<p>If someone graduated from a state University and still resides in that state, they ARE giving to the university through forced taxes. This most certainly enters into the mind of potential doners when they are asked to give MORE from the school. In fact, I would guess that the more critically thinking the alumni, the more they realize this and the LESS willing they are to donate. Why would someone making 30K, 40K or whatever feel compelled to give a donation after the state has already forced them to cough up heavily to pay for their alma mater? By not including these alumni, US News, YET again is proven to have calculated or altered a part of their ranking system to favor private schools. Worse yet, it actually tuns a huge public school advantage into a leg up for private schools. Hmmmm...</p>
<p>That's a very good argument, actually. I daresay that many don't want to donate to their public alma maters, simply because they are supported by taxes and people pay lots of taxes, typically.</p>
<p>Here's something interesting: UVA has typically gone through battles with state funding, especially of late, and its giving rate is higher than other publics. I believe UVA (correct me if I'm wrong) is the one who receives a small percentage of money from the state and in turn is more autonomous.</p>
<p>It's a reasonable argument for why public universities should not be compared to private universities with this metric, but paying taxes is not the same as alumni giving. </p>
<p>Private university alumni can argue that they also pay taxes to support the public unis, yet they choose to also contribute to their alma matersl. The private alumni also probably paid a lot more out of pocket for tuition than the public university alumni did, which could be an excuse for not contributing to their college (and may be a factor for those who don't give). The point is, having paid much less in tuition for a high quality education, perhaps the public university alumni have more reason to want to donate generously to State U rather than less. That's another way of looking at it.</p>
<p>You are correct on Uva in all regards. Less from state, more freedom, and more donations from alums. They have done a good job of getting alums on board to plug the funding hole from the state. I do admire them for that. UVa is very well run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
having paid much less in tuition for a high quality education
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's just it--the most common argument is that publics give a lower quality education. Thus, the students are "less satisfied," and will donate at lower rates.</p>
<p>A bit too simplistic a view, if you ask me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Less from state, more freedom, and more donations from alums.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More top publics are going down this quasi-privatization path as state funding shrinks or becomes less reliable. Some publics are now building substantial endowments, and some are rapidly gaining on their private peers. It also often goes hand-in-glove with rising tuition levels, a departure from the tradition of free or almost-free public higher education. The problem for them is that many legislatures want it both ways: they want to give the universities less money, but at the same time they want to keep tuition down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we may be moving more in this direction with each new generation of public university graduates (subject to the caveat that public university tuition is rising sharply). The problem for the publics is that this is essentially a new idea to previous generations of alums who went to school with the idea that they were the beneficiaries of a taxpayer-supported service like public K-12 education or police and fire protection. In many cases they're resistant to the idea that times have changed and they now have an obligation to step up and do out of their own personal funds what the state used to do out of general tax revenue. Many think it's still properly the state's job, and that asking them to contribute charitable dollars for higher education is like asking them to contribute charitable dollars to support the police or fire department. My guess is it will take a long time before the top publics to get to the levels of alumni giving seen by the top privates who have been at this for a very, very long time now, with everyone's expectation being that alumni giving is necessary to keep the doors open.</p>
<p>The top publics are already there in total dollars raised each year. They just lose on the percentage rate donating due in part to your points. Out of the Top 20 fundraisers about half are publics all raising over $200,000,000 per year.</p>
<p>In Wisconsin, the UW System, which includes 13 four-year universities,
13 freshman-sophomore UW Colleges, and statewide UW-Extension, is fourth in line for state funds after k-12, health care, and prisons. That's unlikely to change. At UW-Madison we depend on the Feds, two very large foundations, tuition (which is the second lowest in the Big 10), and the state. It is likely that we will move to the UVA model, but only if the state will stop treating us just another state agency.</p>
<p>Well there is always the recent story --that might interest some posters in this thread-- about the fundraiser at the University of Minnesota who spearheaded an effort to induce alumni to give $1.00 each to the local law school and boost the USNews rankings. The U promoted its law school as a "top 20" destination and "consistently ranked in the top 20." But in March, it slipped to No. 22 among national law schools, out of the U.S. News top 20 for the first time in years. </p>
<p>Silly plan, poor execution, and no measurable results. :)</p>
<p>PS. Check the methodology for law schools rankings. Other law schools such as Boston University and the University of Southern California have had the same mistaken belief it could improve their U.S. News rankings via this exercise.</p>
<p>"but paying taxes is not the same as alumni giving"</p>
<p>Acknowledged and agreed. this doesn't change however the fact that someone who pays state taxes will feel much less of a need to give an extra donation. it weighs on my mind whenever I get the phone call.</p>
<p>The fine citizens and politicians of Wisconsin just love having control of all the state government no matter how small their financial contribution. They see it has a birthright to know and contol all public employees including publishing their individual salaries. They will not give that up so long as the UW gets $1 from the state. We'll just have to work around that. That was a big reason for establishing the new Institute for Discovery as half private. The private part can pay what is wants to keep UW scientists happy and the state can't say anything or even know. It's the start of a separate private UW within the larger one. Watch for the Business or Engineering School to do something similar. The Medical School already is nearly self-funded and independently run too as is the UW Hospital. One day the state will find they no longer control much of the UW operations.</p>
<p>Technically, you cannot calculate anything "wrong." Because calculate is a verb, it must be modified with a respective adverb. Thus, you should have written : US News Calculates Alumni Giving (capitalize the 'g') Rate WRONGLY (although Wrongly doesn't really need to be in all capitals)</p>
<p>^^ I totally agree with T-San. Shall we vote unanimously to agree to restart this entire thread under a new more grammatically correct banner? I say Aye! </p>
<p>i was wondering, if everyone subscribes to give $1 dollar annually (such as I give XYZ university permission to access my account to deducate $1 dollar annually every year till i die), how does that help in the USNews rankings?</p>
<p>Thats is so cheap. I bet every college can do that.</p>
<p>wrongly sounds wrong. I think incorrectly is much better. Nobody says-I did that wrongly. They say- I did that incorrectly. Actually where I am from they would say USNews f'ed up but that's another story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus, you should have written : US News Calculates Alumni Giving (capitalize the 'g') Rate WRONGLY (although Wrongly doesn't really need to be in all capitals)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, "wrong" can be an adverb:</p>
<p>wrong</a> - Definitions from Dictionary.com</p>
<p>Using "wrongly" here seems to be more like "unethically." So as barrons said, you'd use "incorrectly."</p>
<p>Just throwin' that out there. :)</p>