<p>USC, with an enrolled student body of 38,000 managed to raise only $492 million. Stanford, with 15,000 enrolled students managed to raise over twice that in the same time frame. Stanford alumni donated more than 4 times more per person than USC. </p>
<p>USC had a decade head start over stanford.</p>
<p>USC has an alumni base twice the size of stanford. So why can't usc raise as much money? are the alumni less sucessful or less willing to contribute? Why is this?</p>
<p>If USC can generate donations at the same pace as other top schools in CA, it can surely rise to be a top national school. Do you think USC needs to divert more resources at fundraising?</p>
<p>492$ million is a lot of money for sure. But I believe that USC has the potential to raise four times more.</p>
<p>They are accepting and giving financial and merit aid to more people that don’t give back. They take their rewards elsewhere or culturally they just don’t give back. Simple concept. UCLA experiencing same thing over next 10-20 years. There have been a lot of articles written about this including a couple in Wall Street Journal. Alumni giving is on downward trend in general. On top of that the ones that can give back feel they they have paid enough. That is the cost of high tuition. Even so, one article put USC at #4 spot and they are doing some great things with their money it seems.</p>
<p>SC had done very well in fundraising. Keep in mind the university was not founded by an individual of enormous wealth who endowed the institution. The land was donated by three men who had a great vision of the future. At the time Los Angeles was a small city, remote from the higher population areas in the eastern states. </p>
<p>As far as alumni giving SC does have loyal alumni who donate. I recall in 2009 SC was fourth in giving by ranked universities. I will try and find data past that year. </p>
<p>If you study the Chronicle of Higher Education’s fundraising lists you will find SC has been one of the top fundraising universities. Remember there are hundreds of four year colleges in the U.S. Here are some sample years:</p>
<p>The university has been a place for opportunity. Through the years it has enrolled a sizable percentage of first generation college students and Pell Grant recipients. Through financial aid programs and the Topping Scholars scholarships seniors with great financial need have had the opportunity to attend a major research university.</p>
<p>SC has large numbers of successful alumni. According to Forbes it is one of the “Billionaire Producing Colleges”. Here is a list of major alumni contributors to SC since 2000: (Not a complete list)</p>
<p>George Lucas----$175 M
Ming Hsieh----$85 M
Andrew Viterbi----$52 M
Gordon Marshall----$40 M
Wallis Annenberg----$50+ M
Dr. Herman Ostrow----$35 M
Ed Roski----$25+ M
Dornsife Family----$221 M
Louis Galen----$35 M
Michelle Engemann----$15 M
John Mork----$125 M
Sol Price family—$50 M
James Rogers----$10 M
Verna Dauterive----$25 M
Adrienne Westerbeck----$4 M
Kortschak Family----$10 M
Jeff Katzenberg----$25 M
Ron Tutor----$30 M
Mark Stevens----$22 M
Ken Norris ----$18 M
Sonny Astani----$17 M
Dr. N. Levan----$10 M
Dan Epstein----$11 M
Ken Klein----$8 M </p>
<p>SC alumni are successful financially. SC alumni do contribute to the university. What is not shown here are the countless hours alumni give of their time and talents. Alumni tutor, run fundraising events, belong to support groups, mentor, interview, lecture, provide internships, attend college nights, host SCendoff parties, assist at Discover SC receptions and provide scholarships.</p>
<p>USC has also only been a truly good school across the board for the last 10-15 years. The longstanding cliche in California (which I’ve seen to be painfully true) was that if you had brains and no money you went to a UC; if you had brains and money you went to Stanford; if you had money and no brains you went to USC; and if you had no money and no brains you went to a Cal State.</p>
<p>Thankfully USC’s gotten over that hump in the last 10-15 years but it’ll take another generation for that first cohort of alumni to reach a point where they can donate a large amount of money. In the meantime, much of the money that USC has raised in the Sample / Nikias era has come from people with no other affiliation with the university, along with more than a few frustrated donors who otherwise would’ve given to UCLA.</p>
<p>Combine the above with the fact that, as Georgia Girl noted, USC was not founded around a large personal fortune, and it’s impressive that the school has built itself into what it is today, as a lot of that was one continuous crawl upward. Now the school has achieved a critical mass of excellence and the sky is the limit, but even Stanford and Caltech still took several decades to achieve prominence.</p>