<p>Although those are 2005 figures, they are consistant with what I have always been told; that over 98% of Michigan's endowment belongs to the Ann Arbor campus. One simply cannot compare the Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota systems to the California or Texas systems. The former three have satelite campuses, the latter two have several major campuses. For example, the UC system has UCLA, UCSD and UCSF.</p>
<p>"I don't know about that. Both Flint and Dearborn are each several times larger than, say, UCMerced."</p>
<p>Sakky, I hope you are joking. Cal, UCLA, UCSD and UCD are mammoth universities with very significant research activity, costly faculties and cutting edge facilities. UCSF is not large, but in all other ways, it requires very significant financial backing. Even UCSB and UCI are very large universities with 20,000+ students, 1,000+ faculties and 1,000+ acres. </p>
<p>Michigan-Flint and Michigan-Dearborn combined have 15,000 students, 900 professors and 200 acres. As such, combined, they are smaller than UCSC, the second smallest UC campus.</p>
<p>I don't know... I would consider the U Wisconsin system comparable to the U Cal system. Granted, Cal has a number of large universities with national appeal whereas Wisconsin only has one, but I think it's important to keep in mind the goal of the Wisconsin system: educate Wisconsin residents, which it does quite well. </p>
<p>The UW system has 13 universities along with 13 local(2 year) colleges, plus an extension in every county. THe University of California system has about 191,000 students(according to Wikipedia, which is never wrong). UW has about 160,000, which is pretty good considering the difference in the size between the two states. </p>
<p>So, while the UW system only has one(or two if you count Milwaukee) schools that would be generally nationally noted(though individual schools are well known in specific disciplines), the UW system is very comprehensive.</p>
<p>The UW System maintains its tiers by having the doctorate granting schools--Madison and UWM and the others. I would never equate it to the UC System.</p>
<p>I think that is is comparable to the UC system in that, despite what many outside of the state would think, Madison isn't the only focus. WHile it is the flagship and has the Wisconsin athletic teams, 75% of students that attend a University of Wisconsin school do not attend Madison. Sure, to many people on these boards, attending UW-Steven's Point is not going to impress(Unless its in natural resources), but for the average student, what is important is getting an education and a degree, not what school they get it from and the UW system does a spectacular job in educating its residents and improving its job force.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I hope you are joking. Cal, UCLA, UCSD and UCD are mammoth universities with very significant research activity, costly faculties and cutting edge facilities. UCSF is not large, but in all other ways, it requires very significant financial backing. Even UCSB and UCI are very large universities with 20,000+ students, 1,000+ faculties and 1,000+ acres.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How am I joking? You said that Flint and Dearborn were not comparable to *any * of the UC's in terms of size. *Any * of them. I am simply pointing out that both Flint and Dearborn are in fact several times larger than one of the UC's (Merced).</p>
<p>Touche! LOL!</p>
<p>"I think the SUNY system will see a rise in its reputation as Stony Brook becomes a top tier research university, Binghamton follows William and Mary in its undergrad focus, Buffalo keeps its place as a major graduate institution and Geneseo establishes itself as the premier public liberal arts school in the nation."</p>
<p>Nah, the SUNY system has been on the decline for a while now. Expect this trend to continue. They get very little funding from the boys in Albany, and none of them have very large endowments.</p>
<p>I think if NY was smart, they would give more money to Binghamton. Binghamton has a lot of potential.</p>
<p>"Binghamton has a lot of potential"</p>
<p>Ya but they only have a $52 million endowment (also no Medical School as well). Binghamton just does not have the infastructure to do quality Research.</p>
<p>"Nah, the SUNY system has been on the decline for a while now."</p>
<ul>
<li>But Stony Brook is ranked 98th on UsNews!!!!!</li>
</ul>
<p>Ya, but they will never be a Top-10 Public. Will be interesting to see if they can even stay in the 2nd Tier in the next 10 years (ranked ie: 51 - 120 overall).</p>
<p>W&M/UVa/UNC/Cal/Michigan/UCLA will be tops in 2117 as well as 2017. W&M may be forced to go private if the state demands they continue to accept more students. Fluke of history that they are public now.</p>
<p>Regardless of what USNews says to sell magazines, colleges dont change much decade to decade much less yr to yr.</p>
<p>"colleges dont change much decade to decade much less yr to yr."</p>
<p>Yes but Research Universities do.</p>
<ol>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UVA</li>
<li>UNC</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
</ol>
<p>W&M will never be a private institution. </p>
<p>And for better or worse, these rankings are useless as it is. You can't quantify a school's quality, let alone persuasively argue that any of the US News parameters are good indicators of what makes a good school.</p>
<p>Additionally, most people don't understand that endowments don't mean all that much in the grand scheme of things, yet they are mentioned profusely on the web. Endowments are not budgets, and since there aren't even a solid set of criterion by which to base those figures, a vast number of them are overstated and in the form of willed pledges. What matters is the utilization of a school's financial resources, not simply how high their endowment is. Endowments are to a certain extent just capitalization.</p>
<p>Most schools only report invested funds as endowment so I don't think there is much question on the values as you can look up the balance sheets on the internet. One weakness is that some schools have many endowment funds and may only report the main one.
Most schools don't have enough to matter much but those over a Billion have some serious money that can pay the U at least $50,000,000/yr.</p>
<p>the number of funds can reach into the hundreds and even thousands for schools like harvard. They wouldn't just report their main funds. The higher the better, why would they skimp on their figures?</p>
<p>Some schools have funds controlled by a university affiliate foundations in order to avoid state control in the case of state U's. Wisconsin has over $2 Billion in outside controlled funds for the benefit of UW Madison. These include WARF, UW Medical Foundation, and several private trusts.</p>