Annual Giving Rate at Princeton Tanks

[Anonymous]

charitable giving went down when standard deduction went up to 24k per couple. I think you can now deduct 600 and that's it?

it was an across the board issue for charities.

and apparently the Big Beautiful Bill will make things worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its more diverse now....URMs dont give back.

Why not point out the obvious that there’s a massive group of international students who leave the country and have no reason to give back to the institution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't be an ass.

What bothers me is the prospect that recent graduates and current students may be having a more stressful and less enjoyable experience there.

I'm happy if it's more diverse if that's accompanied by continued satisfaction among students when it comes to their academic and social experience. If it's not, that calls for some reflection on the part of university officials as to whether they are admitting the right kids and/or enabling the kids they are admitting to have a positive experience.

The decline in alumni giving is quite steep in recent years and apparently at an 80-year low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Things have changed a ton since two decades ago. So many more resources for first gen students to go into and navigate careers in finance, tech, etc both on and off campus. If you’re interested, look at programs like SEO, Management Leadership for Tomorrow, Thrive Scholars. Colleges now do career treks and invest heavily into making it so these students are making good money as alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't be an ass.

What bothers me is the prospect that recent graduates and current students may be having a more stressful and less enjoyable experience there.

I'm happy if it's more diverse if that's accompanied by continued satisfaction among students when it comes to their academic and social experience. If it's not, that calls for some reflection on the part of university officials as to whether they are admitting the right kids and/or enabling the kids they are admitting to have a positive experience.

The decline in alumni giving is quite steep in recent years and apparently at an 80-year low.

What’s the connection between these two ideas? Do black people stress you out or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't be an ass.

What bothers me is the prospect that recent graduates and current students may be having a more stressful and less enjoyable experience there.

I'm happy if it's more diverse if that's accompanied by continued satisfaction among students when it comes to their academic and social experience. If it's not, that calls for some reflection on the part of university officials as to whether they are admitting the right kids and/or enabling the kids they are admitting to have a positive experience.

The decline in alumni giving is quite steep in recent years and apparently at an 80-year low.

Your argument quite literally boils down to people of color are ruining the institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't be an ass.

What bothers me is the prospect that recent graduates and current students may be having a more stressful and less enjoyable experience there.

I'm happy if it's more diverse if that's accompanied by continued satisfaction among students when it comes to their academic and social experience. If it's not, that calls for some reflection on the part of university officials as to whether they are admitting the right kids and/or enabling the kids they are admitting to have a positive experience.

The decline in alumni giving is quite steep in recent years and apparently at an 80-year low.

Why not start with looking at alumni giving rate trends? How did you reason students had anything to do with this?

[Anonymous]

I work in philanthropy at a top-ranked university. A few things:

1. Participation rate is eminently fudge-able and essentially meaningless. There is no single source of truth or validation for the numbers schools put out.
2. No one ever believed Princeton’s alumni giving percentage was real (even in the context of #1, where it’s a very manipulable stat to begin with).
3. As others have mentioned, giving patterns and habits change over time. Trust in higher ed institutions has been declining for decades. The wealth gap has grown. More people from less affluent backgrounds are going to elite institutions. Etc.
4. Many schools are raising way more money from fewer donors (see wealth gap), so the work of chasing a participation stat is just not worth it.

Find another stone to grind your axe on, OP.

[Anonymous]

With higher inflation, some alumni are just stingy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work in philanthropy at a top-ranked university. A few things:

1. Participation rate is eminently fudge-able and essentially meaningless. There is no single source of truth or validation for the numbers schools put out.
2. No one ever believed Princeton’s alumni giving percentage was real (even in the context of #1, where it’s a very manipulable stat to begin with).
3. As others have mentioned, giving patterns and habits change over time. Trust in higher ed institutions has been declining for decades. The wealth gap has grown. More people from less affluent backgrounds are going to elite institutions. Etc.
4. Many schools are raising way more money from fewer donors (see wealth gap), so the work of chasing a participation stat is just not worth it.

Find another stone to grind your axe on, OP.

The Princeton alumni giving percentage might be real. In the past, going to Princeton was almost joining a cult. The alumni are fanatical about the school in a way that you don't see with most T20 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't be an ass.

What bothers me is the prospect that recent graduates and current students may be having a more stressful and less enjoyable experience there.

I'm happy if it's more diverse if that's accompanied by continued satisfaction among students when it comes to their academic and social experience. If it's not, that calls for some reflection on the part of university officials as to whether they are admitting the right kids and/or enabling the kids they are admitting to have a positive experience.

The decline in alumni giving is quite steep in recent years and apparently at an 80-year low.

Your argument quite literally boils down to people of color are ruining the institution.

Quite literally it does nothing of the sort.

[Anonymous]

Tuition got so frickin high everywhere. At another private and $90k year is our donation for now (full pay$).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who have had the privilege to go to Ivies in the past don't always see that the kid who was not born on home base deserves to be given a chance. Legacies usually have a lot of wealth and privilege and they were hardly ever the best of the students I encountered.

I work with students and some have faced enormous obstacles to get an education and they had to work incredibly hard and support their families while navigating school, and I feel they should be given a shot this time.

I knew brilliant legacies at Princeton. Maybe you hung out with the wrong legacies!

[Anonymous]

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?

Or Princeton’s older generations don’t agree with what you deemed “the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students” and are giving less?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who have had the privilege to go to Ivies in the past don't always see that the kid who was not born on home base deserves to be given a chance. Legacies usually have a lot of wealth and privilege and they were hardly ever the best of the students I encountered.

I work with students and some have faced enormous obstacles to get an education and they had to work incredibly hard and support their families while navigating school, and I feel they should be given a shot this time.

I knew brilliant legacies at Princeton. Maybe you hung out with the wrong legacies!

I knew brilliant ones and mediocre ones. Surely if you got into Princeton on merit you would know that a parent’s strengths does not always transmit to the child.