Will Michigan ever be able to catch MIT?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Michigan
1

<p>Earlier this year, University of Michigan announced a 4 billion dollar capital campaign - the largest done by any public university in the history of higher education. HARVARD(with a 30 billion endowment) recently announced a 6.5 billion dollar capital campaign - the largest in the history of higher education. That's not too big of a difference. I'm fully confident in President Coleman and Vice-President Mays's efforts to bring long-term growth to UM....but will they be able to catch MIT? Michigan passed Columbia. They've gone up several notches...</p>

<p>In 2005 Michigan had the 10th largest endowment. In 2012 it had the 7th largest endowment. </p>

<p>Michigan has steadily bolstered its endowment which it uses to support research, construction, athletics(don't be fooled - big 10 football brings in millions - and millions more every year) scholarship, facilities, professorships and operating budget(presently, Michigan uses, I think 5% of their endowment annually)</p>

<p>Preliminary figures for fundraising efforts show Michigan's endowment has grown to 8.4 billion. Sadly, MIT also had a good year. Passing MIT would probably be the last endowment milestone Michigan will hit. The next largest endowment belongs to Princeton. I don't see any university closing a $6 bln gap.</p>

<p>What do you think? Does the Wolverine nation have what it takes? </p>

<p>University</a> of Michigan's endowment reaches $8.4B ? school's highest ever | MLive.com</p>

<p>List of largest endowments:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Actual source:
NACUBO:</a> Public NCSE Tables</p>

2

<p>“Sadly, MIT also had a good year” </p>

<p>What?!</p>

<p>I’m all for Michigan’s recent focus on growing the endowment, but it’s never been about milestones or racing other universities to the top (and nor it should). Michigan’s endowment is used solely to maintain the fiscal health of the university in the long run. Decisions about its continued growth or distribution should only involve asking what is the best for the university, not what would put us at a higher figure than a different institution.</p>

3

<p>True, my post may have come across a little one-sided. Obviously, MIT’s growing endowment is helping throngs of researchers, students and the community at large.</p>

<p>However, speaking from a perspective of global competition, money matters. This is one of the reasons why universities are pushing for private giving. Budget cuts have thwarted the goals of research universities, public research universities that is. </p>

<p>So in that sense, yes, I suppose it is about racing to the top.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>saw this the other day</p>

<p>[Though</a> unpaid, top players worth millions to University - The Michigan Daily](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/how-valuable-devin-gardner]Though”>Though unpaid, top players worth millions to University)</p>

<p>apparently, Gardner is worth 5.5 million.</p>

<p>Thought it was amusing how they described him as “NFL-caliber like” player and that he was included in the same sentence with Manziel.</p>

5

<p>^I think it makes sense… didn’t you hear brady hoke said that if Manziel played for Michigan he would be on the bench behind Gardner?</p>

6

<p>I do not think that endowments should be a competition like a football game, but if you are going to think about it that way, it seems to me that the metric should be endowment fund dollars per student. </p>

<p>On an endowment fund dollars per student basis, MIT has about 3X the endowment of Michigan, so it is doubtful that Michigan will catch up in the near future.</p>

7

<p>I think they will at least close the gap. </p>

<p>Michigan has embarked on a 4 billion dollar capital campaign. Michigan has the second highest research expenditure in the nation, just behind Johns Hopkins. The school has billions in annual impact through its students, university, athletics, research, health center and faculty. They surely have meaningful partnerships with top tier businesses, philanthropists, alumni, fans, friends and advocates over a wide area. They have a top business school and a top law school which usually bring in the most alumni contributions. </p>

<p>I still find it amazing that a mere state school managed to acquire such a large endowment. UT-Austin as well, although Texas is a whole different animal altogether. </p>

<p>I think if they really imbed the “culture of giving back” among students, they’ll insure longevity. Georgia Tech, ivies and top ranked private LACs pull this off fantastically. Everyone wants to better their alma mater for the next generation. It’s pretty inspiring. </p>

<p>They even have a paid internship for undergraduate students. Michigan is an odd ball alright. They need to develop the right culture with the right students, faculty and administrators. </p>

<p><a href=“https://leadersandbest.umich.edu/page.aspx?pid=433[/url]”>The Development Summer Internship Program (D-SIP) - University of Michigan;

<p>EDIT:</p>

<p>Here is more information on Michigan’s 4 billion dollar campaign:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/11/university_of_michigan_aims_to_1.html[/url]”>University of Michigan aims to raise $4 billion in capital campaign - mlive.com;

8

<p>"I do not think that endowments should be a competition like a football game, but if you are going to think about it that way, it seems to me that the metric should be endowment fund dollars per student. </p>

<p>On an endowment fund dollars per student basis, MIT has about 3X the endowment of Michigan, so it is doubtful that Michigan will catch up in the near future."</p>

<p>Sorry, flaw in the argument - have you ever heard of “economies of scale”. Michigan doesn’t have to increase all the administration, infrastructure, etc proportionately with the size of the student body.</p>

9

<p>

MIT has no capital, labor, and wage costs related to the funding of a medical school, a law school, a pharmacy school, a dentistry school, a kinesiology school, a physical therapy school, a music program, etc. etc. compared to Michigan.</p>

<p>MIT is much, much wealthier university than Michigan on a per student basis even taking economies of scale into account. That being said, UMich is definitely the richest public school in the country after UVA.</p>

10

<p>With so much money you would think they would give in and bring the CCRB out of the 1960’s.</p>

11

<p>I agree that it shouldn’t be a competition. But I also want to note the hyperbole in the statement that Michigan’s campaign ‘the largest done by any public university in the history of higher education.’ [UCLA’s</a> campaign raised a little over 3 billion dollars in 2006.](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/UCLA-Raises-More-Than-3-Billion-6819.aspx"]UCLA’s”>Newsroom | UCLA) At the time, I believe that was the highest campaign raised of any university, public or private, in the U.S. Adjusted for inflation, the amount UCLA raised when its campaign completed is nearly 3.5 billion dollars. Considering that UCLA raises around 500m annually, when it’s not doing a campaign, I don’t think the figure is nearly as impressive as it sounds.</p>

<p>I’m not trying to take Michigan down a peg, I sincerely hope that they reach their goal. But when I read statements like that, it does make me roll my eyes.</p>

12

<p>When UCLA gets to over an 8 billion dollar endowment, you can stop rolling your eyes beyphy. Meanwhile, Michigan will have over a 12 billion dollar endowment in a few years, assuming the economy doesn’t tank again. Furthermore, the last time I looked, four billion is more than 3 billion. Finally, UCLA currently has a reported endowment of 2.8 billion as of June 2013. UCLA appears like they haven’t been very good stewards of endowment funds.</p>

<p>Btw, you constantly are “trying to take Michigan down a peg” whenever comparisons are made with UCLA.</p>

13

<p>

The goal is 4 billion. It’s likely that Michigan will raise more than that by the time the campaign runs its course.</p>

<p>"After almost five years of fundraising, the final tally from the Michigan Difference campaign was announced yesterday. Coming in at over $3.2 billion, the effort was the largest fundraiser in the history of the University and set a new record among all public universities in the United States… </p>

<p>The Michigan Difference, which was made public in 2004 and officially ended on Dec. 31 of last year [2008], surpassed the initiative’s original $2.5 billion goal by 28 percent."</p>

14

<p>I love michigan, but in terms of Endowment per student, I have a hard time thinking they will surpass MIT</p>

15

<p>“Adjusted for inflation, the amount UCLA raised when its campaign completed is nearly 3.5 billion dollars.” My understanding is that the UCLA campaign was over 10 years, and the Michigan campaign (the last one) was over 8 years. So, despite inflation adjustments, I’d have to give the nod to UM for largest total in shortest time period.</p>

16

<p>“I love michigan, but in terms of Endowment per student, I have a hard time thinking they will surpass MIT” There are three main differences which will be the determinative factor: 1) money management: here MIT has a slight edge over time, but they also evince quite a bit of volatility; 2) alumni donations: here MIT has richer alums on average, but UM has more alums and, I recall, receives more donations, on average, per annum; 3) cost of physical plant: edge to MIT with a much smaller plant.</p>

<p>Overall, MIT is likely to keep the lead for another 15 years or so…my guess is that #2 will eventually close the gap between UM and MIT…money management can’t be predicted over time but is likely to be roughly a wash…physical plant on the UM side is daunting, but alums love to contribute to buildings and have consistently done so. The likely edge despite the higher MIT average is UM’s larger base. </p>

<p>That and the fact that MIT has nowhere higher to go in terms of talent alumni talent acquisition, but UM is increasing both undergraduate and graduate talent almost yearly (based on raw scores) and is ranked (Princeton Review?) as #1 for entrepreneurship. </p>

<p>In sum, I think the size and improving quality of UM alumni base gradually grinds the edge away. Princeton and UM have roughly the same number and dollar figures in their ultra-high net worth cohort, but schools like Princeton are too far out in front and will win the compounding game if they don’t f’up catastrophically over a few years.</p>

17

<p>

The last Michigan campaign (Michigan Difference) was over “almost five years” raising $3.2 millions. See direct quote in post #13.
[$3.2</a> billion Michigan Difference total announced - The Michigan Daily](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/content/na/32-billion-michigan-difference-total-announced]$3.2”>$3.2 billion Michigan Difference total announced)</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>UCLA was the first university to do something on a scale that large. After that, plenty of people set off much more ambitious campaigns, probably due to reasoning like ‘well if UCLA can raise 3 billion dollars, perhaps we can raise 3.5 billion, etc.’</p>

<p>USC’s current fundraising campaign is 6 billion dollars, and universities like Stanford raise nearly a billion dollars annually without a fundraising campaign. So again, when I read statements like the one I quoted above, I tend to roll my eyes.</p>

<p>That being said, I do admire Michigan’s goal of meeting all determined need for all of its admitted students (including int’ls) and hope this fund helps them in achieving their goal.</p>

19

<p>“USC’s current fundraising campaign is 6 billion dollars”</p>

<p>They are a private school. Who cares? </p>

<p>“UCLA was the first university to do something on a scale that large.”</p>

<p>Then how come the current endowment at UCLA is only at 2.9 billion?</p>

<p>It’s ridiculous to pooh pooh a PUBLIC university with raising that much capital, and doing it TWICE in ten years! Stop rolling your eyes beyphy. It could become permanent!</p>

20

<p>“UCLA was the first university to do something on a scale that large.”</p>

<p>I don’t see how that’s relevant to Michigan’s largest capital campaign for a public university in the history of higher education. Several universities have undertaken 3 billion dollar capital campaign goals. Michigan bested that number. Really, if you want to bit the two’s fundraising efforts, Michigan is effectively besting UCLA’s record. That being said, they’re both world class on opposite coasts. I don’t see the need for the battling. Go roam the USC board, you’ll find more UCLA vs USC comparisons there. </p>

<p>In regards to public university fundraising, keep in mind that Michigan(along with University of Texas-Austin, Texas A&M and UVA…have a public-private system for endowment management and fiscal management.)</p>

<p>Now back on topic, while the prior campaign was a construction campaign to enhance a world class physical plant, this second campaign will be mostly for scholarships. This is unique in the fact that Michigan has one of the largest enrollments in America. MIT has a much smaller enrollment. Spending per student is, of course, going to be much higher at the STEM oriented, historic, private elite - MIT. However, spending per student isn’t the only metric we should use. More doesn’t always equate to better. I think if this campaign can really bolster the scholarship numbers at Michigan, the bolstered endowment will be able to propel the university to a higher per student expenditure. </p>

<p>That being said, Michigan still has the highest spending per student in the Big 10(Although not all on the level of UCLA and Michigan, the B1G is comprised of top tier, globally ranked AAU research universities with fairly large endowments)</p>

<p>Remember, just because Michigan, UVA, Berk and UCLA sit in their own class…they’re still public schools. It’ll never be 100% valid to compare them to privates - financially. Especially when public Us are losing funding from the state left and right.</p>

<p><a href=“Big Ten Conference - Wikipedia”>Big Ten Conference - Wikipedia;

<p>As for Michigan’s non-endowed financial grit - the profit payout of being in the BIG 10 conference is considerable. Yes, a lot of this money goes back to further fund the athletics(tuition does not support this), but all big 10 universities have a good deal of athletic-academic synergy usually in the form of athletic professorships. Here in Georgia, UGA has many athletic professorships and endowed gifts to retain top flight faculty members. Herschel Walker is a notable giver to UGA. Athletics pay off in the long run, especially for a storied program like Michigan’s.</p>

<p>In before an uninformed parent or sports-loathing student says he doesn’t want his dollars to go towards football. Well, your money doesn’t go towards football. Please read this:</p>

<p>[url=&lt;a href=“http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html]understandingtuition[/url”&gt;http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understandingtuition.html]understandingtuition[/url</a>]</p>

<p>My bottom line is, let’s see what NACUBO’s 2013 release says. Then we’ll revisit. After doing a bit of digging on my own, my money is on Michigan closing the gap in the next few years. Literally! :P</p>

<p>Give to Michigan! Invest in the world’s future leaders!</p>