<p>I'm in complete agreement, crimsonbulldog. </p>
<p>Man, Stanford really needs to raise their alumni giving rate...</p>
<p>zephyr, any idea why it's so low?</p>
<p>Perhaps a case of "oh, they have so much already, let's give our money to charity instead"...</p>
<p>that's really no excuse, though, since alumni of all of stanford's peer schools could say the same thing, but still contribute in greater numbers. and on an endowment per capita basis, stanford is far less well-off than PHY, so its alumni should have all the more reason to contribute.</p>
<p>
[quote]
on an endowment per capita basis, stanford is far less well-off than PHY, so its alumni should have all the more reason to contribute.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps they see it as less of a race, being so far removed from the fray? All it needs to do is stay number one on the west coast to keep its position within the same breath as HYP, so why bother trying to equal or exceed them?</p>
<p>I don't really think Stanford is far less off in terms of endowment per capita. Stanford just passed Princeton's endowment and is fundraising at four times the rate. It will pass Yale in a few years. When Stanford pulls in $600 million a year to Princeton's $140 million, and earns higher returns on its money thanks to the Silicon Valley business community it more or less started, that's a huge difference year-on-year.</p>
<p>As for Stanford and the alumni giving rate, well first of all it doesn't matter in any objective sense. The top five schools in fundraising are Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Cornell and USC; Yale, Princeton and other schools with high percentages are nowhere to be found. Stanford has a huge lead over HYP in fundraising per capita to the tune of over $5,000.</p>
<p>Stanford is doing just fine financially. Moreover, 39% isn't that far from Harvard's 44%. And chances are there aren't big donors writing small checks for many members in their class, as is the practice at certain institutions in states governed by a former GS exec.</p>
<p>As for why it is lower, that is because Stanford hasn't had to rely on the alumni network as much for support, because as the dominant power on the West Coast, it has less competition for funds. Therefore, it isn't as developed as Princeton's or Yale's or whatever.</p>
<br>
<p>it has a slightly higher endowment than princeton, maybe 10% greater if memory serves, but three times the number of students. do the math.</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<p>And chances are there aren't big donors writing small checks for many members in their class, as is the practice at certain institutions in states governed by a former GS exec.</p>
<br>
<p>care to substantiate this libel?</p>