<ol>
<li> UC Berkeley</li>
<li> U of Michigan / UVa</li>
<li> UCLA</li>
<li> UNC</li>
<li> W&M / Wisconsin</li>
<li> UIUC / GT</li>
<li>Texas</li>
</ol>
<p>But here's the thing, too. Don't you guys think some of these schools are only popular because of inflation in number of kids graduating. Seriously. Some of the schools that are considered good schools or highly-ranked schools weren't even on the radar ten years ago.</p>
<p>William & Mary
Virginia
California
Michigan
UCLA
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Washington
Ga Tech</p>
<p>
[quote]
But here's the thing, too. Don't you guys think some of these schools are only popular because of inflation in number of kids graduating. Seriously. Some of the schools that are considered good schools or highly-ranked schools weren't even on the radar ten years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Inflation in number of kids graduating? How's that? And which schools are you referring to?</p>
<p>William & Mary is a poor institution. They will drop considerably in the years to come.</p>
<p>Top Three</p>
<ol>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
</ol>
<p>"William & Mary is a poor institution. They will drop considerably in the years to come."</p>
<p>When you say that, do you mean a poor academic institution or poor financially?</p>
<p>If you're saying it's poor academically, you're obviously very wrong (look at quality of student body, graduate school placement, etc.). If you're talking about poor financially, they have always had quite a bit less money than other top publics and they have always remained amongst the top publics. Their financial resources ranking has actually gone up over the last few years.</p>
<p>top 10 by what criteria? quality of faculty/academic programs? academic breadth/depth? resources? reputation? student selectivity? teaching?</p>
<p>rankings can be quite different...</p>
<p>"If you're talking about poor financially, they have always had quite a bit less money than other top publics and they have always remained amongst the top publics."</p>
<p>They only have a $500 million endowment. That is awful for a Research University. They were allowed to become semi-Private by the Virginia Assembly, but it won't matter. They are most likely going to drop alittle within the next decade.</p>
<p>William and Mary is much smaller than most research universities. Plus, it doesn't really try to market itself as a research university, rather emphasizing its strong liberal arts curriculum, small size for a public, and dedication to undergraduate teaching. The last point was something that was especially stretched over and over again during orientation, the fact that the professors are there to teach you, and not just to conduct research with grad students and shove you to the side. It does have plenty of research opportunities, though, for those who seek them.</p>
<p>Also, the endowment actually increased 19.2 percent to $585.9 million during the 06-07 fiscal year: <a href="http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=8266%5B/url%5D">http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=8266</a></p>
<p>Hopefully it will continue to increase at this rate.</p>
<p>With an endowment size of $586mm, this would give W&M a per capita endowment of $82,605. Not great (U Virginia is $150k and that is using older numbers for endowment size), but Datkid makes a good point on the resources need. Given W&M's comparatively modest devotion to research, the need is clearly less for them. Also, on a per capita basis, I believe that W&M's endowment size is greater than Georgia Tech ($58k), U North Carolina ($45k), and U Wisconsin ($37k).</p>
<p>Wisconsin's total endowment including UW System, UW Foundation, WARF, UW Medical Foundation and a couple of others is around $4 Billion. That makes the per capita more like $100,000.</p>
<p>barrons,
I'm not sure what numbers are included, but for an apples to apples comparison to other colleges, the NACUBO data lists U Wisconsin with an endowment of $1.426bn on 6/30/06. Undoubtedly it has grown since then and there have been more contributions made which would be the case for all college endowments. I used the NACUBO data for the calculation of the per capita figures and assumed a student population (grad and undergrad) of 38,887.</p>
<p>I think it is also true that U Wisconsin's cash needs to fund its major research activities differs rather dramatically from the needs of W&M.</p>
<p>W&M is truly a unique institution. History and name of Georgetown/quality of a Davidson or Amherst/cost of Va Tech. To compare endowments is missing the point entirely. As stated earlier, W&M is not touted as a research school. Its a teaching school that does research. If endowments were the metric then UTexas would be the best in the country.</p>
<p>Let UVA/Berkeley/Michigan fight it out for the best Big state school. W&M is a public school in a class by itself.</p>
<p>Agreed Swish! Good old Thomas Jefferson went to W&M :)</p>
<p>And I am just telling you the NACUBO numbers in this case are only part of the story. Most schools have only one centralized endowment but UW developed differently over the years for a number of reasons most of which have to do with being able to have $$$ outside state control. BTW research tends to be a major Profit center and not a cost factor when done on a large scale. It contributes significantly to the academic operating budget--to the tune of around $200,000,000 a year. That's why schools fight so fiercely for it.</p>
<p>Research is profit contributor...if you do it well. Witness the problems that you have posted about recently at U Virginia. Anyway, I'm not sure how to post on U Wisconsin's endowment vis-a-vis other schools as probably every other school also has unique aspects to its money and the NACUBO numbers may also undervalue their assets. </p>
<p>swish14 has it right on W&M-it really is in a class by itself as a public university. It is just not an appropriate comp for a school like U Wisconsin on a metric like endowment as their missions and natures are so clearly different.</p>
<p>UConn will be a top 15 public U in 2017. There football program will be in the top 25 within 5 years from now. Basketball is fantastic and the state keeps recruiting top students into its honors college. It will be recognized as one of the elite Public institutions in ten years.</p>
<p>
<p>By that same reasoning, UVA doesn't belong with Berkeley and Michigan (or Wisconsin/UCLA/Texas, for that matter). It's not nearly as major of a research university as the others and is probably the most undergrad focused, although in fairness, it does appear to be trying to increase its research stature.</p>
<p> [quote=] If endowments were the metric then UTexas would be the best in the country.
</p>
<p>I understand your point, but there are certain things that UT's endowment has allowed (or at least help facilitate) UT-Austin to accomplish that belies the absurdity you were intending:</p>
<p>-one of the largest concentrations of NAE/NAS members on a university campus without a medical school (but Berkeley is the true star in this regard)
-one of the largest federal research budgets for a university without a medical school or agriculture school
-highly regarded academic departments in nearly every discipline offered
-arguably the greatest university library in the country (not in raw size, but cultural significance)
-largest university art museum
-largest performing arts complex
-world-class research facilities/infrastructure (the fastest academic supercomputer in the world, the McDonald Observatory, Pickle Research Campus, etc.) </p>
<p>These are impressive feats and since UT is a public university (with ever-decreasing state support), the endowment has to have played at least a minimal role in accomplishing this.</p>
<p>uconn? not likely, although uconn is a good school, just not that caliber.</p>