<p>Harvard gain more than most total funds. Yikes.</p>
<p>The Harvard endowment is truly stunning. More than twice #3 (Stanford), and almost five times #7 (Columbia). If Harvard had taken its growth and funded a new university, it would have the 21st largest endowment in the country, and Harvard would still have the largest endowment by $7 billion. Endowment growth/income exceeded all operating expenses by close to $1.5 billion (but of course endowment income only actually funded 1/3 of such expenses). Only the Gates Foundation is bigger (by a couple of percentage points), but the Gates Foundation has much more ambitious plans to give its money away. The Ford Foundation is 40% of the Harvard endowment.</p>
<p>There's actually something wrong here. It's too much.</p>
<p>Harvard's endowment is up more than 50% ($10 billion) in the past 3 years. Also, 3 years ago there were 39 endowments in excess of $1 billion. In 2006 there are 62.</p>
<p>JHS:</p>
<p>All true, but Harvard has ambitious plans to expand into Allston.</p>
<p>barrons, has anyone done a per student analysis yet that you know about? I always find those fun to compare.</p>
<p>If you calculate it on a per student basis, Princeton would come out on top (at least among the major ones).</p>
<p>Grinnell always does VERY well in the per capita.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All true, but Harvard has ambitious plans to expand into Allston.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The similarly-endowed Gates Foundation has ambitious plans to universalize access to vaccines, to reduce world hunger, and to reform the U.S. education system. (Not that Harvard doesn't contribute to that overall effort in important ways, but still . . . )</p>
<p>Or, from another perspective: All of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village changed hands this year for $5.5 billion: 80 acres, 100+ buildings, housing for 30-50,000 people, commercial properties. In Manhattan. That's less than two-years' worth of net growth (after contribution towards operating expenses) of the Harvard endowment.</p>
<p>If you have $30 billion to invest (in addition to many billions of dollars worth of capital actually employed in operations), "expanding into Allston" doesn't qualify as "ambitious".</p>
<p>I find the large endowments at the publics quite interesting (e.g., Michigan). Since the state contributes to its capital budget as well as operating budget, I wonder if their should be some form of "endowment multiplier" for publics. Of course this would vary depending on just how much state support is provided.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course this would vary depending on just how much state support is provided.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Less and less every year.</p>
<p>Berea remains at the top of the list (by far) for financial assistance per student, and it virtually all comes out of endowment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What's wrong? Was the endowment obtained illegally? Do you have a moral or ethical problem with the size of Harvard's endowment, or the way it's managed? What is your proposed solution to this "problem?" </p>
<p>Your comparison to Gates makes no sense to me, can you explain? Seem to be two very, very different institutions with very, very different goals. Gates is ok at that size but Harvard is not? Is Yale ok? Princeton? I'm confused.</p>
<p>State support for UM might continue to decline</p>
<p>I think the theory of Gates is that it's going to be self-liquidating: massive, focused efforts to address specific issues over a 30-40 year period, not a permanent institution. I've seen permanent foundations close up -- not so pretty. And at least in theory the tax rules force permanent foundations to spend enough of what they make each year to limit their growth.</p>
<p>Harvard is earning far, far more than it spends every year. Donors get tax deductions for contributing, and the income isn't taxed. But it's accumulating on a scale that dwarfs every other educational institution (except maybe Yale). For what? What is anyone going to do with it? To give you an idea of scale: All of Harvard's hard assets -- buildings, land, equipment, books, capital repairs -- are on its books at cost less depreciation of about $4.8 billion. It's investment return plus fundraising last year was about $4.6 billion. So it is making roughly a Harvard a year. (Not completely true, of course, since if you marked Harvard's tangible assets to market, they would be worth far more than $5 billion, and the Harvard name itself is worth billions and billions. But that $4.8 billion represents a decent measure of the cumulative cost of upgrading the university over 20-30 years.)</p>
<p>I would say the same thing about Yale, except the numbers aren't quite as sensational. I don't know what the "right" level is. I know perfectly well that you can't plan on 15-20% annual return on investment forever (except that Harvard seems to have gotten double-digit ROIs pretty consistently for roughly the past generation).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berea remains at the top of the list (by far) for financial assistance per student, and it virtually all comes out of endowment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. Berea is certainly among the leaders, but hardly at the top of charts. It's roughly comparable to Smith.</p>
<p>Berea sells a $37,101 product (cost of goods and services) for an average price of $4285 for an average financial assistance (discount) of $32,816.</p>
<p>In comparison, here are the average discounts (cost of goods minus average net price charged) for some other LACs:</p>
<p>Oberlin $17,897
Haverford $25,327
Grinnell $26,216
Smith $30,077
Berea $32,816
Williams $41,202
Swarthmore $41,719</p>
<p>$28 bil in endowment and they still rank 27th (out of 31) in student assessment of academic quality and quality of campus life.</p>
<p>Clearly, money isn't buying some things....</p>
<p>"In comparison, here are the average discounts (cost of goods minus average net price charged) for some other LACs:"</p>
<p>Nope. All you've done is amortize the value and upkeep of the physical plant. Forests in Kentucky don't take much, whereas arboretums in eatern Pennsylvania....</p>
<p>(If you let me sell you my Bentley out of my showroom in Berea, Kentucky, I betcha I can undersell your Bentley in the showroom on the Mainline - but, to be fair, you wouldn't have to...And the notion that your Bentley on the Mainline is worth twice as much as mine in Kentucky is a truly laughable notion.)</p>
<p>I was impressed to see little Santa Clara University at #98. That's not a bad endowment number!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nope. All you've done is amortize the value and upkeep of the physical plant. Forests in Kentucky don't take much, whereas arboretums in eatern Pennsylvania....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. Physical plant upkeep is a fairly small portion of the difference. The big difference in Berea's operating budget and that of the some of the higher cost producers of education is faculty and staff compensation. Swarthmore spent an additional $21,000 per student more than Berea on faculty and staff compensation. That reflects a significantly larger faculty and staff plus higher wages. Beyond reduced faculty and staff compensation, Berea saves an additional $10,000 per student in operating expense in all other areas combined -- facilities, libraries, health and counseling services, student activities, etc.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to knock Berea. I think they have a fabulous mission. I'm just saying that you can't just look at the student fees side of the equation in determing value. If you ignore expenditures and look only at fees, then everyone would go to their local community college.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, if you adjust the numbers in post 15 for wages and other operating expenses, how does Berea compare to Swat?</p>
<p>Faculty and staff compensation is more than about higher salaries and benefits. It's also about range (and types) of course offerings, Other costs would probably involve research opportunities, funding for student research, student advising, etc... So it would be hard to compare Swat and Berea.</p>