Annual Giving Rate at Princeton Tanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale, not Princeton. So did my husband. We used to give a small amount every year and we both had a very good experience at Yale. We don't bother anymore. I don't know if our kids will have any interest in going to Yale or have the credentials (they are still young) but the fact that Yale seems willing to move away from caring about family connections and is constantly crowing about how many first gen applicants they accept, makes me not care as much about sending them money. I am sure that those first gen applicants are terrific and deserve to be at Yale, but I don't like that they are holding my accomplishments against my kids. My parents worked really hard to become the first in their families to go to state colleges in the 1960s. My parents' hard work is something to be proud of and that I'm glad was not held against me when I applied to Yale. I was truly middle class, so not low income, and my parents went to college, so not first gen. That is not the same thing as being a wealthy kid from generations of college graduates. This new emphasis on FGLI is a blunt instrument.

NP here. Thank you for your candid perspective. I had this idea in my head that if I had gone to Yale and had kids who might be interested in attending Yale, I would be giving a fair amount to give my kids an advantage. (This is all hypothetical of course). I have never heard someone articulate it the way you just did - it's food for thought for sure.

There's definitely a new emphasis on FGLI, rural students, and international students in the name of equity. I don't know if that's going to change at these elite schools or not, but it is unsettling for parents these days for sure.

I wouldn’t say they are holding your experience against your kid. The kid is not benefiting from it as much as before. (They are still benefiting).

I think the most positive development since I left Harvard is the college’s emphasis on FGLI. It’s as good a proxy as any for differences in opportunity.

[Anonymous]

No Princeton connections but DH and I both went to $billion+ endowment schools, and while we both love our alma maters it is really hard to justify sending money to organizations that already have billions of dollars. There is so much need out there, including in our own community, and our little contribution would make a much bigger difference elsewhere.

We do give sometimes. But don’t feel like it’s an especially high impact donation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From about 1970 to 2015, Princeton's annual giving rate was around 60%, one of the highest among leading universities.

Over the past 10 years, however, the giving rate has declined to 44%, the lowest in about 80 years.

There are a number of factors that could account for this, but an obvious one is that recent Princeton students are less satisfied with their experience than their predecessors and less inclined to donate. One wonders if the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students is actually resulting in a student body that experiences more stress, enjoys their undergraduate experience less, and has less interest in maintaining ties to the school after graduation.

It feels like a bit of a canary in the coal mine in terms of suggesting it's a place that's losing its way and in need of some major reforms, whether it's taking a look at whether the right kids are being admitted or whether the right kids are being admitted but they need to make changes to make the undergraduate experience more gratifying.

Lol does one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale, not Princeton. So did my husband. We used to give a small amount every year and we both had a very good experience at Yale. We don't bother anymore. I don't know if our kids will have any interest in going to Yale or have the credentials (they are still young) but the fact that Yale seems willing to move away from caring about family connections and is constantly crowing about how many first gen applicants they accept, makes me not care as much about sending them money. I am sure that those first gen applicants are terrific and deserve to be at Yale, but I don't like that they are holding my accomplishments against my kids. My parents worked really hard to become the first in their families to go to state colleges in the 1960s. My parents' hard work is something to be proud of and that I'm glad was not held against me when I applied to Yale. I was truly middle class, so not low income, and my parents went to college, so not first gen. That is not the same thing as being a wealthy kid from generations of college graduates. This new emphasis on FGLI is a blunt instrument.

I’m sorry but you really need to get a grip on reality.

You had parents who went to college in the 1960s. That started you off on third base. You were privileged. Your kids are even more privileged. If you loved Yale so much, then you should want to give money to help open the doors, even just a little bit, for the less privileged so they too can have opportunity. For you to be turned off by Yale’s interest in the less privileged says a lot about who you are.

[Anonymous]

Its more diverse now....URMs dont give back.

[Anonymous]

The kids they are accepting has less of an appreciation for the place. Go woke, go broke!

[Anonymous]

So let me get this straight. Princeton has been and remains a top university with huge endowment and fundraising, elite by every measure. But you are unhappy that it is too diverse. And the best you could come up with to claim it is declining is that the annual fund participation rate went from very high to still high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH quit giving a few years ago. He used to give annually, but the far left control of academia got to be too much for him as a moderate.

He mentioned yesterday that Annual Giving is way down and laughed. FAFO.

OMG. Do you right wingers ever give up on your petty grievances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From about 1970 to 2015, Princeton's annual giving rate was around 60%, one of the highest among leading universities.

Over the past 10 years, however, the giving rate has declined to 44%, the lowest in about 80 years.

There are a number of factors that could account for this, but an obvious one is that recent Princeton students are less satisfied with their experience than their predecessors and less inclined to donate. One wonders if the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students is actually resulting in a student body that experiences more stress, enjoys their undergraduate experience less, and has less interest in maintaining ties to the school after graduation.

It feels like a bit of a canary in the coal mine in terms of suggesting it's a place that's losing its way and in need of some major reforms, whether it's taking a look at whether the right kids are being admitted or whether the right kids are being admitted but they need to make changes to make the undergraduate experience more gratifying.

Or maybe Princeton's newer generation has less generational wealth and thus less $$ to drop for donations?

The participation rate refers to the percentage of alumni giving, not the total amount of donations.

Give them $5 dollars and they'll still act very appreciative.

I’m a rural student who went 20+ years ago.

People from my cohort aren’t nearly as wealthy as UMC admits, we don’t know how to navigate and network a career so end up at barely UMC jobs or even teachers.

So first there is just not much money to give around.

And as someone with family members living on disability and food stamps, it feels indulgent to give money to a well heeled university, when it would benefit so many people if given to my local food bank. Charitable giving is a zero sum game, especially for the MC.

That said, I had an amazing time while there, and appreciate the new outreach to give a broader swath more opportunities— Princeton financial aid is top notch, so it’s not just an elite education but also very little student debt or financial hardship that these initiatives accomplish. They likely won’t end up in the same roles, and often pursue meaningful work rather than the most well paid, but it’s a good program.

[Anonymous]

They have been letting in a ton more poors. They don’t have big donor capabilities.

[Anonymous]

This is gross. A wealthy school asking for more money. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From about 1970 to 2015, Princeton's annual giving rate was around 60%, one of the highest among leading universities.

Over the past 10 years, however, the giving rate has declined to 44%, the lowest in about 80 years.

There are a number of factors that could account for this, but an obvious one is that recent Princeton students are less satisfied with their experience than their predecessors and less inclined to donate. One wonders if the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students is actually resulting in a student body that experiences more stress, enjoys their undergraduate experience less, and has less interest in maintaining ties to the school after graduation.

It feels like a bit of a canary in the coal mine in terms of suggesting it's a place that's losing its way and in need of some major reforms, whether it's taking a look at whether the right kids are being admitted or whether the right kids are being admitted but they need to make changes to make the undergraduate experience more gratifying.

There is literally no serious or comprehensible connection between these ideas unless you think students at Princeton are racists that have to worry about sitting next to an Iranian or Asian German student in Calc 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale, not Princeton. So did my husband. We used to give a small amount every year and we both had a very good experience at Yale. We don't bother anymore. I don't know if our kids will have any interest in going to Yale or have the credentials (they are still young) but the fact that Yale seems willing to move away from caring about family connections and is constantly crowing about how many first gen applicants they accept, makes me not care as much about sending them money. I am sure that those first gen applicants are terrific and deserve to be at Yale, but I don't like that they are holding my accomplishments against my kids. My parents worked really hard to become the first in their families to go to state colleges in the 1960s. My parents' hard work is something to be proud of and that I'm glad was not held against me when I applied to Yale. I was truly middle class, so not low income, and my parents went to college, so not first gen. That is not the same thing as being a wealthy kid from generations of college graduates. This new emphasis on FGLI is a blunt instrument.

They’re literally just treating your kids like every other applicant. People used to want merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's reassuring that people here don't just take things at face value and can think of reasons why the story OP is trying to tell might not be the only story.

What's your angle, OP? That Princeton is in some sort of trouble? They're doing just fine.

There may be other possibilities and so appreciate the alternatives identified, but it does seem to me that Princeton may be in trouble. It appears they are relaxing admissions requirements to serve equity goals, but then plunging kids who may not be fully preparedinto a very rigorous academic environment. That’s exacerbated by the very high percentage of kids who pursue tough STEM, CS, and engineering degrees, and the odd social environment with its antiquated “Bicker” clubs. So my hypothesis is that the graduates are less happy about their undergraduate experience and that this translates into a lower percentage of alumni donating after they graduate.

Completely contradictory.

[Anonymous]

Princeton still has the highest in the US according to University Business.

Princeton University had the highest rate of alumni willing to donate; around 46% to 47% of undergraduate alumni donated nearly $74 million this past year. Additionally, 13 of the institutions, save the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York and Virginia Tech, are private.

Princeton (N.J.): 46%
Dartmouth University (N.H.): 36%
College of the Holy Cross (Mass.): 35%
United States Military Academy at West Point (N.Y.): 34%
University of Notre Dame (Ind.): 33%
Carleton College (Minn.): 32%
Middlebury College (Vt.): 29%
Duke University (N.C.): 28%
Mount Holyoke College (Mass.): 28%
Colgate University (N.Y.): 25%
Wellesley College (Mass.): 25%
Rice Univerity (Texas): 24%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 23%
Trinity College (Conn.): 23%
Virginia Tech: 22%