Endowment per student rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Endowment funds are mostly restricted for specific purposes. Looking at endowment metrics is not going to tell you the quality of education or other meaningful resources per student.

It mostly just tells you the financial health of the institution, and anything above a certain level is fine.

Well, as an example, Grinnell just announced that all dorm rooms will have AC starting this fall. Some older rooms may have window units, but they’ve plowed serious money into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting that these rich colleges still charge a ridiculous amount.

The full-freight COA at Williams is about $87,000. But Williams spends about $137,000 per student. So even the Richie Rich kids are getting $50,000 of their education subsidized.

So are they capitalist pigs for charging what the market will bear? Or are they pinko-communists by subsidizing the costs of everyone and often using the money from full-pay kids to reduce costs of the poor and middle-class kids?

https://provost.williams.edu/priorities-and-resources/#:~:text=What%20We%20Spend,goes%20toward%20compensating%20our%20employees

[Anonymous]

We definitely looked at endowments when making decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting that these rich colleges still charge a ridiculous amount.

The full-freight COA at Williams is about $87,000. But Williams spends about $137,000 per student. So even the Richie Rich kids are getting $50,000 of their education subsidized.

So are they capitalist pigs for charging what the market will bear? Or are they pinko-communists by subsidizing the costs of everyone and often using the money from full-pay kids to reduce costs of the poor and middle-class kids?

https://provost.williams.edu/priorities-and-resources/#:~:text=What%20We%20Spend,goes%20toward%20compensating%20our%20employees

Literally every school claims it costs more to educate kids than the tuition...I get the same notes from Princeton, but I have a hard time buying it.

Reminds me of all the movies that gross $1BN, but then the studio and the producers claim the movie lost money to cheat someone out of their back-end deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Damn, the top 5 schools are rolling in $$$!

So their kids can get into the college more easily?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting that these rich colleges still charge a ridiculous amount.

The full-freight COA at Williams is about $87,000. But Williams spends about $137,000 per student. So even the Richie Rich kids are getting $50,000 of their education subsidized.

So are they capitalist pigs for charging what the market will bear? Or are they pinko-communists by subsidizing the costs of everyone and often using the money from full-pay kids to reduce costs of the poor and middle-class kids?

https://provost.williams.edu/priorities-and-resources/#:~:text=What%20We%20Spend,goes%20toward%20compensating%20our%20employees

It's not communist; they aren't because they aren't a government.

They can easily lower the coa to a more manageable amount, and then not have to provide so much financial aid to a lot of the students.

But, they like to keep the price tag high because.. IDK.. greed? Prestige?

Either way, it's truly disgusting how an institution of higher learning can be so greedy.

Also, those greedy institutions get tax breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This list is including grad students in the endowment per student. I am not sure that makes much sense and not sure if it is consistently applied.

For example, Penn’s endowment per student comes out to 22,000 students when there are only 10,000 undergrads.

That’s where SLACs come in.

Exactly, and to qualify further following are top 5 colleges for undergrad teaching:

- Amherst College - $1.68m / student
- Swarthmore College - $1.65m / student
- Williams College - $1.60m / student
- Pomona College - $1.56m / student
- Grinnell College - $1.4m / student

Also, in US news above are in top 11, and also in other list ranking of best value, best undergrad teaching etc.

By what ranking of undergrad teaching?

Not PP, I guess PP might be referring to this:

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberal-arts-colleges/undergraduate-teaching

But then these aren't the top 5. On that list, Amherst and Pomona are tied for #1 with Carleton. Swarthmore is tied with Bowdoin at #4. Grinnnell is tied with Davidson and Macalester at #6. Williams is further down, tied at #12.

[Anonymous]

Folks are quick to criticize the schools for having and charging big $$ but so much of USNWR ranking criteria measure (directly or indirectly) exactly that. Financial resources is literally 8-10% of the ranking. Faculty salaries+ student-faculty ratio is another 12%. Ability to support low income students without their taking on debt — that’s financial aid, so that costs $. Keeping graduation rates high also requires staffing, so $$.

The cost of college is obscene. But that is what precisely what we are incentivizing by focusing on rankings. What we incentivize, we amplify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting that these rich colleges still charge a ridiculous amount.

The full-freight COA at Williams is about $87,000. But Williams spends about $137,000 per student. So even the Richie Rich kids are getting $50,000 of their education subsidized.

So are they capitalist pigs for charging what the market will bear? Or are they pinko-communists by subsidizing the costs of everyone and often using the money from full-pay kids to reduce costs of the poor and middle-class kids?

https://provost.williams.edu/priorities-and-resources/#:~:text=What%20We%20Spend,goes%20toward%20compensating%20our%20employees

Literally every school claims it costs more to educate kids than the tuition...I get the same notes from Princeton, but I have a hard time buying it.

Reminds me of all the movies that gross $1BN, but then the studio and the producers claim the movie lost money to cheat someone out of their back-end deal.

Most schools do not spend more than the sticker price. Princeton and Williams are only a handful of schools that subsidize far more than the actual sticker price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks are quick to criticize the schools for having and charging big $$ but so much of USNWR ranking criteria measure (directly or indirectly) exactly that. Financial resources is literally 8-10% of the ranking. Faculty salaries+ student-faculty ratio is another 12%. Ability to support low income students without their taking on debt — that’s financial aid, so that costs $. Keeping graduation rates high also requires staffing, so $$.

The cost of college is obscene. But that is what precisely what we are incentivizing by focusing on rankings. What we incentivize, we amplify.

Thank you for this tidbit of rational, supported thought. Things are getting a little . . . [points to head and makes swirling gesture with index finger] in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting that these rich colleges still charge a ridiculous amount.

The full-freight COA at Williams is about $87,000. But Williams spends about $137,000 per student. So even the Richie Rich kids are getting $50,000 of their education subsidized.

So are they capitalist pigs for charging what the market will bear? Or are they pinko-communists by subsidizing the costs of everyone and often using the money from full-pay kids to reduce costs of the poor and middle-class kids?

https://provost.williams.edu/priorities-and-resources/#:~:text=What%20We%20Spend,goes%20toward%20compensating%20our%20employees

Literally every school claims it costs more to educate kids than the tuition...I get the same notes from Princeton, but I have a hard time buying it.

Reminds me of all the movies that gross $1BN, but then the studio and the producers claim the movie lost money to cheat someone out of their back-end deal.

Most schools do not spend more than the sticker price. Princeton and Williams are only a handful of schools that subsidize far more than the actual sticker price.

How do you know that to be true?

[Anonymous]

I’d be curious to know which of the top 200 schools have an operational (not capital spending) per-student gap that is filled by endowment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting that these rich colleges still charge a ridiculous amount.

The full-freight COA at Williams is about $87,000. But Williams spends about $137,000 per student. So even the Richie Rich kids are getting $50,000 of their education subsidized.

So are they capitalist pigs for charging what the market will bear? Or are they pinko-communists by subsidizing the costs of everyone and often using the money from full-pay kids to reduce costs of the poor and middle-class kids?

https://provost.williams.edu/priorities-and-resources/#:~:text=What%20We%20Spend,goes%20toward%20compensating%20our%20employees

Literally every school claims it costs more to educate kids than the tuition...I get the same notes from Princeton, but I have a hard time buying it.

Reminds me of all the movies that gross $1BN, but then the studio and the producers claim the movie lost money to cheat someone out of their back-end deal.

Most schools do not spend more than the sticker price. Princeton and Williams are only a handful of schools that subsidize far more than the actual sticker price.

How do you know that to be true?

You can check each school’s audited financial report. It shows where things are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks are quick to criticize the schools for having and charging big $$ but so much of USNWR ranking criteria measure (directly or indirectly) exactly that. Financial resources is literally 8-10% of the ranking. Faculty salaries+ student-faculty ratio is another 12%. Ability to support low income students without their taking on debt — that’s financial aid, so that costs $. Keeping graduation rates high also requires staffing, so $$.

The cost of college is obscene. But that is what precisely what we are incentivizing by focusing on rankings. What we incentivize, we amplify.

very strong points. Thank you.