<p>I don't quite follow you, Alexandre. Why does a private need significantly more money to get as much done? Fewer people on campus?</p>
<p>kyledavid, it's not that a private needs more money. Alexandre was comparing a different source of funding - that which comes directly from the state - with funding that comes from an endowment. Since state funding is yearly, a $300 million payment from the state is like having an endowment that produces $300 million/per year to spend. Since most colleges spend 5% of their endowments yearly (I believe this is federal law), it would take a $6 billion endowment for a private university to produce as much yearly revenue as a $300 million payment from the state. Thus, though a state university's endowment may seem small, this is in many ways deceptive, as it actually has financial resources equivalent to those at a significantly richer (in endowment terms) private university. Of course, this all assumes that states are adequately funding their public universities.</p>
<p>Oh, I see now. Thanks for clarifying.</p>
<p>That's pretty interesting. But is the $300m completely disposable? Or is part of it supposed to go toward the endowment?</p>
<p>Schools that will move up: UF, WM
Schools that will move down: UCSD</p>
<p>You're never going to see UCLA, Cal, Mich, Wisc -- some of the largest and most prestigious research unis in the world -- out of the top spots for public schools. UNC, WM, and UVA based on elite perception, student quality, admissions rate, and similiar factors will always be strong as well. </p>
<p>Everything else in this rotten thread is silly.</p>
<p>Yes Kyledavid, the money received from the state is entirely disposable. So Cal, which has an endowment of close to $3 billion can operate like a private university with an endowment of close to $6 billion.</p>
<p>"You can expect UConn's reputation to skyrocket:
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...28062007-1.htm%5B/url%5D">http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...28062007-1.htm</a></p>
<p>That is tremendous." --> Ya 450k is earth shattering...</p>
<p>-Where is all this UConn trolling coming from? This university only has a $300 million endowment. Not to mention their total research expenditures are awful.</p>
<p>Yes their is alot being poured into the infastructure, but that is probably because they are currently rancid.</p>
<p>"Schools that will move up: UF, WM"
"Schools that will move down: UCSD"</p>
<p>What are you talking about? W and M cant even fund raise enough money to keep their school competitive. Its really a shame, cause its a wonderfull university. but saying W & M is going to rise and UCSD is gonna fall is nuts and just not backed up by facts. Also if you go by numbers, UCSD has an unweighted GPA average well above 3.9 and a UC GPA average of above 4.0, and 99% of its incoming freshmen class in the top 10% of their high school class. Schools like UF and such cant come close to these numbers. Plus the location of California schools like UCSD, UCLA and such is far more desirable than others listed, with much larger regions and economies and job opportunities in southern california than most of the others schools surrounding areas. I believe UCSD has been around 45 years and for the past 10 years its already been a top 10 public, rising as high as number 5 at one time i believe. And what is this about Uconn being a top ten public, its deff a nice school, but right now i dont even think it is even a top 25 public. It deff is not going to rise even close to that much. It seems like people are trolling for their own universities or schools they want to be good like UConn or UF. UF atleast has a shot at possibly cracking top 10, but Uconn, come on. Schools dont move that much on US News every year. The truth of the matter is, most of the top ten publics now will also be in 10 years. Possibly a school like UW or UF might move up, but the top ten right now are not likely to drop much, its just not realistic numerically speaking.</p>
<p>W & M has little research funding that helps make up for fairly flat state funding. Under the Dems now taking control of spending, research $$$ will skyrocket and most of it will go to the UCLA, UM, Wisconsin and similar schools. It will be a golden period for big research U's. Lots of that money can be skimmed off for other uses to improve the overall university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Southpasdena, I am not sure what you mean? Michigan's endowment, as of June 2006, was $5.65 billion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the endowment at Michigan, they have life income agreements, charitable lead trusts and donor investment pools. The three life income agreements are paid out to the designated beneficiaries until those beneficiaries pass away. For these life income agreements, the money left over will be Michigans. But for the CLT and donor investment pools, the money will be returned to the donor at a specified time. All of these are added in with the endowment fund and quasi-endowment funds. So the money that technically does not belong to the school, or belong yet should technically be subtracted from the total, but it is not</p>
<p>I believe those items are shown as liabilities on the endowment balance sheets and the reported amount is NET of the actuarial estimates of those liabilities.</p>
<p>barrons,
I guess I have been ignorant and/or na</p>
<p>Interesting how some people have Wisconsin moving down. I don't see that happening, I especially don't see UF being ranked ahead of it.</p>
<p>The pie just gets bigger. The Dems just like spending more money on things like heathcare research than the R's. There are not many changes in the Top 10 schools by funding except that big increases in funds for medical research will tend to benefit schools with big medical research operations. Last year was very flat for funding as the R's were in charge of the last budget. I think we are talking over 10% more this year. UCLA road this in moving up a few spots in the rankings over the last five years.</p>
<p>Publics with top 15 med schools:</p>
<p>UCSF
Washington
UCLA
UCSD</p>
<p>I might be missing out on one more..i believe there is 5 publics in the top 15 for med schools. Added public funding will surely help these schools. UCSF of course does is not ranked as an undergraduate institution as in only has very limited bio and such at the undergrad level.</p>
<p>Whoops--rode, not road.</p>
<p>"Yes Kyledavid, the money received from the state is entirely disposable. So Cal, which has an endowment of close to $3 billion can operate like a private university with an endowment of close to $6 billion."</p>
<p>Alexandre...A Michigan is subsidising in state students $20k compared to oss, which would more or less wipe out the $300 million.</p>
<p>$450k is not much, but being the #1 school for one of the world's hottest companies will surely boost the school's rep. You're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.</p>
<p>I could care less.</p>
<p>The actual direct costs at UM for OOS students is less than the amount charged. The profit helps subsidize the instate students and other programs. That's why many of the top publics take lots of OOS students.</p>
<p>UCSD will surpass UF, WM.....</p>
<p>You have to take in account that UCSD is still a very young school. It was first established in 1960.....WM in 1848.</p>
<p>
[quote]
t was first established in 1960.....WM in 1848.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>W&M is the second oldest school in the nation after Harvard, established in 1693.</p>
<p>You're thinking 1888, when the school reopened after closing in 1882 due to a lack of funds caused by the Civil War.</p>