http://chronicle.com/article/Sortable-Ta...nd/151417/

Wow, talk about big one-year changes across the board...

There are a lot of schools listed ahead of Rice on this chart that did not used to be ahead of Rice 20 years ago. Many of these same schools also used to be ranked behind Rice in USNWR, but now are ranked ahead of Rice.

I assume there is some relationship there.

(01-29-2015 04:41 PM)Barrett Wrote:  There are a lot of schools listed ahead of Rice on this chart that did not used to be ahead of Rice 20 years ago. Many of these same schools also used to be ranked behind Rice in USNWR, but now are ranked ahead of Rice.

I assume there is some relationship there.

You can see the historical reports here: http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Co...ments.html

In 1994, we were ranked 13 (vs. #20 today). We've been passed by the following: Cornell, Virginia, Duke, Chicago, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Northwestern.

(01-29-2015 10:55 PM)chrisc Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 04:41 PM)Barrett Wrote:  There are a lot of schools listed ahead of Rice on this chart that did not used to be ahead of Rice 20 years ago. Many of these same schools also used to be ranked behind Rice in USNWR, but now are ranked ahead of Rice.

I assume there is some relationship there.

You can see the historical reports here: http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Co...ments.html

In 1994, we were ranked 13 (vs. #20 today). We've been passed by the following: Cornell, Virginia, Duke, Chicago, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Northwestern.

That historical data goes back to 1990, when we were 11th, where we were also ranked in 1991 & 1992. In 1993, we were 12th and dropped down another place the next year (13th in 1994.).

From 1990 to the 2014 data just released, our endowment has grown 4.8x ($1.01 billion to $4.8 billion).

Meanwhile, the top schools' endowments have grown even faster: #1 Harvard: 7.7x ($4.65B - $35.88B); #2 UT System: 6.8x ($3.73B - $25.43B) and Stanford (which rose from 5th to 4th over that time): 10.5x ($2.05B - $21.45B).

These times are crazy, but am I out of line to suggest that Rice should allocate $50 million to the athletics endowment?

(01-30-2015 01:20 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  These times are crazy, but am I out of line to suggest that Rice should allocate $50 million to the athletics endowment?

It doesn't really work that way. You're only supposed to use about 4%-5% of your endowment as a time and one of the hidden strengths of Rice's endowment is that a much higher than average percentage of it is unallocated to any specific goal. No President would change that. If we want some endowment money to go specifically for the purpose. Candidly, it's on the athletic department to raise it, however it would be helpful if the next President put a fundraising goal for athletics into the next Capital Plan, as neither Gillis or Leebron included it in theirs.

Anyone with more free time and patience than me feel like comparing university endowment sizes to student enrollment numbers in order to see which university has more endowment dollars per student?

(01-30-2015 03:21 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  Anyone with more free time and patience than me feel like comparing university endowment sizes to student enrollment numbers in order to see which university has more endowment dollars per student?

See post #16 in the thread Rice Ranked #5 in the USA.

(01-30-2015 04:34 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 03:21 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  Anyone with more free time and patience than me feel like comparing university endowment sizes to student enrollment numbers in order to see which university has more endowment dollars per student?

See post #16 in the thread Rice Ranked #5 in the USA.

Here's a direct link to that post.

If my memory is correct and if the numbers are still accurate, one of the challenges we have in keeping up with the endowment Joneses and the Harvards is that we spend more as a percentage of our endowment each year to defray operating expenses than most (if not all) other schools. So unless we're just way more savvy at investing than other schools, which is not easy or likely, the only way to keep pace, let alone outpace... is to raise more money. Or... raise tuition or grants since those are the only other "revenue" sources. To that end, nominal tuition has risen, but generally only for wealthier students and international students (now 10%) who pay full scale. For everyone else, the nominal price increase is tantamount to sticker price. It's a starting point to be discounted against - as always, all domestic students get 100% of need-based aid.

The amount Rice spents per student from endowment income has always been impressive and I would guess it would rank high on a comparative basis.

Thanks for the heads up and the info.

(01-31-2015 11:15 AM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  If my memory is correct and if the numbers are still accurate, one of the challenges we have in keeping up with the endowment Joneses and the Harvards is that we spend more as a percentage of our endowment each year to defray operating expenses than most (if not all) other schools. So unless we're just way more savvy at investing than other schools, which is not easy or likely, the only way to keep pace, let alone outpace... is to raise more money. Or... raise tuition or grants since those are the only other "revenue" sources. To that end, nominal tuition has risen, but generally only for wealthier students and international students (now 10%) who pay full scale. For everyone else, the nominal price increase is tantamount to sticker price. It's a starting point to be discounted against - as always, all domestic students get 100% of need-based aid.

We spend 4% to 5% of endowment per year just like everyone else with similar endowments.

(01-31-2015 08:41 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:15 AM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  If my memory is correct and if the numbers are still accurate, one of the challenges we have in keeping up with the endowment Joneses and the Harvards is that we spend more as a percentage of our endowment each year to defray operating expenses than most (if not all) other schools. So unless we're just way more savvy at investing than other schools, which is not easy or likely, the only way to keep pace, let alone outpace... is to raise more money. Or... raise tuition or grants since those are the only other "revenue" sources. To that end, nominal tuition has risen, but generally only for wealthier students and international students (now 10%) who pay full scale. For everyone else, the nominal price increase is tantamount to sticker price. It's a starting point to be discounted against - as always, all domestic students get 100% of need-based aid.

We spend 4% to 5% of endowment per year just like everyone else with similar endowments.

Correct. In general, our endownment spending, or "payout," is comparable to others ... but it ends up covering a larger fraction of the university's operating expenses than that of our peers.

For example, in FY 2014:

Harvard's 5.6% endowment payout amounted to 35% of its $4.4 billion operating expenses (pp 5-6 of Harvard's financial report).

Stanford's 5.3% payout was 23% of its $4.3 billion operating expenses (pp 3-5 of Stanford's financial report).

MIT's FY2013 5.6% payout ($604.7 million of $10.86 billion endowment) was 21% of its 2.9 billion operating expenses.

In another thread, I posted that Rice's 5.45% endowment payout accounted for 45% or Rice's $592 million operating budget.

But looking at another small -- but high-endowment -- school without a medical school, Pomona College's FY 2013 $4.5% endowment payout of $68.6 million amounted to 48% of its $143 million operating expenses.

(I'm sure there's a better comparison ... Pomona doesn't have Rice's size or research level. Suggest a better one, and I'll look it up when I have the time.)

(01-31-2015 11:23 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 08:41 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:15 AM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  If my memory is correct and if the numbers are still accurate, one of the challenges we have in keeping up with the endowment Joneses and the Harvards is that we spend more as a percentage of our endowment each year to defray operating expenses than most (if not all) other schools. So unless we're just way more savvy at investing than other schools, which is not easy or likely, the only way to keep pace, let alone outpace... is to raise more money. Or... raise tuition or grants since those are the only other "revenue" sources. To that end, nominal tuition has risen, but generally only for wealthier students and international students (now 10%) who pay full scale. For everyone else, the nominal price increase is tantamount to sticker price. It's a starting point to be discounted against - as always, all domestic students get 100% of need-based aid.

We spend 4% to 5% of endowment per year just like everyone else with similar endowments.

Correct. In general, our endownment spending, or "payout," is comparable to others ... but it ends up covering a larger fraction of the university's operating expenses than that of our peers.

For example, in FY 2014:

Harvard's 5.6% endowment payout amounted to 35% of its $4.4 billion operating expenses (pp 5-6 of Harvard's financial report).

Stanford's 5.3% payout was 23% of its $4.3 billion operating expenses (pp 3-5 of Stanford's financial report).

MIT's FY2013 5.6% payout ($604.7 million of $10.86 billion endowment) was 21% of its 2.9 billion operating expenses.

In another thread, I posted that Rice's 5.45% endowment payout accounted for 45% or Rice's $592 million operating budget.

But looking at another small -- but high-endowment -- school without a medical school, Pomona College's FY 2013 $4.5% endowment payout of $68.6 million amounted to 48% of its $143 million operating expenses.

(I'm sure there's a better comparison ... Pomona doesn't have Rice's size or research level. Suggest a better one, and I'll look it up when I have the time.)

Elite schools without a med school include Princeton, CalTech, Notre Dame, and MIT.

(02-01-2015 09:39 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Elite schools without a med school include Princeton, CalTech, Notre Dame, and MIT.

The real impact of med schools on the various rating systems is the dollars they bring in for research. Those four aren't hurting for research dollars due to other factors. Rice's small size actually works against us in this area.

(01-30-2015 09:59 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:34 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 03:21 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  Anyone with more free time and patience than me feel like comparing university endowment sizes to student enrollment numbers in order to see which university has more endowment dollars per student?

See post #16 in the thread Rice Ranked #5 in the USA.

Here's a direct link to that post.

We've slipped markedly in the endowment-dollar-per-student rankings, too. From the April 16, 1993 Thresher: "The market value of the endowment was approximately $1.25 billion as of June 30, 1992, ranking Rice 11th among the 420 institutions surveyed ... . Only Harvard and Princeton have higher levels of endowment per student." [Emphasis added.]

(02-03-2015 09:11 PM)PerseveranceSpirit Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 09:59 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 04:34 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 03:21 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  Anyone with more free time and patience than me feel like comparing university endowment sizes to student enrollment numbers in order to see which university has more endowment dollars per student?

See post #16 in the thread Rice Ranked #5 in the USA.

Here's a direct link to that post.

We've slipped markedly in the endowment-dollar-per-student rankings, too. From the April 16, 1993 Thresher: "The market value of the endowment was approximately $1.25 billion as of June 30, 1992, ranking Rice 11th among the 420 institutions surveyed ... . Only Harvard and Princeton have higher levels of endowment per student." [Emphasis added.]

Today's Rice Update included a link to a Chronicle of Higher Education article, published Monday, that showed Rice as #7 in endowment per undergraduate ($1,231,357). It is based on 2013 data.

The top six were (in order) Yale ($3,829,457), Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT & Caltech ($1,893,429).

Next were University of Chicago ($1,178,539), Pomona, Columbia, Swarthmore, Amherst & Williams.

(01-30-2015 08:02 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 01:20 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  These times are crazy, but am I out of line to suggest that Rice should allocate $50 million to the athletics endowment?

It doesn't really work that way. You're only supposed to use about 4%-5% of your endowment as a time and one of the hidden strengths of Rice's endowment is that a much higher than average percentage of it is unallocated to any specific goal. No President would change that. If we want some endowment money to go specifically for the purpose. Candidly, it's on the athletic department to raise it, however it would be helpful if the next President put a fundraising goal for athletics into the next Capital Plan, as neither Gillis or Leebron included it in theirs.

Yes, but if you're already committed to allocating say $2.5mm annually to 'athletics' at Rice (which could include the rec center, intramurals, maintenance etc well beyond NCAA participation) then we've already 'de facto' allocated well more than $50mm of the endowment to athletics... just as we have 'de facto' allocated some portion to maintaining the physical plant... trees... roads... campus security... not to mention the various academic departments.

I don't know that if you defined athletics broadly enough, that any monies allocated to such a project would have to be excluded from any calculation about how big our University endowment was... ESPECIALLY in that the bulk of the 'subsidy' (let's call it 10mm/yr, which is the 'spendable interest' on approximately $250mm of the endowment is specifically allocated to scholarship expenses... which obviously are spent by the University, and not by athletics. Athletics merely determines WHO gets those scholarships. Obviously I'm speaking hypothetically, but the definition of 'Athletics' in 2100 could easily not involve NCAA participation whatsoever. We could give 'athletic' scholarships to people who want to be doctors or researchers.

I think that if we made such a semantic pledge, it would be far easier to get others to join in and pledge towards restricted (NCAA) or even unrestricted (people who like to stroll in the afternoon) scholarships