Top 25 LACsb

College Search & Selection
81

<p>Have it your way, Interesteddad. I just wanted ot make sure we were comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.</p>

<p>The point here is, that Wesleyan's per capita decrease in endowment funds (minus $3,174) is still a smaller percentage of its per capita EXPENSES than Swarthmore's. Even using your figures, it only amounts to 5% versus 13%.</p>

<p>Now, Vossron's "Who Will Burn Through Their's First?" scenario is a good one so long as one assumes, 1) neither college will change its behavior and, 2) the market doesn't recover in the next thirty years. Even then, one has to take cognizance of Wesleyan's 2 to 1 edge in living alumni and greater donations infrastructure. I believe Wesleyan's Annual fund raises about $30,000,000 year (a figure which includes parents, and friends of the univesity) compared to Swarthmore's $5,000,000.</p>

82

<p>You kind of lost me. Swarthmore will go to the top end of their spending range during the down market (4.75%). So assuming a full 30% decline in endowment to $1 billion, they will, worst case, still spend $47 million from the endowment. That's down about 7.5% from this year's endowment spending levels. The fact that they have only been spending at the low end of the endowment spending policy (as you would expect during boom markets) gives them a cushion against market declines. That's the reason for the spending policy -- to not get carried away with high spending when the markets are rosey. Swarthmore's range would have covered a fluctuation of 20% or so in the market. It can't quite cover a 30% swing.</p>

<p>As for gifts. Wesleyan had $34 million last year. Swarthmore had $32.2 million. You are correct that Wes probably has double the number of living alumni, however Swarthmore's giving rate is very, very high - 59% last year and 84% participation during the most recent capital campaign.</p>

83

<p>^^^you're still confusing Swarthmore's willingness to spend its portfolio <em>over time</em> (its 12 quarter moving average rate of total return) with the present downturn in the value its portfolio -- which is what the rest of us are talking about. I'm comparing the decline to its per student costs -- which is what you started talking about. I'm using it as a measurement tool, not as a testimony to Swarthmore's fiscal prudence.</p>

84

<p>No. I'm saying that if the current endowment value (30% down) doesn't bounce back one red cent over the next three years, Swarthmore will spend at the top of its range (4.75%) indefinitely. That's $47.5 million per year in endowment spending, down about $6 million from this year's spending. </p>

<p>In other words, 3.7% of a the big endowment goes to 4.75% of the smaller endowment. The increase in percentage offsets a very large portion of the endowment decline. </p>

<p>The whole philosophy of the spending policy is to spend a "fixed" amount each year and not adjust the spending dollars with each market bobble. By doing that, the spending falls at the low end of the spending percentage during rising markets and at the high end of the spending percegtage during falling markets.</p>

<p>You can't separate it from a school's fiscal policy. If Swarthmore were already spending at a 6% rate during the boom years, they would not be able to increase the percentage to partially offset the market decline. The cuts in the operating budget would have to be more severe.</p>

<p>That's why is a folly to say that smalle endowment schools will be better off. Even in market where endowments have fallen 30%, a big endowment is still bigger than a small endowment. One of the things a big endowment lets you do is, over time, spend a lower percentage of the endowment each year on operating expenses. The benefits of that conservative fiscal policy don't really become apparent until pressure from a bust market is placed on higher education.</p>

<p>I've been talking about college balance sheets and operating budgets for years. I bet that, by the time all the program cuts are made three years from now, a lot more people will be paying attention to this stuff.</p>

<p>For example, I believe Wesleyan has announced an increase in enrollment of 120 new students phased in over the next four years. That's a real change in class sizes, dorm crowding, cafeteria lines, waiting for a counseling appointment, getting tutoring in calculus, and so on and so forth. I applaud Wesleyan for biting the bullet. But, we shouldn't kid ourselves that these cuts -- at all schools -- aren't going to be noticed. Some more than others.</p>

85

<p>^^^that translates to 30 students per entering class -- a rounding error for an entering class of ~700.</p>

<p>Really, this interest in Wesleyan's balance sheet is endearing. Too bad you're not as adept at reading Swarthmore's. That $32 million figure you quoted two posts ago, for Swarthmore's annual giving was tied to Swat's capital campaign which just ended. The real figures for Swat alum (parents and friends) are the $5 million figure I quoted:Swarthmore</a> College :: Annual Giving :: Annual Giving</p>

86

<p>kaleigh3 You asked me in an earlier post about wrestling for Northwestern.</p>

<p>Personally I would rather go to an LAC like Kenyon or Claremont McKenna. However most of the LACs that I have a shot at getting into or I am interested in do not have wrestling. Williams has a wrestling team, but I feel that there is no way that I would get in.</p>

87

<p>Huh? The last capital campaign at Swarthmore ended in Dec. 2006.</p>

<p>Here's the history of giving each year going back a decade or so:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/Gifts.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/Gifts.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It' hasn't been update for 2007-08 yet, which as I said was $32.2 million (per the annual financial report), a record year for fundraising. From the annual report, about half of that was unrestricted giving, about half was restricted (i.e. tied to specific purposes).</p>

<p>As for Wes' annual report. It just happens to be one of the few from June 2008 that has been released.</p>

88

<p>oh, for crying out loud. that $32.2 million figure is lifted almost word for word from the the capital campaign website:
Swarthmore</a> College :: Presidential Search :: Fiscal Affairs
to wit: "Philanthropy is vital to Swarthmore's continued ability to achieve its mission. In December 2006, the College successfully concluded a comprehensive campaign, raising $245 million - $15 million beyond the initial goal. During the campaign, contributions to the unrestricted Annual Fund grew from $3.2 million in 1998-1999 to $5.3 million during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. Including all gifts and grants received, total private and public support for Swarthmore was $32.2 million in 2007-2008."</p>

89

<p>I'm trying to figure out what you are arguing? We know that a capital campaign ended two years ago. We know that total charitable contributions to Swarthmore from July 1 2007 to June 30th 2008 were $32.2 million. I've told you that about half that is unrestricted, about half restricted. </p>

<p>BTW, the webpage you linked is the Presidential Search website. Specifically, it is numerous pages that give the relevant data to potential applicants. That specific page is all financial information "lifted" from the Financial Report released publicly this week. Actually the financial information was posted on the Presidential Search page about a month ago, while the Financial Report was still being audited, gussied up with the management discussion, and printed.</p>

<p>BTW, page 14 of the new Annual Report shows the breakdown of gifts to the operating fund (unrestricted and temporarily restricted) and gifts to the endowment (unrestricted, temporarily restricted, and permanently restricted).</p>

<p>Permanent means a permanent named fund, like a name Professorship. Temporary means until some specified condition is met, like money that can only be spent after a particular building is constructed and placed in service. Unrestricted means that the College can spend it however it likes.</p>

90

<p>look, we were talking about alumni contributions (and, to some extent parents and close associates of the college) and you pull out a figure that obviously includes everything from government grants to HHMI internships:<br>
<a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/Gifts.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/Gifts.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>the figure on the far left is the Annual Fund contribution for all Swarthmore alum, parents and "friends". Not the column marked "Other Gifts and Bequests". Friends do not include the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.</p>

<p>but, you knew that.</p>

91

<p>You've just completely lost me. I'm not understanding the distinction you are trying to make?</p>

<p>Colleges receive donations from a number of different avenues:</p>

<p>a) The annual alumni phone-a-thon and mailing.</p>

<p>b) Major gifts.</p>

<p>c) Bequest gifts (for example, Swarthmore gets a "bequest" gift every month from their ownership of the estate of James Michener, including all of his publishing rights)</p>

<p>d) Matching gifts from corporations</p>

<p>e) Corporate and charitable foundation gifts. For example, Swarthmore got $900 million from Mellon Foundation, half a mil from HHMI, and so forth.</p>

<p>f) Government grants (NASA, NSF, Dept of Energy, etc.).</p>

<p>Where do you think that Wesleyan's $34 million in gifts and grants come from?</p>

92

<p>"I'm not understanding the distinction you are trying to make?"</p>

<p>Is this it:</p>

<p>"alumni contributions (and, to some extent parents and close associates of the college) ... [vs.] ... a figure that obviously includes everything from government grants to HHMI internships"</p>

<p>Swat: $5.3 million vs. $32.2 million
Wes: $34 million vs. ?</p>

<p>"In FY 2007/08, alumni, parents, and friends gave $34 million on a cash basis to
Wesleyan University"</p>

<p>"[Swarthmore needs] your help to reach our 2008-09 [alumni, parents, and friends] Annual Fund goals of 57% participation and $5.35 million."</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
Wes: $34 million vs. ?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where is this mythical ? in the Annual Financial Reports?</p>

94

<p>Sorry, I just meant that I don't feel confident in extracting the right number.</p>

95

<p>What the heck are you guys arguing about?
Which LAC is better endowed? Feh.</p>

96

<p>Vossron, Interesteddad - in all honesty, I think the $34 million figure for Wesleyan is an outlier, having perhaps to do with the quiet phase of an upcoming campaign (I know, brrr) -- the following stats ($14.5 million and 52% participation) are probably more typical for Wesleyan:
The</a> Wesleyan Fund</p>

97

<p>It's not an outlier. Gifts and grants have been above $30,000 in five of the last eight years and consistently above $27,000 for that entire eight year stretch at Wesleyan. It's the same boilerplate paragraph in the annual report every year, just like it is for every college's year in review management discussion.</p>

<p>The "Wesleyan Fund" is just one portion of Wesleyan's overall fundraising and development.</p>

<p>BTW, don't dismiss the grants from the Carnegies, Rockefellers, and Mellons. It was these grants in the early 20th century that put most of these luxury colleges on the map. I'd have to go back and check which one did what, but one of the Foundations built the libraries at most of these schools. Another funded Swarthmore's Honors Program in the 1920s and so on and so forth.</p>

98

<p>This has been kind of hard to follow, lol.</p>

99

<p>idad and jw enjoy poring over financial statements and arguing about them, and also entertaining the rest of us. I kibitz.</p>

100

<p>Hey, it beats shoveling snow.</p>

<p>And, two years from now when your kid's college cancells the summer science research or downsizes her favorite department, you'll probably join the ranks of people paying a little closer attention to the financial reports!</p>