<p>College</a> Aid Recipients Donate Less as Alumni - NYTimes.com</p>
<p>
[quote]
While there are many reasons to keep education accessible to students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, the authors write, universities should not expect that generous financial aid will pay for itself through larger donations in the future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wonder if the study looked at the loan burden of the graduates?</p>
<p>Sounds like a dumb story/study to me (Correct me if I am wrong).</p>
<p>Why is it even necessary to do such a study? Shouldn’t it be logical to reason that a student who has need of loans and need-based aid from a university not be wealthy enough after graduating to donate substantial amounts of money unless he/she landed a six figure job out of college or won the lottery? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or maybe they need to pay off all the loans they took out before feeling financially secure enough to start giving away portions of their income to their alma mater?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a shock!!</p>
<p>Another possible explanation is that students from lower and middle income families may, in addition to paying off student loans, be providing more financial support to their family members.</p>
<p>“As best the economists could tell from these data points, income did not seem to explain why financial aid recipients gave less.”</p>
<p>I think it is always good to get data that might be different than presumptions based on nothing. It might or might not change some policies but at least they have real info.</p>
<p>I am not surprised. Most of these people have been scrapping by all of their lives. There is no way they are giving up their hard earned money. They need to fill secure. They figure the rich classmates can foot the bill.</p>
<p>There are any number of explanations for the fact that income doesn’t explain the ‘giving gap’.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>These students like the children of the Depression know what it’s like not to have money and therefore are more inclined to save for themselves for the future.</p></li>
<li><p>Coming from low income homes, they are taking care of parents, siblings etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Coming from low income homes, they have no ‘cushion’ of expecting an inheritance from their families to help with retirement.</p></li>
<li><p>The ‘aid’ isn’t free money, it’s loans which they are paying back.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>By the time my husband and I finally paid off all our student loan debt, we already had kids and we were saving for THEIR college educations. We didn’t have much extra to give back then, and now, with one in college and the others close behind, we still don’t have much to give. We are still grateful for the financial aid and hopefully will some day be able to help other students attend our school. Thus, it matters when you ask people about giving— is it 10 years out, 20, 30, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While the 3.6% maybe statistically significant, that differential ain’t much. Moreover, since the “university has a very high alumni giving rate” it would be hard to extrapolate to the university with an ‘average’ giving rate. </p>
<p>Conclusion: snooze.</p>
<p>so those that get, don’t feel the need to give back…I guess the evil 1%ers will take care of everybody.</p>
<p>When I graduated from my highly-selective-recognizable-on-CC-LAC, I had a commitment with myself to one day pay back to that college the equivalent of what I’d received in grant aid. However, my career path did not put me into the position where I was able to do more than send a minimal cash contribution each year - you know the one that lets the college report a high percentage of alums donating. In addition, I married into a family where the parents had no pension funds which means that Happydad and I must help out the elder generation as well as pay for our own expenses and our child’s education. So yes, I’m now one of the former aid recipients who doesn’t give money to my alma mater. Time and energy to serve on committees for the local alum club and help out at local functions, yes. Money, no.</p>
<p>It may be possible that some scholarship students at the type of institution described in this article are indeed catapulted into an economic level where they can donate more. However, I suspect that a deeper analysis of the numbers would show that many who aren’t contributing aren’t doing so simply because that scholarship education was not enough to get them fully into the next economic level after graduation. It is harder to join the “1%” than some would like to believe.</p>
<p>This passes for research? The researchers looked for a relationship between income and donations. Did they considera relationship between assits and donations? Some of the full pays might come from wealthy families and might be in a position to contribute substantially.</p>
<p>Also, the research followed alumni between the years 1993 and 2005. At best, that would be 20 years post graduate. I didn’t give generously then either, I was too strapped for cash with young kids and trying to get established. Now, 30 years after the fact when I’ve got more discretionary income and I give more generously.</p>
<p>so those that get, don’t feel the need to give back…I guess the evil 1%ers will take care of everybody.</p>
<p>I donate to my kids schools- not a lot because I have other charities that I feel fill a more critical need, ( like for potable water) but I know that when looking for matching funds it is the % of donors that count, not the amount given.</p>
<p>I admit that with Bezos & Gates as parents at D’s elementary school, I feel superfluous writing a check , but I always designate it to the scholarship fund. </p>
<p>Older D does still live in the same city as her college & participates in alumni events. I expect when she is done with grad school she will contribute. ( or she may do so now, I don’t usually ask about how she spends her money)</p>
<p>Schools that have big programs generate more publicity that may inspire more donations.
[Education</a> | UW donations hit record $334M | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2017544085_uwfundraising19m.html?prmid=4939]Education”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2017544085_uwfundraising19m.html?prmid=4939)</p>
<p>Like HappyMom, my aid package at a LAC included a “moral obligation” scholarship, essentially I agreed to make some level of donations over time to pay the amount back. I’ve consistently donated over the last 20 years and now with D1 entered college in the fall, my donation level will stay flat for the next few years.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>I would suggest that these two factors are probably why there is a difference, if there is an appreciable one.</p>
<p>Of course, poor greedy financial aid kids keeping everything they can get sounds plausible too (:rolleyes:).</p>
<p>I think there is a much more complex psychology involved. Instead of gratitude some who took the money feel somewhat ashamed of their poor circumstances early in life and giving to the school reminds them of that. So instead they give to the arts or other programs where they “owe” nothing. It can be complicated.</p>
<p>The other question that arises is whether the recipients are from a background that encourages charitable giving. For some folks, I’d imagine from all economic levels, it is not a concept that comes to mind, appeals in the mail or not. </p>
<p>I mention this, as at the hospital where I work, the negative comments regarding United Way appeals, as well the hospital appeal for an indigent clinic astound me. At one point I tried to get a discussion going on the topic, as I am feeling that some of the negativity is stronger among younger workers and was trying to figure out why. Not sure whether this was based on those appeals, or was a hostility to charitable giving in general. I’m wondering if there is any tie in to some of the current hostility toward taxes. “I made this money, and why should I give it up for societal good?”</p>
<p>EK, historically, some schools are just far more organized about their appeals to alums. My ex got his BA from our Wisconsin UW, and said they always found him, no matter how far he roamed, to ask for money in the pre internet days. The large school where he got the MA never asked for anything. These days, I’d think they’d all be on top of the game. </p>
<p>Barrons, some of us are very proud of ascending from difficult backgrounds.</p>
<p>And some are not. As I said, complex.</p>
<p>great lakes mom: interestingly, doctors as a group are known to be low charitable givers among professional fundraisers. </p>
<p>My H and I began giving to JHU CTY and to S’s college as soon as our finances improved to the point that we had more coming in than going out. We intend to continue doing so. We are very grateful for the scholarship aid that both extended to our S. To my knowledge, H doesn’t give to either of the 2 large schools from which he has degrees. He didn’t get FA from either one. I’ve been giving token gifts to my alma mater, from which I received no financial aid. I do volunteer locally for them, though.</p>
<p>I’ll give my own negative opinion of United Way. When their representative’s spiel claimed evil Republicans were cutting funding to poor people, I decided I will never give to them again. Don’t call me names while begging me for my money. Cutting off the Boy Scouts didn’t help either. </p>
<p>Next, my charitable giving goes to a local group of churches that gives to poor working people in emergency situations. The group is designed to keep them off government programs. I can see an immediate benefit and I know that money gets used for its intended purposes. Plus there is little overhead. The emergencies may be car repairs, doctor’s bills, meds, a rent payment or a power bill. Most times the amount is well under $500. Not much, but it makes a huge difference if you’ll lose your job because you have no transportation. </p>
<p>My little local group has results I can see, unlike the huge charities with their lovely buildings and large staffs, whose purpose, sometimes, seems to be only to raise money to justify the high compensation for their leaders.</p>