<p>Shrek, Michigan's endowment has exploded in the last 15 years, from $500 million in 1990 to $5 billion this May. With 38,000 students, that makes Michigan's endowment/student roughly $140,000. Brown's endowment is roughly $2.5 billion. With 7,500 students, that makes its endowment/student roughly $320,000/student. Cornell, Penn and Columbia all have endowments of $4 billion-$5 billion. With 20,000 each, that makes their endowment per student $200,000-$250,000. </p>
<p>As far as spending per student, Brown's operating budget is roughly $550 million ($74,000/student). Michigan's is roughly $2.3 billion ($60,000/student).</p>
<p>Yes Alexandre, Michigan's endowment and resources across the board are truly amazing. So much so that wouldn't you say that it's the exception rather than the rule? I think in many instances, the previous comment about comparing privates to publics is apples to oranges holds true, with UMich and UVA notable exceptions.</p>
<p>Californians are notorious for not giving, UCs endowement doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast like Michigans.</p>
<p>Cal is a great place for grad students but can't be compared to top privates for undergrads. Undergrads are an afterthought with few resources given to them.</p>
<p>Themegastud, yes, Michigan and UVA are the exceptions at this point in time. Michigan is growing the most rapidly and is not showing any sign of slow-down. Michigan's VC portfolio currently has over $1 billion to work with and Michigan alums are now giving money in large quantities. I would estimate that at the current rate, Michigan will be one of the 5 wealthiest universities in the country (it is currently the 8th wealthiest university). UVA is also doing great, but UVA was always relatively well off. </p>
<p>DevilMayCry, Duke's endowment is almost at $4 billion (3.8 billion I believe). With 13,000 or so students, that makes its endowment per student roughly $300,000.</p>
<p>Zagat, I have noticed that the UCs are strugling at the moment. If they do not reverse this trend, the UCs are doomed. Money is not everything, but it is necessary to survive in this day and age. Public universities can no longer rely on state funding to operate at a high level.</p>
<p>Indeed, didn't Michigan reach its current state through solicitation of private funds considering the percentage of its budget that comes from the state of MI is so small?</p>
<p>Michigan has many revenue sources. The state of MI only provides $350 (15%) million of its $2.3 billion budget. And that does not inlcude the Michigan hospitals, which cost an additional $2.3 billion to operate. But the hospitals general enough income to run themselves. </p>
<p>Michigan is currently getting some of its money from the federal government, some from private enterprises, some from its own endowment and some from tuition.</p>
<p>As you can see, state schools are growing very rapidly, especially UVA, OSU Michigan and UNC.</p>
<p>As a note, the University of Texas, University of California and Texas A&M list their endowments for the entire system, which includes at least 8 campuses and over 150,000 students in each system.</p>
<p>The problem with cross-admit numbers and statistics is that they only work if everyone has applied to and been accepted at both schools and this is rarely the case. Students who are only interested in Cal, UCLA, UCSD and UCD won't show up on that radar.</p>
<p>Cal students may be more self selecting in their applications and the ones who wouldn't choose Harvard over Cal might make their decision early by not applying to Harvard.</p>
<p>As for funding, California schools should get more taxpayer money and will eventually educate alumni to fork up the big bucks it just take the right sales team and a sellable issue.</p>
<p>while I totally agree with your point regarding education funding, but the UC's are focusing on lower income state kids (which is a great thing, IMO), but the downside is that uppper middle class bwrk's end up going to private schools with merit money or OOS publics (Michigan is becoming a match/safety in our 'hood); therefore, the UC endowment is limited in how fast it can grow.</p>
<p>btw: the supposedly most 'reputable' study on cross-admit numbers is so flawed statistically (obvious sample bias), that it might not even earn a 3 on the AP Stat exam. LOL</p>
<p>berkeley's peers are UCLA, , UCSF, and UC Hastings. Possibly Umich, UCSD and UVA, but to a lesser extent. </p>
<p>other than that, there are no other universities which combine the wanton disregard for undergraduates with the incredibly rich and powerful graduate and research programs. </p>
<p>For an undergraduate, the experience, from what i hear, is most like any large State school... except there are many other smart people in the same rickety boat as you. </p>
<p>and of course, among those graduate programs i mentioned, Cal is virtually peerless, it is so incredibly advanced.</p>
<p>TheCity, I am not sure why you would say that Cal, UCLA, UVA and Michigan had a wanton disregard for undergrads. Do Brown, Penn, Columbia, Cornell or other elite private research universities have more regard for their undergrads?</p>
<p>I heard that Harvard's endowment includes the value of the property land itself whereas Stanford's endowment doesn't. Is that true? That would inflate Harvar's number by a lot as land in Boston isn't cheap.</p>
<p>Stanford has 8000+ acres of land which can worth hell a lot of money (A 2500 sq feet house across from my friend's in San Francisco was sold for $1.8 million) even though Stanford isn't gonna sell it.</p>
<p>Sam, I really am not sure how universities measure and report their endowments. I do not think the value of the land is used...but I think the value of the buildings are.</p>