAWARE
-24.8% , U TEXAS
-25.9% , GEORGIA TECH
-26.4% , U ILLINOIS
-27.9% , U MARYLAND</p>
<p>For some reason the NACUBO study did not include the MIT numbers which were announced back in September.</p>
<p>MIT’s endowment dropped by 20.7% from $10.1 billion to $8.0 billion.
<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/endowment-091609.html[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/endowment-091609.html</a></p>
<p>These are not credible tiers. lol. Same old, same old.</p>
<p>“d’smom, Pepperdine’s endowment is 86th in the country at $673,666,000. (6/30/2009) and their investments hadn’t lost much. Why do you say they are hurting?”</p>
<p>They recently cut their mens track program and have cut their women’s swim program. Fortunately for this current year they were able to get some private donors so they could finish out this years swim program. This is supposed to be their last season though. </p>
<p>I also have friends who go there and also know some that are looking there and although they have lost less as a percentage compared to some other schools, they are having money problems hence these kinds of cuts. Not trying to single Pepperdine out, just using that as an illustration.</p>
<p>That is why I don’t think you can always look at how much they lost as a percentage.</p>
<p>callie,
Just curious. IYO, which tiers/schools are wrong above??</p>
<p>“These are not credible tiers. lol. Same old, same old.”</p>
<p>Agree callie123. </p>
<p>I think if you are really talking about endowment, you really ought to rank them by endowment dollar per capita. How much money does a school have per pupil. </p>
<p>Who came up with this list? Did someone just make it up? </p>
<p>I think if you rank it my way, it puts things more in perspective in regards to the subject. You could also rank them that way and then rank them by how much they lost and how much they have already made back since last year.</p>
<p>Oh, and it’s important to know how much of their operating budget comes out of endowment money as well.</p>
<p>If a school has lost a significant amount of endowment money, but uses a significant less amount for their true operating budget, it won’t matter. It may affect things like new building projects ect…but the day to day operations will not be impacted as much.</p>
<p>Hawkette: I really don’t want to get into useless debates, but when you place, Vassar, for example in a tier below Boston College, Lehigh, NYU, and U Miami, I have to wonder why. To me, it is just that same old tune I hear you sing every time I log on to CC. Your favorite schools do well in your categories, regardless of what is common knowledge with regard to rankings.</p>
<p>If you are referring to something of which I am not aware, please clarify. Perhaps you are extracting one number that you find appealing amongst all of the data that goes into ranking. If I were to rank, for example, I would be doing so by PA. I know that this would not be your choice, but this is a number that I find to be most credible. Are you creating your ranking based on selectivity? What are you going to do when those numbers change, due to rising applications, and lower acceptance rates? Selectivity is a number that is dynamic, in that its variables cause it to change from time to time. PA, my choice for ranking, stays rather static, regardless of ups and downs in variable factors. Sorry, I just cannot wrap my mind around the way that you think.
If I have missed something, as I have not been on these boards for quite some time, please forgive me.</p>
<p>I don’t think simple percentage losses in endowment assets, or total endowment after losses and drawdowns, or endowment assets per student tell us much about who really got hurt. It may be counterintuitive, but some of the schools with the biggest endowments are among the most vulnerable to the kind of market collapse we saw in the last year. Princeton, for example, depends on payouts from endowment for a whopping 70% of its operating budget. When its endowment shrinks by nearly 23%, Princeton is in big trouble; if the endowment stays at that level for the next couple of years, it puts roughly a 16% hole in Princeton’s operating budget. And there are not too many other places Princeton can go to make up the revenue shortfall. According to its 2009 financial statement, Princeton took roughly $715 million in endowment payout in FY 2009. Its next largest source of revenue was government grants and contracts, at $217 million—but that’s dedicated research money, most of which goes to support faculty research and only a small fraction of which can be siphoned off to support the university’s general fund through “indirect cost recovery,” i.e., charging all research grants a fractional share of the university’s total overhead. Next largest source of revenue is tuition at $88 million (net of financial aid)—but that was down a little from $91 million in FY 08 because the university had to give out more in financial aid. The final major revenue category is annual giving at $57 million, but that was down from $77 million in FY 08.</p>
<p>So what does a heavily endowment-dependent school like Princeton do when the endowment tanks? Well, as best I can tell they borrowed heavily, closed their eyes, and prayed for the endowment to recover. But because domestic equities represent only about 5.5% of Princeton’s holdings at this point, the recent stock market rebound hasn’t helped them all that much. Most of their endowment assets are in things like private equity, hedge funds, and real assets—categories that are not terribly liquid, may be difficult to value, and may not recover as quickly as the stock market.</p>
<p>I’m not necessarily suggesting Princeton is the worst off. But it is at one extreme of dependence on its endowment. Things may look very different at a school that suffered similar percentage losses in asset value but relies on its endowment for only 8 or 10% of its operating budget, which translates to a 2% to 2.5% hit to its overall budget—a far cry from the 16% hit staring Princeton in the face unless its endowment recovers value quickly.</p>
<p>callie,
My presentation was based on putting schools of similar selectivity in the same tiers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, I think you’re probably right about Vassar. It deserves to be grouped along with the schools in the next highest tier. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>
<p>As for which metric is best, I very much like that the selectivity data is dynamic. That is how it should be as it is a more realtime and relevant reflection of what a student will encounter on the college’s campus. What is happening in some far-off research lab might determine the school’s PA, but it has very little to do with the average undergraduate’s academic experience.</p>
<p>But it has lots to do with the universitiy’s national image and prestige. Also some of those lab breakthroughs can bring in millions of hard cash. The WARF has built a $2BILLION endowment mostly on a couple of key patents and revenues from same. That’s without asking alumni for a dime. They have used some of that money to retain top profs, build new science buildings, and fund research for new professors which helps UW attract top young talent even though they pay less than someother schools. That’;s why UW is ranked Top 10 in Chemistry and UVa is around #50. </p>
<p>[Wisconsin</a> Alumni Research Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Alumni_Research_Foundation]Wisconsin”>Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation - Wikipedia)</p>