<p>Regarding the size of historical endowments, for instance Harvard's endowment in 1953 was 304 million and did not pass 1 billion until 1970. </p>
<p>In June 2005, Harvard's endowment stood at 25.9 billion. An analysis of HMC's graphs shows an explosion of gifts in the POST 1980 era. The amount of gifts before 1970 are hardly visible on the graphs.</p>
<p>Xiggi - Restricted giving is great and I think it is wonderful to honor donor intent. Sometimes the school (or for that matter any charity) has pressing needs that can't be met by tapping the endowment due to restrictions. Tulane is a current example of an institution that could be financially ruined yet still have a big endowment. In that case it is sad for Tulane. Just wanted to clarify my quote.</p>
<p>I also wanted to clarify that restricted gifts are the norm in endowments. A quick look at the largest endowments shows that restricted gifts represents easily 80% of the available funds and mirror the patterns of recent donations. </p>
<p>Of course, there will always be someone who wants us to believe it ain't so because he says so!</p>
<p>I don't think Tulane is in danger of being financially ruined (and, of course, as a Tulane parent I hope it is not). It is just much more difficult since it's endowment (of $700+M) is largely restricted. Since the huge majority of students are, in fact, returning and since it has started a separate fundraising effort for Katrina restoration (goal ca. $100M and I believe it was 25% of the way there in very short order), I think the numbers for this particular school "work." This is not the case for some of the other Gulf Coast schools, esp. the HBCU's. But it still illustrates the point that "rich" schools can't just toss money in whatever direction they, or some of us ;) , might wish.</p>
<p>Xiggi, you've had too much caffeine today! Down, boy. </p>
<p>On the matter of restricted endowments and extraordinary situations -- I haven't had to deal with the issue since my law school days (so please, any non-profit or T&E lawyers, please have mercy on me as this poor corporate attorney butchers the discussion), but there are various legal doctrines that would, I believe, allow a school in imminent danger of failing due to an act of God, etc. to utilize restricted funds to the extent reasonably necessary to address the situation. Still, the threshold would be awfully high for allowing the use of that money.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, is there reason to believe that adreps read CC and keep track of particular applicants that way? Or would they be respectful enough (and obviously busy enough) not to try and guess who various people are?</p>
<p>Iderochi,</p>
<p>I was shocked to find that I remember the doctrine you're referring to: cy pres. It's a rule that comes in when it's impossible to comply literally with the intention of a donor or testator, and says the original intent should be carried out as nearly as possible.</p>
<p>When there's a lot of money at stake, big fights sometimes ensue. (Was the donor primarily trying to benefit Tulane when she endowed a scholarship there for Tri-Delts, or trying to benefit members of the sorority?)</p>
<p>I remember a big court battle a few years ago with the Buck Trust, which was created to benefit the poor people of Marin County, just north of San Francisco. The assets of the trust consisted mostly of stock, which had risen in value far beyond what was probably anticipated by the trustor. Marin is a wealthy county; relatively few poor people live there. Someone tried to get the court to apply the doctrine of cy pres to the trust, and broaden the class of people who could benefit from it. I've read that 20% of it was ultimately applied for other purposes.</p>
<p>Greybeard -- A similar dogfight happened recently with respect to the Barnes Foundation and museum in Pennsylvania. The trust was very clear that the museum was to stay where it was, but the Trustees argued that the museum was in danger of failing unless it was moved to Philadelphia. Big court battle, and eventually (as I recall), the museum was allowed to move, over the objections of the Barnes heirs.</p>
<p>The Barnes Collection fight is a really interesting one. The art collection is worth billions ("180 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 60 Matisses, 46 Picassos as well numerous other works by artists like Titian, Tintoretto, Chardin, Delacroix, Manet, Monet, Van Gogh and Seurat"), but the terms of the trust forbid selling any of it or, even moving any of from the Barnes house. They had to wage a court battle just to send some of the collection on a museum tour. Meanwhile, the museum has no endowment and operating costs on the collection far exceed the revenues. The trust literally is going broke.</p>
<p>Plus, the town of Merion, where the collection is housed in an old mansion, places so many limits (on parking, on the number of visitors, etc.) that Barnes can't generate the revenues for operating expenses.</p>
<p>The idea of continuing to house such a collection in an old house as stipulated in the trust is quaint. If the house were in a neighborhood where people were allowed to park and go visit without strict limits, it might make sense. But, the collection is such that it really needs to be somewhere in Philly where people are actually allowed to go see it without making a reservation months in advance. One way or another, the trust was going to be changed -- either by moving the collect or selling it off to fund operating expenses.</p>
<p>"Regarding the size of historical endowments, for instance Harvard's endowment in 1953 was 304 million and did not pass 1 billion until 1970. </p>
<p>In June 2005, Harvard's endowment stood at 25.9 billion. An analysis of HMC's graphs shows an explosion of gifts in the POST 1980 era. The amount of gifts before 1970 are hardly visible on the graphs."</p>
<p>Missed the point. Look for the GROWTH in that $304 million post-1970 (and it began as much, much less than $304 million). If even 20% of the endowment was unrestricted, and 20% of alumni giving the same, and some of the restricted giving is for purposes of scholarship aid, it basically allows them free reign to do virtually anything they want.</p>
<p>"The reality is that YOU do not know how the schools process the need-blind applications and that your reclassification of need-blind schools as disguised need-aware is purely anedoctal."</p>
<p>I would have thought that the printed source of my alma mater's alumni magazine about how they process applications, with the use of "socio-ec" tags to the applications referred to by the Dean of Admissions, rises to a level somewhat above anecdotal. Now if you think he is lying in print, that's another matter....</p>
<p>As for some of the history around the evolution of Brown's scholarship policies, the Alper Committee Report makes for some interesting reading.</p>
<p>The $100 million dollar restricted gift (to be used for scholarships only) allowed Brown to go "need-blind" beginning with the class of 2007. If I were a betting man, I'd bet we'll see Ruth Simmons take that one step further (as did Anthony Marx at Amherst) once she can come up with the bucks.</p>
<p>"Missed the point. Look for the GROWTH in that $304 million post-1970 (and it began as much, much less than $304 million). If even 20% of the endowment was unrestricted, and 20% of alumni giving the same, and some of the restricted giving is for purposes of scholarship aid, it basically allows them free reign to do virtually anything they want."</p>
<p>Nope, despite being the second time you write that someone is missing the point, your position lacks logic. From its start to 1953, Harvard ammassed a war chest of 304 miilions. When Harvard increased the endowment to 1 billion, the 700,000,000 additional dollars did not come from return on investment but from capital raising. </p>
<p>Had you made the effort to check facts and figures, you would have had no other choice to agree that your first statement that much of the endowment is unrestricted bacause it was made 50 to 150 years ago is preposterous. </p>
<p>As far as Harvard, the school has obviously more liberty than all others in defining its spending, but that is a far cry from having free reins. </p>
<p>Regarding the material printed by the Williams alumni, the issue is not that the material is factually correct. The issue is that it does not lend to the wide ranging conclusions you propose. Where you see conclusive evidence, I see idle speculation. And, just as for the endowment discussion, the FACTS are not on your side. But, does it really matter in the long run? You will continue to apply your selective and biased criteria to the available information, and I will probably do the same. </p>
<p>You and I are looking at the same information and reach different conclusions. While I believe that the system is fundamentally sound and that the schools are trying their BEST to fulfill their social obligations, you prefer to focus on the egregious sides of the "business." Short of a Mother Teresa approach to higher education, you will never be happy. Inasmuch as you recognize that the private schools are well within their rights to define their admission criteria, you also criticize them for not having more federal gifts such Pell grants.</p>
<p>All I can say is that I am the beneficiary of the policies of a school that offers need-blind admissions and matches 100% of demonstrated need. The school did EXACTLY what they suggested they would do. </p>
<p>If, on the other hand, your daughter was misled by Smith financial aid office, you would be entitled to a different opinion. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I prefer to see the goodness of the system and will continue to battle the posting of information that does not seem to be supported by facts. Just as in the Crusades, this may not be about good versus evil or right versus wrong, but mostly about our deep beliefs.</p>
<p>I see goodness in the system, too. The colleges give far, far more than they have to, and are entitled to do with their money what they wish. (What "social obligations" are you talking about? I'm not sure, as regards admissions, they have any. Good and evil? I can't imagine institutional priorities at private colleges and universities rising to the level of St. George v. the Dragon. Public universities - that's another matter entirely.)</p>
<p>You still didn't look to see what the $304 million in Harvard's 1953 endowment, independent of new gifts (and which started much smaller than $304) is worth today.</p>
<p>To give Ruth Simmons even more credit, she has already taken steps beyond the policy at Brown, by eliminating work-study expectations in the first year.</p>
<p>Just curious, but do any of the need blind (or need squinting, anyway) schools publish date on applicants by income vs. admits vs. matriculants by income? Not likely, I know, but sometimes information sneaks out.</p>
<p>Socio-economic data is sometimes available for the enrolled student body. I know Swarthmore publishes theirs -- well actually the socio-economic distribution of the financial aid students.</p>
<p>I've not seen data on admits versus enrolled. However, Swarthmore's Dean of Admissions did say in a campus Q&A two weeks ago that the yield for the entering class this fall was higher for financial aid students than for full-pay students. I think that mostly speaks to two issues: competitive need-based financial aid packages and the lack of merit-aid discounts to non-need students, i.e. an aid policy that strongly favors students who actually need money. I suspect those trends are fairly consistent among the small handful of schools that are exclusively need-based in their discount structures.</p>
<p>You may this study interesting: </p>
<p>Affordability: Family Incomes and Net Prices At Highly Selective Private Colleges and Universities
Catharine Hill, Gordon Winston, Stephanie Boyd
Williams College
January, 2004</p>
<p>Good find, Xiggi. I think I had looked at that one a while back, but it is really terrific.</p>
<p>xiggi, I agree good find. You should start a new thread with that link.</p>
<p>The study show what colleges are doing.</p>
<p>You can find past CC discussions that relate to the current thread and the study hosted at the Williams' site:</p>
<p>The thread was started by Mini to introduce the Williams alumni article discussed above.</p>
<p>An additional study worth mentioning is the one I discussed in the post 132 of the linked thread. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In particular, it is worth noting the the central finding of the study SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, RACE/ETHNICITY, AND SELECTIVE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS written by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose for the Century Foundation was that access to selective colleges is even more highly skewed socioeconomic status (SES) than it is by race and ethnicity. The study showed that 74 percent of students at highly selective colleges came from families in the top quarter of the SES scale while just 3 percent came from the poorest quarter of American families. The study is availabe at <a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about simply 'adlum?' It's concise and to-the-point--only a mere letter away from 'alum' while conveying power. After all, many of these committee members are bright young (recent) graduates of the institutions for which they are making collaborative admissions decisions.</p>
<p>As a language geek,though, I'm troubled that the plural would have to be PC/gender-sensitive. 'Adalumni?' 'Adalumnae?' Too cumbersome. Guess I'm just sensitive since I teach those oh-so-sexist Romance languages!</p>
<p>would you please explain what is CC?</p>