<p>darkhope,</p>
<p>I don't know the specifics other than bunch of past and present donations. It shouldn't include the value of land the school is sitting on.</p>
<p>"There are many other wildcats beside UofA."</p>
<p>I figured...thanks. I was thinking you could specify which one you were talking about...then I would understand.</p>
<p>Wow. It's ridiculous that some schools have a smaller endowment than 4 years would cost there.</p>
<p>Also UT=oil money.</p>
<p>christalena2, Northwestern. :)</p>
<p>What I'm wondering is why I see a "UCLA foundation" and a "UC San Diego" foundation but none for the other UCs, in particular Berkeley. Also I'm a little surprised Harvard's endowment growth lagged behind the others in the top 5-10.</p>
<p>It's not like it matters for Harvard, it will take a while for anyone to catch up anyways.</p>
<p>Wait so does this money come from alumni donations?</p>
<p>i don;t think this money includes federal funds towards the school O.o</p>
<p>Quite amazing how much the endowment #s of the wealthiest universities have grown over the past 10-15 years, and how wide the spread is getting. The % changes from year to year on what are already massive endowment #'s is very impressive. It's also interesting to point out that a little over 10 years ago, the University of Texas was a solid #2 behind Harvard (and the spread was much closer)... but Yale, then Stanford have surged ahead and continued to pass with stronger growth. It's obvious from the numbers Princeton will pass UT at some point, if not already. On another note, Texas appears to be the only state with 3 Universities/university systems in the top 20.</p>
<p>what you don't realize is that those Texas schools have an insane amount of people going to those colleges. I read somewhere that UT-Austin has over 45,000 college students, compare that with with Cal Tech who has like a few thousand but less of an overall endowment. In the end Caltech technically has more of an endowment per student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Middlebury lags the top LACs. They need to halve the president's pay package. He'd still be making more than Harvard's president.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A few points. First off, Middlebury's endowment does lag behing AWS and Pomona, but it's still well ahead of Bowdoin, Carleton, Haverford, etc. Midd is about to launch a $500 million capital campaign (and already has approximately half this amount in pledges). That should help boost the endowment figure past the billion dollar mark within the next 2-3 years (depending on return on investment).</p>
<p>These numbers also have changed since this report was published. Most college fiscal years run from July 1 - June 30. So these numbers were current as of June 30 of this year. Middlebury's endowment in October of 2006 was $840 million.</p>
<p>Finally, Zuma's jab at presidential pay is inaccurate. In 2004, John McCardell, Jr., outgoing president of Middlebury, was given a package worth $1.2 million. This was a one-time payout, and well worth it considering that he had just secured a $50 million donation (the largest single gift ever to a New England LAC) just before leaving office. The annual president's salary at Middlebury isn't close to what Harvard's president earns.</p>
<p>Comming in at #756 NJ's own, Caldwell College up 0.6%! </p>
<p>Bouyah!</p>
<p>Re the separate UC foundations, many schools started their own foundation to raise funds outside state controls. I'd guess Berkeley has one but did not report numbers.</p>
<p>Arcadia,</p>
<p>"First off, Middlebury's endowment does lag behing AWS and Pomona, but it's still well ahead of Bowdoin, Carleton, Haverford, etc." </p>
<p>What you wrote isn't entirely fair and is somewhat misrepresentative. What the endowment can do for each student is more important. You have many reasons to be proud of Middlebury, but lets be wise with how we interpret the data.</p>
<p>"Midd is about to launch a $500 million capital campaign (and already has approximately half this amount in pledges)."</p>
<p>So is every single other college. It has taken a long time to build up the war chests of any of these colleges and one capital campaign will not affect standings much in the short term.</p>
<p>darkhope,</p>
<p>I'd think so too. Federal funds are given for research, not investment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you wrote isn't entirely fair and is somewhat misrepresentative.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not if you're speaking in terms of total endowment (not per student endowment). Middlebury's student body has grown significantly in the past 10 years--perhaps more so than any other top LAC. In the early 90s, Middlebury's student population was just below 2,000 (comparable in size to Williams). In 1995, the college decided to increase its size to 2,400, phased in over 10 years. An additional 400 students in that amount of time has significantly diluted the per student endowment figures--something that comparable schools have not had to address. You're totally correct in noting that it takes time to build up war chests. Middlebury has grown, and it will take time for the per student endowment numbers to catch up.</p>
<p>And as for Middlebury's $500 million campaign, it is the largest capital campaign ever undertaken by a liberal arts college. In fact, the amount already pledged (half a year before the official launch) exceeds the total amount of Bowdoin's current capital campaign (which is well underway).</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>But, for example, Mexico probably has more aggregate wealth than Italy, but I don't think anybody would suggest that the country's population is better off or more developed. When comparing institutions (as you did), I think you have to factor some things like size into consideration... because many people reading your post would assume that. I don't know the answer to this but Middlebury probably has more minority students than Amherst (cause it's much larger), but I don't think it's more "diverse". I know you're very smart and would never state such things as well, but your 1st post does give the impression that Middlebury is somehow more financially stable than the colleges you compared it to.</p>
<p>Also, congrats with Mids current campaign. While it is the largest such endeavor and still very significant, Middlebury is itself much larger than most of its peers and the same thing still appplies to comparing capital campaigns.</p>
<p>I can only speak for Haverford but in the 1970s, Haverford was the wealthiest LAC in terms of per student endowment but over the subsequent 20 years, it went from 700-->1200 kids and, as you can tell, it is still catching up to its past... but doing a darn good job of it. :)</p>
<p>I don't like the ideia of endowment per capita...UCLA for example has a lower pc endowment than UVA , does that mean that UVA has more up to date labs, better facilities, more resources than UCLA?i don't think so</p>
<p>While endowment per capita gives a different way to look at the wealth, it shouldn't be overused. For example, schools with 1000 students don't necessarily have twice as many trees to trim (and the assocated cost) as the one with 500 students. The same applies for the size of gyms, student center, volume of books in libraries...things are rarely operated or built in direct/exact proportion to the number of students.</p>
<p>The fact that UCLA gets much more state funding means endowment matters less than at UVa. Per capita is one measure but only among comparable type schools.</p>