USC Consistent Top Fundraiser With Harvard and Stanford

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Southern California
1

<p>For the past 11 years, USC has been among the elite group of fundraisers. From 2001 to 2011, these are the schools that made the top ten list in terms of money raised (number of years in top ten list in that period):</p>

<p>Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, Penn: (11)
Columbia (10)
USC, Cornell (9)
Yale (8)</p>

<p>During that time, either Harvard or Stanford raised the most money except 2002, when USC was number one. No other school beat Harvard or Stanford during that time.</p>

<p>Yesterday I received a random phone call from a USC student asking for a $250 donation. I was having dinner at a restaurant and although I was interrupted, we ended up on the phone for a half an hour sharing our experiences. She's on financial aid and explained how tough it can be at times. I told her how it was hard for me too and encouraged her to hang in there, reassured her that all of those hardships will pass, and that years from now she will look back fondly and say to herself it was worth the experience. </p>

<p>I pledged more than what she asked for.</p>

<p>I encourage all USC fans to do the same: give to old SC! Our students need our support and depend on us.</p>

2

<p>As a pretty funny yet pretty annoying ■■■■■ in the UCLA forum, Seattle, I respect and commend you for being so deeply devoted to your alma mater to keep the donations strong and even exceed the student caller’s expectations. You set a very fine example (in the donation department, not trolling department) for others to follow. </p>

<p>Also, please cite your sources. It will make your post more professional.</p>

3

<p>gOld3n,</p>

<pre><code>How annoying could SeattleTW be on the UCLA forum? He/she has only had a grand total of 58 posts since joining CC.
</code></pre>

4

<p>I’m guessing TW pulled those stats from the Council for Aid to Education. The following links provide info for six of the years referenced by TW: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2008_Survey_Press_Release_with_Tables.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2008_Survey_Press_Release_with_Tables.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2010_Press_Release.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2010_Press_Release.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

5

<p>Voila: <a href=“http://provost.unc.edu/announcements/srlevelbrief2012/adv[/url]”>http://provost.unc.edu/announcements/srlevelbrief2012/adv&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

6

<p>USC’s fundraising is certainly impressive. But to say that it’s the ‘top fundraiser with Harvard and Stanford’ doesn’t make sense given the data. As the OP shows, JHU, Penn, and Columbia all had more top-10 showings than USC, which tied with Cornell. </p>

<p>It makes more sense to look at the average amount raised. Here’s the average for 2003-2011 (couldn’t find the data before that; Chronicle and CAE both kept it behind a pay wall):</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford: $677m</li>
<li>Harvard: $598m</li>
<li>JHU: $395m</li>
<li>Columbia: $391m</li>
<li>USC: $382m</li>
<li>Yale: $378</li>
<li>Cornell: $372</li>
<li>Penn: $359m</li>
<li>UCLA: $349m*</li>
</ol>

<p>Scaled:

  1. Stanford 1.0
  2. Harvard 0.88
  3. JHU 0.58
  4. Columbia 0.58
  5. USC 0.56
  6. Yale 0.56
  7. Cornell 0.55
  8. Penn 0.53
  9. UCLA 0.52</p>

<p>*couldn’t find data for the final year of Campaign UCLA, so it’s an average of 8 years (its average would probably be higher with this data point, since the last year of campaigns tends to raise higher amounts)</p>

<p>All of these are very impressive fundraisers, but none are nearly at the level of Harvard and Stanford, who raise on average $200-300 million more than their nearest competitors. USC is more comparable in fundraising to Yale or Cornell, even UCLA, than it is to H and S.</p>

<p>Part of this is a function of alumni base size; UCLA’s showing isn’t as impressive as USC’s in that light, but Yale’s and JHU’s are even more impressive, given their far fewer alumni. USC is an odd case, because the alumni site says “over 300,000” while another source says 240,000 based on “current mailing addresses.” MIT has a similar discrepancy, listing 125k alumni but only 115k with known addresses. The analysis below is somewhat flawed since it’s based on alumni in 2011 against donations over the past 9 years (if anyone wants to track down historical alumni base sizes and do a better analysis, feel free).</p>

<p>Average on a per-capita basis (all the schools above + MIT):</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford: $3563</li>
<li>MIT: $2396</li>
<li>JHU: $2324</li>
<li>Yale: $2259</li>
<li>Harvard: $1851</li>
<li>Cornell: $1431</li>
<li>USC: $1273 ($1592 with 240k alumni)</li>
<li>Columbia: $1261</li>
<li>Penn: $1249</li>
<li>UCLA: $887</li>
</ol>

<p>Scaled:

  1. Stanford 1.0
  2. MIT 0.67
  3. JHU 0.65
  4. Yale 0.63
  5. Harvard 0.52
  6. Cornell 0.40
  7. USC 0.36 (0.45 with 240k alumni)
  8. Columbia 0.35
  9. Penn 0.35
  10. UCLA 0.25</p>

<p>Another way to do this analysis is to reference the giving rates. If you include more of those that didn’t make the top 10 in the past 9 years, there would probably be more universities that rank in the top 10 on a per-capita basis. I included MIT because I could find the data for it. I couldn’t find the data for Princeton, but given that it has only 80,000 alumni and is usually in the top 25, it would probably do well on a per-capita basis. Duke is another one. But based on this simplistic analysis, USC is solidly top 7, which is impressive.</p>

<p>I found these fundraising lists from Google but I suspect some of the earlier years from CAE are available with some more digging:
<a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE-PressRelease2004.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE-PressRelease2004.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
[Top</a> Fundraising Colleges and Universities,in Total Amount Raised, 2004 — Infoplease.com](<a href=“Columbia Encyclopedia”>Top Fundraising Colleges and Universities,in Total Amount Raised, 2004)
<a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE2005SurveyPRwithTables.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE2005SurveyPRwithTables.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
[Stanford</a> Tops Harvard, Yale With $911 Million in Private Gifts - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)
talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/463839-top-fundraisers-2006-07-a.html
<a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2008_Survey_Press_Release_with_Tables.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2008_Survey_Press_Release_with_Tables.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/Top_Twenty_and_By_State_2009.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/Top_Twenty_and_By_State_2009.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1081870-top-fundraisers-2010-a.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1081870-top-fundraisers-2010-a.html&lt;/a&gt;
[Top</a> 20 fundraising universities - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57382280/top-20-fundraising-universities/]Top”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57382280/top-20-fundraising-universities/)</p>

7

<p>By the way, USC being among the ‘elite group of fundraisers’ isn’t anything new. I ran across an article from the 1980s wherein USC had just commenced a record-setting campaign of $550 million, a year after which Stanford announced a campaign 2x that. In 2001, USC set another record with $2.8 billion, beating Harvard’s previous record of $2.6b in 1999. It was short-lived, since UCLA then beat that record with $3.1b. Despite USC’s continual fundraising prowess, the gap between it and Stanford/Harvard has widened; in 1996, Stanford’s endowment was 3x the size of USC’s and Harvard’s was 10x. Today, Stanford’s is 6x as large, while Harvard’s is still 10x. More recently, three months after USC announced a record $6b (7-year) campaign, Stanford shattered all the records as it completed its $4.3b (5-year) campaign with $6.2b. Despite Stanford continually stealing USC’s thunder, USC has quite a lot of thunder. ;)</p>

8

<p>I believe we have about 250k alumni, not 300…I also believe USC has made the top ten list since the 1970s and will report back with the stats…</p>

9

<p>Well the alumni site says:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even if it’s 250k, Princeton and Duke would have more on a per-capita basis. Princeton has 1/3 the alumni, so it would need 1/3 the average in donations, or $127 million, to have a higher per-capita than USC, and the UNC chart shows that Princeton was in the ‘155m-300m’ group most of the years since 2003. Duke has 60% of USC’s alumni total, and would need at least $230m average; Duke was in the ‘>300m’ group in 7 of the past 9 years. So in per-capita terms of the averages, USC is at best in the top 8, at worst outside the top 10.</p>

10

<p>This is more accurate because USC tracks all of us!:</p>

<p><a href=“Http://about.USC.edu/facts/alumni-facts/[/url]”>Http://about.USC.edu/facts/alumni-facts/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

11

<p>That’s the conflicting source I hinted at above. :wink: MIT has a similar [discrepancy](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/facts/alum-association.html]discrepancy[/url]:”>MIT Alumni Association – MIT Facts):</a> 125k living alumni, only 115k of whom MIT has a mailing address for. That’s why I used 125k for MIT and 300k for USC; these numbers seem to be more inclusive of the entire alumni base. I assume this is why the alumni facts specifically says “240,143 (based on current mailing addresses),” to indicate that it’s a subset of the entire alumni base - clearly, it doesn’t track all of you if it doesn’t have addresses for 1/5 of its alumni.</p>

12

<p>I’d go with the official numbers, not an unofficial alumni website, especially since USC recently updated its alumni book (which they do every decade) and data base. USC is very aggressive with fundraising and it would make little sense that over 60,000 alumni would fail to maintain ties with the university, knowing how loyal they are generally. It’s also unreasonable to assume the alumni association records are more accurate or that bona fide alumni would join the association but not update their address with USC when the university makes constant outreach efforts. Btw, here are the official living alumni stats for the following schools:</p>

<p>Stanford, 191,000
Cal, 458,000
UCLA, 375,000 (as of 2009)</p>

<p>PS: anyone can join the USC Alumni Association, including fans and those who attended but did not graduate. You’d be surprised with how many fans attend USC club events during football season!</p>

13

<p>How useful are per capita comparisons based on number of alums?</p>

<p>A larger alumni base doesn’t equal a larger donor pool. See USNews data on alumni giving rates. Such comparisons also ignore institutional and non-alum donors.</p>

<p>And from a donor’s perspective, a dollar is a dollar. If a company donates the same amount to two different schools, would one donation be more/less impressive than the other if the schools didn’t have comparable alumni bases?</p>

14

<p>What is most significant is the decline in Stanford’s recent year over year giving vs. the significant rise for USC.</p>

15

<p>Bottom line: USC is the only college in America that has the demonstrated resources, will and tenacity to compete with Harvard and Stanford in raising the most money annually. We did it in the 1990s, 2002, this past year (not yet reported) and will do it again. We are winners. Fight on!</p>

<p>Incidentally, it is no coincidence that USC’s rise in the rankings correlates directly to its historical fundraising efforts.</p>

16

<p>Really? That is sure to give the trolls from Stanford eye strain and finger cramps trying to find and support some data to spin Stanford’s superiority</p>

17

<p>jjalfonso1, as in every case in statistical data, neither the raw numbers nor the per-capita numbers tell the whole story. Both are necessary to get a full picture. For example, Princeton doesn’t raise the most in raw numbers; but it does have a very high per-capita giving, hence why it has the highest giving rate among top universities (over 60%), suggesting a fiercely loyal alumni base. But, even though USC doesn’t do as well on the per-capita measure, it does much better than Princeton on raw numbers. Both are useful measures. (I have a feeling that if USC ranked even higher in per-capita donations than it does already, you wouldn’t be contesting this figure. ;))</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The only declines in Stanford’s giving were from 2008-2010, during the recession. Throughout this time, all universities raised less (20+%) than before. USC dropped from $409m to $369m. In the most recent year-to-year change (2010-2011), USC raised $426m, then dropped to $402m in 2011, a decline of 6%. Meanwhile, Stanford increased from $599m to $709m, an 18% increase. And throughout the past 5 years (the duration of Stanford’s latest campaign), USC has raised $469m down to $402m, a decline of 14%. So how has USC had a “significant rise”?</p>

<p>FWIW, during this recession (2008-2011), USC raised an average of $402m, and Stanford raised an average of $683m (1.7x). Stanford finished its $4.3b campaign 2 years ahead of schedule, during the worst of the recession, and finished its 5-year campaign with $6.23b. This is larger than USC’s $6b campaign, planned after the recession and spread over 7 years.</p>

<p>docfreedaddy, it’d be great for everyone in the USC forum if you could support your position with facts and numbers. So please, explain to me and others what you mean by “significant rise.”</p>

<p>SeattleTW,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m curious how you drew this conclusion. As far as the numbers show, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia, and Yale also have the “will and tenacity” to compete with H and S (in fact, more so than USC), and even then, not one of them has been able to compete with H/S. Indeed, both JHU and Columbia have raised more on average, indicating a greater “will and tenacity” to compete with H/S, and on a per-capita basis, Yale joins the fray. Please explain what you mean by USC being the ‘only college in America’ that has this characteristic.</p>

18

<p>2005-2010 Stanford declined .8%,
2005-2010 USC rose 28.4%</p>

<p>Including a first year of a campaign for Stanford will provide spurious data as it will for the first year of USC’s campaign. Stanford’s interdependence with Silicon Valley, disproportionate tech industry majors and emphasis on entrepreneurship served it well for fund raising during the tech boom years. However, the disproportionate declines in giving at Stanford during the recession, relative to USC, for example may become the “new normal” as macroeconomic trends continue to exert downward pressure on the stock market. Stanford appears understandably most dependent on successful start-ups by faculty/students and alumni for giving.</p>

19

<p>Of course, you can put the start of the analysis during the quiet phase of Stanford’s campaign, so that it appears Stanford declines while USC rises. :wink: (If you want to look at the first years of the campaigns: Stanford’s first year had a 50% increase in donations, while USC had a 6% decrease.) I was including the most recent years since you indicated a ‘decline,’ and the decline of Stanford’s fundraising coincided with the recession (as most universities’ did). Either way, what I said in my last post stands, and you haven’t refuted it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please provide a source supporting that Stanford’s fundraising has been dependent on the tech boom (I have another source that shows it comes from innumerable donors). Further, explain how Stanford has ‘disproportionate tech industry majors’ (as explained to you before, more than half of the majors are in humanities, arts, and social sciences).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As far as I can see, this is your own view. Please provide a definitive source that shows Stanford is “most dependent” on startups for giving. I’m well-versed in Stanford’s stats, and haven’t seen any such info. I’d very much like to see the data if you have it.</p>

<p>I have a related figure: in 2011-2012, only $67 million of Stanford’s $4.1 billion budget (1.6%) came from technologies that spun-out from Stanford.</p>

20

<p>SeattleTW, sorry I hadn’t seen your post #12. The 300k+ alumni figure isn’t from an unofficial alumni site, but the [url=&lt;a href=“http://alumni.usc.edu/about/]official[/url”&gt;http://alumni.usc.edu/about/]official[/url</a>] one. It’s also perfectly reasonable to expect the university not to have mailing addresses for all its living alumni, despite its aggressive outreach. I’m sure that both Harvard and Columbia, which have more than 300k alumni each, don’t have mailing addresses for a significant portion of their alumni; this is normal. Many universities don’t list a separate figure for the # alumni for whom they have addresses, instead simply listing the total alumni base.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is all relatively inconsequential; the per-capita data was just an addendum to the other data and shouldn’t be taken as a final word on USC’s fundraising prowess, which (as I’ve said before) is very impressive. :)</p>