Top 10 public "ranking"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Georgia Tech seems to have figured it out.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/georgia-tech-is-teaching-other-universities-a-fundraising-lesson-365ce55a?eafs_enabled=false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Georgia Tech seems to have figured it out.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/georgia-tech-is-teaching-other-universities-a-fundraising-lesson-365ce55a?eafs_enabled=false

That has nothing to do with how Georgia Tech accounts for research funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a research university, in general, undergraduate tuition is used to fund research (the university must typically come up with about 30% of research costs and undergraduate tuition is usually the largest available pool of unrestricted funds). OOS students are used to subsidize in-state students. Lower level courses subsidize higher level and graduate courses. Student fees often subsidize athletics. Tuition paid for classes in humanities, social sciences, etc. subsidize STEM programs. The list goes on.

This is all wrong but okay.

It's not ALL wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

I'd gladly take the latter four schools over any of the UCs considering that they're all overrun by neurotic striver Asians.

Aw.. sorry, you're so jealousy. And what's wrong with being a striver? That's how Asian Americans became the wealthiest and most educated demographic. Maybe other groups should strive more?

-dp

They don't mind you trying hard. They don't want you doing better than their own kids who aren't trying hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the anti UC poster whining about test blind would stop derailing the thread.

When looking at top public schools you should be looking at the strength of the field of study you are interested in pursing. The top 10 public institutions which yes includes Cal, UCLA, Davis, Irvine and San Diego are in the top 10 because they have achieved top status in multiple fields of study but this doesn’t mean that they have achieved top status in every field of study. When an institution invests and attracts top faculty it then is a magnet to attract more top faculty who are more competitive winning grants. Graduate students and top undergraduates want to be part of that research and gravitate there. Strength is built over decades and in STEM requires institutional investment. It truly does not matter what the SAT scores were for communication or sociology majors in another college and program.

You also need to be aware that several fields are more specialized particularly engineering. The upper division courses are important for landing a job or graduate admission. For example, don’t look at general engineering ranking, look at strength in your field..aero, EECS, civil/environmental, mechanical, chemical or biomechanical etc. The top schools shift around depending on program and some are much weaker in some fields. If you want to be an engineer in the automotive or aerospace industry then Purdue, Georgia Tech are better than Cal. If you want to work in Silicon Valley tech then Cal, and this will drive the VA poster crazy SJSU will place you better than any east coast school. Physics - Cal or UCSB (which isn’t in the top 10 overall). Civil, environmental or aero with agri focus, UCDavis. Biomedical go to UCSD. You want to work in the defense industry? UIUC, Georgia Tech. Etc etc.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech/

Reported. College transitions bot.

How the heck did you conclude that post was from a bot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Georgia Tech seems to have figured it out.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/georgia-tech-is-teaching-other-universities-a-fundraising-lesson-365ce55a?eafs_enabled=false

Sure, if you don't mind kissing up to the corporations that your graduates want to work for and that will donate a lot of money to your school and provide productive collaboration.
Those fekin sellouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Further trashing of the UC haters:

Acceptance rate for in-state applicants:

UCLA: 10.0%
Berkeley: 13.5%
UCSD: 26.5%

UVA: 25.5%
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 39.5%
UT - Austin: 41.0%
UNC - Chapel Hill: 41.5%

Compare those stone cold facts with the respective OOS acceptance rates.

We’re supposed to believe that the institutions accepting a higher percentage of their population are better than the more selective ones that are accepting a lower percentage of their population? Yeah, OK.

I'd gladly take the latter four schools over any of the UCs considering that they're all overrun by neurotic striver Asians.

Aw.. sorry, you're so jealousy. And what's wrong with being a striver? That's how Asian Americans became the wealthiest and most educated demographic. Maybe other groups should strive more?

-dp

They don't mind you trying hard. They don't want you doing better than their own kids who aren't trying hard.

Yep. It's not the striving that bothers them. It's the succeeding.

I don't know how bad this is at public schools. Its glaringly obvious at private schools where you used to see the asian valedictorian with cracked ECs go to Cornell while some kid barely in the top 10% gets into Yale. They would say that the asians just don't get it when there were no asians around. You can just jump to the front of the line through hard work and talent, legacy and family traditions are more important. But that is exactly what they have been doing for the past 30 years since I was a kid and now they don't snicker at all the asian striving anymore. They just get mad about it because legacy is watered down pretty much everywhere, even Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Georgia Tech seems to have figured it out.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/georgia-tech-is-teaching-other-universities-a-fundraising-lesson-365ce55a?eafs_enabled=false

Sure, if you don't mind kissing up to the corporations that your graduates want to work for and that will donate a lot of money to your school and provide productive collaboration.
Those fekin sellouts.

"kissing up" or actually creating innovations that corporations find worthwhile to invest money in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the anti UC poster whining about test blind would stop derailing the thread.

When looking at top public schools you should be looking at the strength of the field of study you are interested in pursing. The top 10 public institutions which yes includes Cal, UCLA, Davis, Irvine and San Diego are in the top 10 because they have achieved top status in multiple fields of study but this doesn’t mean that they have achieved top status in every field of study. When an institution invests and attracts top faculty it then is a magnet to attract more top faculty who are more competitive winning grants. Graduate students and top undergraduates want to be part of that research and gravitate there. Strength is built over decades and in STEM requires institutional investment. It truly does not matter what the SAT scores were for communication or sociology majors in another college and program.

You also need to be aware that several fields are more specialized particularly engineering. The upper division courses are important for landing a job or graduate admission. For example, don’t look at general engineering ranking, look at strength in your field..aero, EECS, civil/environmental, mechanical, chemical or biomechanical etc. The top schools shift around depending on program and some are much weaker in some fields. If you want to be an engineer in the automotive or aerospace industry then Purdue, Georgia Tech are better than Cal. If you want to work in Silicon Valley tech then Cal, and this will drive the VA poster crazy SJSU will place you better than any east coast school. Physics - Cal or UCSB (which isn’t in the top 10 overall). Civil, environmental or aero with agri focus, UCDavis. Biomedical go to UCSD. You want to work in the defense industry? UIUC, Georgia Tech. Etc etc.

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-tech/

Reported. College transitions bot.

How the heck did you conclude that post was from a bot?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

You are saying what the universities want us to believe about the cost of educating undergraduates. Since you seem to question my knowledge of (opaque) higher education accounting, I'll quote John Lombardi, former President of the University of Florida and the author of How Universities Work: "Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so."

Again, "Instruction" in higher education accounting includes unsponsored (departmental) research, which really has nothing to do with instruction or educating undergraduates. It is funded through general funds including tuition. Therefore, tuition funds research. An analysis of the University of California concluded that the actual expenditures on undergraduate education are only about 1/3rd of what the university reported due to rolling unsponsored research into "Instruction". https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/DCAM16.pdf

For externally funded research, we know from Government reporting that institutions have to contribute a significant part of the cost of R&D from "Institutional Funds". For instance, the University of Michigan $2.1B R&D expenditures for 2024 included $741M from "Institution Funds". What were the sources of the $741M? If a public accounting of it exists, I am unaware of it. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3345002&id=h2

You can’t get the sources because money is fungible. This is what I’ve been telling you. It doesn’t come from this or that place.

But is undergrad tuition a major source of the funding? Much of this is explained in the financial statements. For 2025, Michigan had $2.2 bn in research expenses. $1.7bn of revenues comes from government grants and private sources “with a significant portion related to federal research.” There is another $1.4 bn from state appropriations, endowment distributions, and private gifts for other than capital or endowment purposes, much of which is usable for research purposes. This is what is predominantly funding the university.

There is $1.8 bn in net student tuition and fees, but this includes graduate and professional degrees and certifications. If we break out the proportion of undergrads, it is about $1.2 bn (but in reality probably less as a lot of the students are in-state discounted one and grad programs are expensive). This is only about 20% of operating expenses, and comes nowhere close to covering the $2.65 bn of Instruction and Institutional and Academic Support (some of which, yes, is research, but much of which is not).

You simply can’t assign tuition to research expenditures. Or anything else really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

You are saying what the universities want us to believe about the cost of educating undergraduates. Since you seem to question my knowledge of (opaque) higher education accounting, I'll quote John Lombardi, former President of the University of Florida and the author of How Universities Work: "Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so."

Again, "Instruction" in higher education accounting includes unsponsored (departmental) research, which really has nothing to do with instruction or educating undergraduates. It is funded through general funds including tuition. Therefore, tuition funds research. An analysis of the University of California concluded that the actual expenditures on undergraduate education are only about 1/3rd of what the university reported due to rolling unsponsored research into "Instruction". https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/DCAM16.pdf

For externally funded research, we know from Government reporting that institutions have to contribute a significant part of the cost of R&D from "Institutional Funds". For instance, the University of Michigan $2.1B R&D expenditures for 2024 included $741M from "Institution Funds". What were the sources of the $741M? If a public accounting of it exists, I am unaware of it. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3345002&id=h2

You can’t get the sources because money is fungible. This is what I’ve been telling you. It doesn’t come from this or that place.

But is undergrad tuition a major source of the funding? Much of this is explained in the financial statements. For 2025, Michigan had $2.2 bn in research expenses. $1.7bn of revenues comes from government grants and private sources “with a significant portion related to federal research.” There is another $1.4 bn from state appropriations, endowment distributions, and private gifts for other than capital or endowment purposes, much of which is usable for research purposes. This is what is predominantly funding the university.

There is $1.8 bn in net student tuition and fees, but this includes graduate and professional degrees and certifications. If we break out the proportion of undergrads, it is about $1.2 bn (but in reality probably less as a lot of the students are in-state discounted one and grad programs are expensive). This is only about 20% of operating expenses, and comes nowhere close to covering the $2.65 bn of Instruction and Institutional and Academic Support (some of which, yes, is research, but much of which is not).

You simply can’t assign tuition to research expenditures. Or anything else really.

You aren't reading or understanding university financial statements properly. You downplay tuition and fees, but if you look at Michigan (Ann Arbor) financial statements, tuition and fees are by far the largest single source of net revenue on a percentage basis at about 40% of total ($2.332B of $5.831B). But wait, you want to talk about "fungible" money. OK, let's do that. The only fully fungible sources of revenue on the UM Budget are labeled "General". These unrestricted funds can be allocated by the university based on priorities, which obviously can include research. Tuition and Fees constitute a whopping 77% of unrestricted General fund revenue! The other sources of net revenue, Designated, Auxiliary, and Expendable Restricted are all restricted. Auxiliary revenue like room and board goes to housing and dining. It is not fungible. Endowment income that has been earmarked by the donor is not fungible. The endowment designated for a law school professorship can't just be redirected to field hockey. 84% of UM's endowment income is restricted! Federally sponsored research revenue goes, not surprisingly, to research. It is not fungible. It cannot go to fund other areas by federal law.

So again, how does UM come up with $741M in internal institutional funds for its R&D expenditures? UM does not say. But we know where it can't come from a large percentage of the non-general funds because they are restricted. It can't come from externally sponsored program revenue and it can't come from designated auxiliary revenue, which are a large percentage of the remaining revenue. Unless a huge percentage of the $600M in endowment and gift revenue is earmarked by the donor for research, which I don't think is the case, UM will have to dip into general funds, and Tuition and Fees are the bulk of that revenue source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

You are saying what the universities want us to believe about the cost of educating undergraduates. Since you seem to question my knowledge of (opaque) higher education accounting, I'll quote John Lombardi, former President of the University of Florida and the author of How Universities Work: "Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so."

Again, "Instruction" in higher education accounting includes unsponsored (departmental) research, which really has nothing to do with instruction or educating undergraduates. It is funded through general funds including tuition. Therefore, tuition funds research. An analysis of the University of California concluded that the actual expenditures on undergraduate education are only about 1/3rd of what the university reported due to rolling unsponsored research into "Instruction". https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/DCAM16.pdf

For externally funded research, we know from Government reporting that institutions have to contribute a significant part of the cost of R&D from "Institutional Funds". For instance, the University of Michigan $2.1B R&D expenditures for 2024 included $741M from "Institution Funds". What were the sources of the $741M? If a public accounting of it exists, I am unaware of it. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3345002&id=h2

You can’t get the sources because money is fungible. This is what I’ve been telling you. It doesn’t come from this or that place.

But is undergrad tuition a major source of the funding? Much of this is explained in the financial statements. For 2025, Michigan had $2.2 bn in research expenses. $1.7bn of revenues comes from government grants and private sources “with a significant portion related to federal research.” There is another $1.4 bn from state appropriations, endowment distributions, and private gifts for other than capital or endowment purposes, much of which is usable for research purposes. This is what is predominantly funding the university.

There is $1.8 bn in net student tuition and fees, but this includes graduate and professional degrees and certifications. If we break out the proportion of undergrads, it is about $1.2 bn (but in reality probably less as a lot of the students are in-state discounted one and grad programs are expensive). This is only about 20% of operating expenses, and comes nowhere close to covering the $2.65 bn of Instruction and Institutional and Academic Support (some of which, yes, is research, but much of which is not).

You simply can’t assign tuition to research expenditures. Or anything else really.

You aren't reading or understanding university financial statements properly. You downplay tuition and fees, but if you look at Michigan (Ann Arbor) financial statements, tuition and fees are by far the largest single source of net revenue on a percentage basis at about 40% of total ($2.332B of $5.831B). But wait, you want to talk about "fungible" money. OK, let's do that. The only fully fungible sources of revenue on the UM Budget are labeled "General". These unrestricted funds can be allocated by the university based on priorities, which obviously can include research. Tuition and Fees constitute a whopping 77% of unrestricted General fund revenue! The other sources of net revenue, Designated, Auxiliary, and Expendable Restricted are all restricted. Auxiliary revenue like room and board goes to housing and dining. It is not fungible. Endowment income that has been earmarked by the donor is not fungible. The endowment designated for a law school professorship can't just be redirected to field hockey. 84% of UM's endowment income is restricted! Federally sponsored research revenue goes, not surprisingly, to research. It is not fungible. It cannot go to fund other areas by federal law.

So again, how does UM come up with $741M in internal institutional funds for its R&D expenditures? UM does not say. But we know where it can't come from a large percentage of the non-general funds because they are restricted. It can't come from externally sponsored program revenue and it can't come from designated auxiliary revenue, which are a large percentage of the remaining revenue. Unless a huge percentage of the $600M in endowment and gift revenue is earmarked by the donor for research, which I don't think is the case, UM will have to dip into general funds, and Tuition and Fees are the bulk of that revenue source.

First, your numbers are mostly wrong. For example, you aren’t looking at net tuition and fees but the amount before they include the tuition discounts. So all of your $2.332 and 40% and whatever is wrong. And, again, probably half of the correct number is from expensive grad programs, not undergrads. It is not broken down.

Second, plenty of the endowment money and the private gifts are earmarked for research. Just because something is earmarked doesn’t mean it automatically doesn’t go to research.

Third, I don’t know why federal funded research money has to go to research is a point you’re making, that’s exactly the point. It is funding most of the research.

Fourth, as I already pointed out, they say that nongovernmental sponsored programs (which are $286 million) are largely for research. So I don’t know why you’re discounting that.

There’s only a gap of about $500 million between federal/state grants and nongovernmental sponsored programs and the $2.2bn of overall research expenses. And there are $495 million in state appropriations, $580 million in endowment distributions, $250 million in private gifts, and probably $900 million in grad student net tuition and fees where that money could come from. Some of that is restricted, sure. Some of it is restricted for research. The unrestricted part is all fungible. You have no basis for claiming that undergrads are subsidizing it.

Anyway, this has derailed the thread so I don’t plan on responding further, but since it was derailed early on anyway…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

Universities come up with a cost of educating undergraduates using a methodology from the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). NACUBO is obviously an organization of university administrators. That methodology bears no semblance to the activity based cost analysis that would be used in the business world to accurately determine costs and make informed decisions. The NACUBO methodology massively inflates undergraduate cost by including activities that have nothing to do with undergraduate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

You are saying what the universities want us to believe about the cost of educating undergraduates. Since you seem to question my knowledge of (opaque) higher education accounting, I'll quote John Lombardi, former President of the University of Florida and the author of How Universities Work: "Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so."

Again, "Instruction" in higher education accounting includes unsponsored (departmental) research, which really has nothing to do with instruction or educating undergraduates. It is funded through general funds including tuition. Therefore, tuition funds research. An analysis of the University of California concluded that the actual expenditures on undergraduate education are only about 1/3rd of what the university reported due to rolling unsponsored research into "Instruction". https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/DCAM16.pdf

For externally funded research, we know from Government reporting that institutions have to contribute a significant part of the cost of R&D from "Institutional Funds". For instance, the University of Michigan $2.1B R&D expenditures for 2024 included $741M from "Institution Funds". What were the sources of the $741M? If a public accounting of it exists, I am unaware of it. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3345002&id=h2

You can’t get the sources because money is fungible. This is what I’ve been telling you. It doesn’t come from this or that place.

But is undergrad tuition a major source of the funding? Much of this is explained in the financial statements. For 2025, Michigan had $2.2 bn in research expenses. $1.7bn of revenues comes from government grants and private sources “with a significant portion related to federal research.” There is another $1.4 bn from state appropriations, endowment distributions, and private gifts for other than capital or endowment purposes, much of which is usable for research purposes. This is what is predominantly funding the university.

There is $1.8 bn in net student tuition and fees, but this includes graduate and professional degrees and certifications. If we break out the proportion of undergrads, it is about $1.2 bn (but in reality probably less as a lot of the students are in-state discounted one and grad programs are expensive). This is only about 20% of operating expenses, and comes nowhere close to covering the $2.65 bn of Instruction and Institutional and Academic Support (some of which, yes, is research, but much of which is not).

You simply can’t assign tuition to research expenditures. Or anything else really.

You aren't reading or understanding university financial statements properly. You downplay tuition and fees, but if you look at Michigan (Ann Arbor) financial statements, tuition and fees are by far the largest single source of net revenue on a percentage basis at about 40% of total ($2.332B of $5.831B). But wait, you want to talk about "fungible" money. OK, let's do that. The only fully fungible sources of revenue on the UM Budget are labeled "General". These unrestricted funds can be allocated by the university based on priorities, which obviously can include research. Tuition and Fees constitute a whopping 77% of unrestricted General fund revenue! The other sources of net revenue, Designated, Auxiliary, and Expendable Restricted are all restricted. Auxiliary revenue like room and board goes to housing and dining. It is not fungible. Endowment income that has been earmarked by the donor is not fungible. The endowment designated for a law school professorship can't just be redirected to field hockey. 84% of UM's endowment income is restricted! Federally sponsored research revenue goes, not surprisingly, to research. It is not fungible. It cannot go to fund other areas by federal law.

So again, how does UM come up with $741M in internal institutional funds for its R&D expenditures? UM does not say. But we know where it can't come from a large percentage of the non-general funds because they are restricted. It can't come from externally sponsored program revenue and it can't come from designated auxiliary revenue, which are a large percentage of the remaining revenue. Unless a huge percentage of the $600M in endowment and gift revenue is earmarked by the donor for research, which I don't think is the case, UM will have to dip into general funds, and Tuition and Fees are the bulk of that revenue source.

First, your numbers are mostly wrong. For example, you aren’t looking at net tuition and fees but the amount before they include the tuition discounts. So all of your $2.332 and 40% and whatever is wrong. And, again, probably half of the correct number is from expensive grad programs, not undergrads. It is not broken down.

Second, plenty of the endowment money and the private gifts are earmarked for research. Just because something is earmarked doesn’t mean it automatically doesn’t go to research.

Third, I don’t know why federal funded research money has to go to research is a point you’re making, that’s exactly the point. It is funding most of the research.

Fourth, as I already pointed out, they say that nongovernmental sponsored programs (which are $286 million) are largely for research. So I don’t know why you’re discounting that.

There’s only a gap of about $500 million between federal/state grants and nongovernmental sponsored programs and the $2.2bn of overall research expenses. And there are $495 million in state appropriations, $580 million in endowment distributions, $250 million in private gifts, and probably $900 million in grad student net tuition and fees where that money could come from. Some of that is restricted, sure. Some of it is restricted for research. The unrestricted part is all fungible. You have no basis for claiming that undergrads are subsidizing it.

Anyway, this has derailed the thread so I don’t plan on responding further, but since it was derailed early on anyway…

\
Show me ANY accounting of how UM or any research university funds its share of sponsored R&D expenditure. I'll bet you can't because they intentionally don't want to provide it. Show me any accounting of how UM or any research university breaks out departmental research from instruction. I'll bet you can't because they don't want to provide it. Ever wonder why they don't want to provide it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools should not be reduced to department rankings. That is a bad proxy for the overall experience and value.

Top public institutions are very large and serve a broad population. It is absolutely important to prioritize departmental rankings! The variety, depth and quality of upper division courses is tied directly to the faculty and TAs. Your experience if you are serious about your field of study will greatly be determined by this. We know two kids at Purdue both top students. One is majoring in a humanities degree and miserable, hates the area, experience, area is boring and classes to easy. The other wants to engineer automobiles. He is over the moon with joy. Spends his time with kids who are just as passionate about engineering and auto industry as he is, has an internship already and loves it. Despite being NMSF finds the engineering and math courses challenging.

Departmental rankings are usually for graduate programs. Graduate study is very different from the undergraduate experience.

You cannot separate these things so cleanly. The professors will be the same (and, yes, the professors will teach the undergrads and write the recommendation letters). The strong departments will have research money and offer research courses or seminars to top/interested students. The reputation of the department will help with jobs in that field—including if there is on-campus recruiting—and grad school applications. Any ECs tied to the department will be influenced by the quality and size of the department. You cannot separate these two things into entirely different worlds.

I don't agree. Professors can spend their time on research, graduates, or undergraduates. At research universities they usually prioritize those areas in that order, yet undergraduate tuition is used to subsidize research and graduate education. Being strong in research and graduate rankings does not mean the school is a great choice for an undergraduate. The other thing that happens is that tuition for majors in areas like humanities and social sciences will be used to subsidize STEM fields. Many undergraduates get the short stick at many universities.

Sorry, but this is not how teaching assignments or university finances work. Most professors get undergrad teaching assignments and nearly all of your major’s courses will be taught by those professors. Do they all love those assignments? No, but they are still accessible to the students, and top students will generally find a receptive audience.

Undergraduate tuition does not subsidize grad programs. The funding comes from numerous other sources. Undergraduate tuition often doesn’t even cover the cost of the undergraduates. At large schools undergraduate tuition is often a very small portion of the school’s revenues.

This isn’t to say everything is great about being an undergrad. But if you aren’t looking into departments when you are looking at schools, I really don’t know what you’re doing.

I know how university finances work and it is largely a cross-subsidization shell game as previously described.

Subsidization from the endowment, grants, donations, fee-generating services, and expensive professional grad and money-churning certificate programs, yes. For publics, also from the state’s contribution, yes. From undergraduate tuition and fees? No. The undergrads don’t cover their costs and they certainly aren’t covering anyone else’s.

For publics, state contributions and undergraduate tuition both go into the general fund bucket, which is unrestricted. Once the funds are there, they are indistinguishable as to source. So when you say the state's contribution can fund research but not tuition, that makes no sense in the way higher ed does accounting.

Even if you do not agree with the above, would you agree that tuition can fund instruction? If so, did you know that a large percentage of research is actually accounted for as instruction (even though no one is being taught and the activity looks exactly like research)? At a large research university, "departmental research", which is any research not externally funded, can account for a very large percentage faculty time. You can see this manifested in lower teaching workloads (which are still funded by tuition and other unrestricted funds).

Except I never said the bolded.

What I was saying—and what you clearly know nothing about—is that undergrad tuition and fees are a small source of revenues and don’t even cover the costs associated with educating undergrads. At most large, top publics they make up 5-15% of (non-hospital) revenues (which matters because hospitals generate a lot of funds). They are usually dwarfed by state appropriations, endowment distributions, private gifts, and federal grants. They aren’t subsidizing anything.

You have this idea in mind of all of these segmented different buckets, with lots of money being moved from one to the next. As the other poster said, it just doesn’t work that way.

You are saying what the universities want us to believe about the cost of educating undergraduates. Since you seem to question my knowledge of (opaque) higher education accounting, I'll quote John Lombardi, former President of the University of Florida and the author of How Universities Work: "Universities often report a number that appears to indicate how much the university spends on instruction. We might believe that this number accurately represents teaching expenses and even do some analysis based on that belief. We would be wrong to do so."

Again, "Instruction" in higher education accounting includes unsponsored (departmental) research, which really has nothing to do with instruction or educating undergraduates. It is funded through general funds including tuition. Therefore, tuition funds research. An analysis of the University of California concluded that the actual expenditures on undergraduate education are only about 1/3rd of what the university reported due to rolling unsponsored research into "Instruction". https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/DCAM16.pdf

For externally funded research, we know from Government reporting that institutions have to contribute a significant part of the cost of R&D from "Institutional Funds". For instance, the University of Michigan $2.1B R&D expenditures for 2024 included $741M from "Institution Funds". What were the sources of the $741M? If a public accounting of it exists, I am unaware of it. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&tin=U3345002&id=h2

You can’t get the sources because money is fungible. This is what I’ve been telling you. It doesn’t come from this or that place.

But is undergrad tuition a major source of the funding? Much of this is explained in the financial statements. For 2025, Michigan had $2.2 bn in research expenses. $1.7bn of revenues comes from government grants and private sources “with a significant portion related to federal research.” There is another $1.4 bn from state appropriations, endowment distributions, and private gifts for other than capital or endowment purposes, much of which is usable for research purposes. This is what is predominantly funding the university.

There is $1.8 bn in net student tuition and fees, but this includes graduate and professional degrees and certifications. If we break out the proportion of undergrads, it is about $1.2 bn (but in reality probably less as a lot of the students are in-state discounted one and grad programs are expensive). This is only about 20% of operating expenses, and comes nowhere close to covering the $2.65 bn of Instruction and Institutional and Academic Support (some of which, yes, is research, but much of which is not).

You simply can’t assign tuition to research expenditures. Or anything else really.

You aren't reading or understanding university financial statements properly. You downplay tuition and fees, but if you look at Michigan (Ann Arbor) financial statements, tuition and fees are by far the largest single source of net revenue on a percentage basis at about 40% of total ($2.332B of $5.831B). But wait, you want to talk about "fungible" money. OK, let's do that. The only fully fungible sources of revenue on the UM Budget are labeled "General". These unrestricted funds can be allocated by the university based on priorities, which obviously can include research. Tuition and Fees constitute a whopping 77% of unrestricted General fund revenue! The other sources of net revenue, Designated, Auxiliary, and Expendable Restricted are all restricted. Auxiliary revenue like room and board goes to housing and dining. It is not fungible. Endowment income that has been earmarked by the donor is not fungible. The endowment designated for a law school professorship can't just be redirected to field hockey. 84% of UM's endowment income is restricted! Federally sponsored research revenue goes, not surprisingly, to research. It is not fungible. It cannot go to fund other areas by federal law.

So again, how does UM come up with $741M in internal institutional funds for its R&D expenditures? UM does not say. But we know where it can't come from a large percentage of the non-general funds because they are restricted. It can't come from externally sponsored program revenue and it can't come from designated auxiliary revenue, which are a large percentage of the remaining revenue. Unless a huge percentage of the $600M in endowment and gift revenue is earmarked by the donor for research, which I don't think is the case, UM will have to dip into general funds, and Tuition and Fees are the bulk of that revenue source.

First, your numbers are mostly wrong. For example, you aren’t looking at net tuition and fees but the amount before they include the tuition discounts. So all of your $2.332 and 40% and whatever is wrong. And, again, probably half of the correct number is from expensive grad programs, not undergrads. It is not broken down.

Second, plenty of the endowment money and the private gifts are earmarked for research. Just because something is earmarked doesn’t mean it automatically doesn’t go to research.

Third, I don’t know why federal funded research money has to go to research is a point you’re making, that’s exactly the point. It is funding most of the research.

Fourth, as I already pointed out, they say that nongovernmental sponsored programs (which are $286 million) are largely for research. So I don’t know why you’re discounting that.

There’s only a gap of about $500 million between federal/state grants and nongovernmental sponsored programs and the $2.2bn of overall research expenses. And there are $495 million in state appropriations, $580 million in endowment distributions, $250 million in private gifts, and probably $900 million in grad student net tuition and fees where that money could come from. Some of that is restricted, sure. Some of it is restricted for research. The unrestricted part is all fungible. You have no basis for claiming that undergrads are subsidizing it.

Anyway, this has derailed the thread so I don’t plan on responding further, but since it was derailed early on anyway…

I agree this has gone on long enough, but see comments in bold

First, your numbers are mostly wrong. For example, you aren’t looking at net tuition and fees but the amount before they include the tuition discounts. So all of your $2.332 and 40% and whatever is wrong. And, again, probably half of the correct number is from expensive grad programs, not undergrads. It is not broken down. The numbers are straight from UM's revenue statement.

Second, plenty of the endowment money and the private gifts are earmarked for research. Just because something is earmarked doesn’t mean it automatically doesn’t go to research. You are right, it could be earmarked for research and I acknowledged that, but no athletic scholarships, academic scholarships, financial aid scholarships, law school professorships, lecture series, etc., etc., would go toward institutional R&D funds.

Third, I don’t know why federal funded research money has to go to research is a point you’re making, that’s exactly the point. It is funding most of the research. It certainly isn't funding the $761M the university has to pay from internal instututional sources. That is the point.

Fourth, as I already pointed out, they say that nongovernmental sponsored programs (which are $286 million) are largely for research. So I don’t know why you’re discounting that. I am discounting it as a source of internal institutional funds because, again, as an external source, it certainly can't be used to pay the $761M the university has to pay from internal institutional sources.