<p>Virginia has found that it takes more than money to attract top faculty in the sciences and engineering. That’s a big reason why endowment per student only goes so far. Tradition and reputation matter too.</p>
<p>^ Horrors! Why is Virginia devoting so much money to attract top researchers, while not doing anything to improve the all important “undergraduate experience”? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Hmmm…maybe top researchers provide more “bang for the buck”, so to speak.</p>
<p>^ quote from the article on the new building:
“The Discovery Institutes are scheduled to move into a newly constructed, 300,000-square-foot building in the 1300 block of University Ave. in 2010. The building is designed to encourage collaboration between UW-Madison researchers.”</p>
<p>alex,
I guess I’m a tough grader. And I don’t think percentage gains are the way to measure gains over two decades. Where you start from has a lot of impact on that calculation and U Michigan began from a very, very low per capita level of $7k. But that shouldn’t take anything away from what they have achieved; it has been impressive as has the absolute and percentage growth for all of the privates that I mentioned. The great majority of the publics, by contrast, have a lot of work to do if they want to remain financially competitive. </p>
<p>This financial separation is similar to the tiering effect in individual wealth that has been going on in America for the last few decades where the rich are getting richer at a faster pace than everyone else. I am not into class warfare (either among Americans or among colleges), but I am concerned about what this means for all of us. The recent moves by many of the elites to increase aid/grants/general money to middle income families is great, but most colleges can’t afford to follow suit and this will only increase the separation between the elites and everyone else. I understand the competitive advantage argument for the elites to pursue this strategy and they will garner tremendous and fawning press coverage for their “compassion,” but the true benefit is going to be felt by very few students and families. And I personally fear the negative consequences will be felt at the other privates that don’t have the wherewithal to follow the lead. </p>
<p>Re U Virginia, I’m not sure of their strategy, but it would appear to this observer that they have been seduced by those who think you must be a world class power in the sciences and graduate technical training in order to be a world class university. As barrons’s article points out, they have dumped a lot of money into this effort with very little payback. These things take time so perhaps it is too early to render a fair judgment on this, but I would have suggested that U Virginia stick to its knitting and continue providing what IMO is the premier undergraduate experience of any public university in the country. </p>
<p>U Virginia has a pristine reputation for how it treats undergrads and I would have suggested leveraging this and going upmarket vs the Dukes, the Northwesterns, the Rices, the Vanderbilts, the Georgetowns, the Wash Us and the non-HYP Ivies to attract even more top undergraduate students. Trying to copy the technical fields strategy of other prominent publics like UCB, U Michigan, U Wisconsin et al might not be the best route. U Virginia’s lack of success so far may also indicate that there is only so much business/money to go around for these schools doing research work. The private sector dwarfs the research effort of the educational world and, if you believe the stereotypes, the private sector may be a lot more efficient and accountable as well.</p>
<p>Sometimes a reputation is as hollow as an old tree.<br>
As to research and efficiency, I have no studies to back this opinion but it appears most science advances come from the universities and NOT from the private sector. How many Nobel and other major science prizes go to private researchers? Most of the major basic advances from transistors, to computers to basic biosciences to software came out of universities. Companies then take the work and apply it to real products.</p>
Is this true? Academia encompasses a lot of research at public and private universities and affiliated national labs.</p>
<p>
If so, why did BP donate $500 million to Berkeley and UIUC to help develop biofuels? Obviously, BP wouldn’t have made the donation if it thought it could do the research in-house.</p>
You most certainly are! ;)<br>
So, you’re going to “punish” UMich for starting at such a low level?</p>
<p>
Ironically, you did in your analysis above, by stating: “Where you start from has a lot of impact on that calculation and U Michigan began from a very, very low per capita level of $7k”</p>
<p>On its own, this number dwarfs what is going on in academia. Bring in all of the R&D spending going on in information technology, telecommunications, etc. and you hopefully see that the research going on in the private sector is much, much bigger.</p>
<p>As for BP’s decision to outsource some of their R&D work to UCB, I don’t know but I can guess that this was a tactical decision about how best to utilize company resources. Such decisions are commonplace in business and reflect a management that is secure enough to make a not-invented-here operating decision. They probably saw this as a cheaper and more effective investment decision while retaining a preferential right to any breakthroughs that might occur. This happens all the time in business. </p>
<p>As for your comments about my interpretations re the previously presented numbers on endowment growth, let’s leave the college names out of it as that tends to inflame the conversation. Tell me which endowment you would prefer to have:</p>
<p>College A:
1987 endowment per capita: $1000 per student
2007 endowment per capita: $10,000 per student</p>
<p>Absolute Growth: $9,000 per student
% Growth: 1000%</p>
<p>College B:
1987 endowment per capita: $50,000 per student
2007 endowment per capita: $250,000 per student</p>
<p>Absolute Growth: $200,000 per student
% Growth: 500%</p>
<p>I would prefer College B although it would be true that College A has demonstrated higher % growth over this time period.</p>
<p>Would you still prefer College B if the following were true about hypothetical Colleges A & B?:</p>
<p>College A, despite its smaller endowment, receives a significant portion of its annual budget from state and federal government subsidies. Because of this, College A’s annual spending per student is the same as College B. </p>
<p>College B spends only 3% of its endowment per year, and receives little to no funding from government subsidies. College B has just instituted a campaign to woo top researchers (gasp!) and is spending a significant portion of its annual endowment earmark for new labs and higher salaries to attract the top talent. Their spending focus has very little to do with improving the so called “undergraduate experience”.</p>
<p>Sure large endowments are nice, but you have to put the numbers in some context. Why would a student choose a university based on endowment per capita, looking at that number in isolation? Spending per student and how that university allocates the spending is more important, right? Do we have these spending figures?</p>
<p>I don’t understand your claim that certain universities are being “seduced” into spending money for science and technology research. Frankly, it’s very important to this nation. We are losing our competitive advantage. This country does not need more lawyers, bankers, and government officials. This country needs more engineers, scientists, and doctors. <em>steps down from soap box</em></p>
<p>You’re right, corporations make these decisions all the time. But the more important reason is because BP did not have the expertise to carry out the research on its own…Berkeley and UIUC had the expertise BP needed.</p>
<p>I think the key words are these “Most industry R&D funding is spent on applied research and development.” </p>
<p>But thanks for finding the numbers.</p>
<p>I still think universities do much of the BASIC research while industry takes this and converts it to usable products and improves old products. Microsoft spends billions taking basic computer codes and ideas and converting it to applications. I don’t think it advances basic computer knowledge much.</p>
<p>ucbchemegrad,
We probably agree on this more than our posts might indicate. I have four primary keys to how I think students should evaluate the academic experience that they will encounter at a college:</p>
<ol>
<li> Quality of the student body that you will be attending with. A stronger student body is better than not.</li>
<li> Size of the classroom: I think that smaller class sizes are better than larger and believe this regardless of the size of the college. Also, I believe that the need for high quality classmates increases as the class sizes decrease.</li>
<li> Quality and nature of the faculty: I think that good classroom teaching is essential to a good undergraduate education and I also believe that teaching done by full professors is preferable to that done by TAs.</li>
<li> Institutional Resources and the willingness to spend them on undergraduate education.</li>
</ol>
<p>This fourth point goes to your comments about the allocation of resources. Of course, you first need to have the financial capability to do something, but then it becomes a matter of institutional priority in how resources are allocated. </p>
<p>As an undergraduate student, should I care that the college has a great (mostly benefiting graduate student) research effort at its hospital and especially should I care if I am interested in a field of study outside of medicine? I don’t think so. But should I be concerned with how the college spends money on things like academic advisory programs or career placement resources or other groups that can directly benefit undergraduate students and their undergraduate academic experience and their postgraduate opportunities? Absolutely. As for spending per student, I think that the Education Trust publishes these numbers, but I don’t know how accurate or useful their data really is. This “spending per student” and “willingness to commit resources to undergraduate education” is a difficult thing to get your hands around. I suspect that colleges would prefer that not a lot of light get shined in this area because the public, including whose tax dollars are funding higher education in their states, might not like the results. </p>
<p>To your last point about the need for more engineers, scientists, doctors, etc, I agree somewhat with the thought, but wonder if the training and the preparation and the emphasis shouldn’t be more back in the high school years and earlier. I am a big believer that organizations (and I include colleges in this) function best when they stick to things that they do best and dominate their fields. Now, things change and sometimes you have to embrace new areas to evolve with the times. In the case of U Virginia or another public without the deep historical commitment to the technical fields, they may have made this decision and are making a strategic multi-decade commitment to building up in this area. Perhaps they will be proved right in the end. But, as barrons points out, it is expensive and I wonder if there are other, more sensible and less expensive ways to achieve the goal of producing more engineers, scientists, etc. I also an a little skeptical and fear that moves by some colleges to beef up these areas are more to improve its public position within academia than it is about attracting great students and producing great graduates.</p>
I agree with you on these aspects to a point. </p>
<p>With regard to student quality, I think SAT scores are a good indicator, but like the endowment figures, they only tell part of the story.</p>
<p>Smaller class size is better - to a point. Perhaps there is an optimal class size for different types of classes. For example, in a poli sci or history class, you’d want to have a small class to facilitate discussion while getting a broad set of opinions. In this type of environment, what is the optimal size? 5, 10, 20 students? Compare this to an introductory chemistry or calculus class where the ciriculum is more standardized and there is less need for debate and exchange of ideas. In this type of environment, optimal class size could be larger.</p>
<p>Faculty quality is important. I’ll agree with that. But, how do you measure faculty quality? If it’s teaching quality, perhaps the only way to measure is to have standardized tests for each major and compare the test scores of graduates. It would be very complicated and expensive to conduct.</p>
<p>IMO, you need to add a couple more factors to evaluate the right college:</p>
<ol>
<li>Cost</li>
<li>Academic reputation for chosen major. If a student knows exactly what he/she wants to major in, I see no problem choosing a school that has a strong reputation in that chosen field. If a student doesn’t know what major to pursue, attending a school that is strong in a variety of areas is best.</li>
<li>Employment opportunities<br></li>
</ol>
<p>
No question this is UVa’s motivation. Reading the report, UVa talks about being known for an undergraduate powerhouse, but not a research powerhouse. UVa’s motivation is to improve its standing in the more research-oriented rankings via beefing up its science research departments.</p>
<p>The question is, why do universities seem to care so much about rankings, that they’re willing to throw huge sums of money to improve their standing? </p>
<p>I agree with you, as a market capitalist, that if a university has a competitive advantage they should exploit it.</p>
<p>But Hawkette, if Michigan continues to grow at the rate it has for the last 20 years, it will overtake most of its peers on a per/student basis in the next few years. By the year 2027, the endowment per student at Michigan and its peers would look like this:</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins University: $645,000
Columbia University: $1,600,000
Cornell University: $1,680,000
Vanderbilt University: $1,740,000
Washington University: $2,120,000
University of Pennsylvania: $2,570,000
Northwestern University: $2,800,000
Emory University: $3,860,000
University of Michigan: $4,375,000
University of Chicago: $4,485,000</p>
<p>ucbchemegrad,
I agree with your other considerations for college search & selection and would probably add a few more as well related to the non-academic aspects of a college experience. As I have posted innumerable times, this is the most neglected aspect of the discussions that take place on this site. There is so much more to college than what goes on in the classroom. And issues related to prestige have so much less importance in real life than is reflected here on a daily basis. </p>
<p>alexandre,
I’m really surprised at you. Are you just pulling my leg??? Ever heard of the power of big numbers? For someone that works in the investment industry, I think you know the folly of predicting growth rate for years off the charts. I’m not meaning to minimize any U Michigan has done -as I said earlier, it has been impressive-but high rates of growth don’t continue indefinitely for anybody or anything.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I am very well aware of the power of big numbers. I was responding to your comment that growth rates are not important if you start little. My point is that eventually, growth rates are all that matter. </p>
<p>Can Michigan, over the next two decades, duplicate the same growth it has enjoyed the last two decades? Most likely, it can. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is, Michigan’s alumni base is one of the largest and wealthiest on Earth, and it has been, until the last two decades, relatively untapped. Not any more. Michigan is aggressively pursuing its alums, which (as SSobick points out) number at close to half a million. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Michigan (along with Harvard, Yale and Stanford) is widely considered to have one of the best endowment fund managers in the nation. </p>
<p>But I agree, predictions are cheap. It truly is impossible to predict the future. Let us have this discussion in 4 or 5 years. Hopefully, by then, we’ll both have wisened up a little! hehe!</p>
<p>And to tie this topic to the OP’s original question, I think the University of Florida has the right ingredients to successfully build up its endowment over the coming years. Gainesville is a fun and hip college town, the University has a vibrant and spirited atmoshpere, the sports teams win big and the alumni base is large.</p>