<p>"You're right in that those who are satisfied won't automatically give. <em>But</em> that is true across the board at all schools, and thus on average, it is a fair metric."</p>
<p><strong>BUZZ</strong> Wrong answer. What about schools with a significantly higher percentage of Pell Grantees, or students that aren't off that well financially? Or schools that don't engage in aggressive mailing campaigns to elicit said donations (possibly because they feel they're able to get sufficient alumni support from a smaller number of wealthy donors)? Also, I'd imagine for schools that have large sports programs that a decent number of people choose to make their contributions to the school through the athletic department. Not only do a some of these contributions go towards scholarships for student-athletes, but maintaining a competitive athletic department goes a long way to giving the school itself a national presence.</p>
<p>For students not that well off financially, that would be an indication of the quality of post-graduation opportunities, since this is alumni giving rate, and not student giving rate. If its graduates can't afford to give $100 five years down the road, I'd be very wary of attending.</p>
<p>One of the schools i went to has a $7B endowment, and recently received a <em>very</em> generous donation. I still get mailings from them asking for money. What do you consider to be aggressive?</p>
<p>"For students not that well off financially, that would be an indication of the quality of post-graduation opportunities, since this is alumni giving rate, and not student giving rate. If its graduates can't afford to give $100 five years down the road, I'd be very wary of attending."</p>
<p>You're very narrowly defining "quality of post-graduate opportunity" through income. What about people who choose to make less money to work in and help the community they came from? What about people who choose to go into social work, or go join the Peace Corps, or become a teacher? What about people who want to go into academics, and won't be getting a comfortable salary until well after they graduate from undergrad?</p>
<p>Even in those scenarios which you described, they would be able to afford $100. Anybody with a college degree and a job can afford $100. I am not advocating using salary to define quality.</p>
<p>For most graduate students on a stipend, once you factor in rent, utilities, and food, $100 can be a fairly sizable portion of your disposable income. No matter how good your undergraduate experience was, I'd imagine most people would either save it, or have something better to spend it on. Personally, I wouldn't even bother making a donation unless I was able to give something more sizable that I felt would be making some kind of difference.</p>
<p>I wouldn't suggest donating while still in grad school, and definitely not if you're in a professional school. But afterwards, at <em>some</em> point in your life, you would surely have enough money to donate if you think your college experience was worth it. You're not living on a stipend your entire life. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No matter how good your undergraduate experience was, I'd imagine most people would either save it, or have something better to spend it on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, but it's that fact which makes it even more noteworthy when a school has a relatively high percentage of alumni making donations.</p>
<p>I wouldn't welcome the addition of some kind of "salaries of graduates" calculation. It would punish schools whose graduates tend to seek helping professions like social work or teaching, or positions in government service or nonprofits. Salaries may be a good measure of success within specific fields or industries, but it's problematic as an institution-wide measure of how well they are educating students, or how successful their grads are.</p>