Anonymous wrote:This guy comes across as a whiner.

Not at all. The article is mostly data and factual accounts. You seem like a whiner though.

This guy comes across as a whiner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s shocking to me that the University of Chicago is funding new laboratory facilities etc by borrowing and there seems to have been no discussion re: raising any of the shortfall from alumni donations..

It does seem that some schools just don’t have much of a culture of alumni giving, and that is a relevant factor to look at when evaluating the financial health of a school (vs. just looking at endowment).

This is what confuses me. Chicago graduates people who make a ton of money- astrophysicists who became data scientists, math majors that go into quant finance, Econ and business majors that go into IB and PE, public policy leaders, etc. What in the world is going on with whoever is directing alumni relations?

Anyone have a feel for how much the end of legacy admissions is affecting alumni donations across the board?

Hardly moves the needle. A lot of school with great alumni donations don’t have legacy or hardly use it. Mostly alumni donors are older and many genuinely like the college and want to give back to the place that launched them.

U.S. News removed percent of alumni donating from its criteria. Perhaps it should be added back

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s shocking to me that the University of Chicago is funding new laboratory facilities etc by borrowing and there seems to have been no discussion re: raising any of the shortfall from alumni donations..

It does seem that some schools just don’t have much of a culture of alumni giving, and that is a relevant factor to look at when evaluating the financial health of a school (vs. just looking at endowment).

This is what confuses me. Chicago graduates people who make a ton of money- astrophysicists who became data scientists, math majors that go into quant finance, Econ and business majors that go into IB and PE, public policy leaders, etc. What in the world is going on with whoever is directing alumni relations?

Anyone have a feel for how much the end of legacy admissions is affecting alumni donations across the board?

My DC attended one of the first years of the transformation. Although a non-stereotypic student, DC was very happy with the new campus facilities, classrooms, living accommodations along with dining choices. Most importantly, the STEM education quality and peer group of both academics and business minded students. All that does take expensive expenditures.

All DC friends and acquaintances graduated with dream job offers and flourishing in lucrative careers or obtaining advance degrees in pioneering industries. They still too young to make substantial donations. The seeds are in place for endowments.

They suggested that while a portion of the deficit would be addressed by targeted cuts, 50% of the deficit could be ameliorated through the combined revenue streams of technology transfer and increased enrollments in postgraduate degree and professional certification programs.

In case you didn't know already, this confirms these programs - and not just the ones at Chicago - are straight-up money grabs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with money who remember their college years fondly donate. Those that remember it as a slog do not. Hence why the school with the moto - where fun goes to die” is in financial difficulty.

Chicago sucks. Worst school ever. We get it.

Presumably you’re a parent/alum. Why not just bring your perspective. People are much more responsive to personal viewpoints than ridicule. You just seem bitter that Chicago isn’t being praised, but I’m sure you have something more important to say.

Perhaps they could save a million or two by cutting their direct mail spends to kids who have no chance of applying to their school.

Anonymous wrote:People with money who remember their college years fondly donate. Those that remember it as a slog do not. Hence why the school with the moto - where fun goes to die” is in financial difficulty.

Chicago sucks. Worst school ever. We get it.

People with money who remember their college years fondly donate. Those that remember it as a slog do not. Hence why the school with the moto - where fun goes to die” is in financial difficulty.

Anonymous wrote:Professor Ando publishes the same article, essentially, every year. Here is one from 2023 that makes all the same points

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://chicagomaroon.com/40486/news/uchicago-professor-sounds-alarm-over-troubling-university-finances/&ved=2ahUKEwibo7bk2OmKAxXrElkFHRULCkMQFnoECCsQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw1SFaRElv4jkgrS9Fxtbg8f

It is all worth discussing but bear in mind he is a classics / ancient history professor who thinks that spending borrowed money for STEM while his own department is underfunded is a travesty.

DCUM ignoring that is classic DCUM

The truth here seems to lie somewhat in between. There's nothing wrong with a university making investments in STEM. Sorry Prof Ando, but Classics isn't bringing in droves of students. And while I have no doubt the president of Chicago is overpaid, good luck finding university administrators who aren't. That said, Chicago clearly did some serious financial mismanagement/damage and it may be tough to dig themselves out of this hole.

Anonymous wrote:Professor Ando publishes the same article, essentially, every year. Here is one from 2023 that makes all the same points

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://chicagomaroon.com/40486/news/uchicago-professor-sounds-alarm-over-troubling-university-finances/&ved=2ahUKEwibo7bk2OmKAxXrElkFHRULCkMQFnoECCsQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw1SFaRElv4jkgrS9Fxtbg8f

It is all worth discussing but bear in mind he is a classics / ancient history professor who thinks that spending borrowed money for STEM while his own department is underfunded is a travesty.

DCUM ignoring that is classic DCUM

This is really just you forcing a narrative that is partially true and partially made to obfuscate the core issue. Why is it that Chicago needs to make massive cuts to social science and humanities funding in the first place? There’s a big difference between being upset that STEM is getting more bucks than humanities versus cuts to your departments when the university makes billions upon billions.

Professor Ando publishes the same article, essentially, every year. Here is one from 2023 that makes all the same points

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://chicagomaroon.com/40486/news/uchicago-professor-sounds-alarm-over-troubling-university-finances/&ved=2ahUKEwibo7bk2OmKAxXrElkFHRULCkMQFnoECCsQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw1SFaRElv4jkgrS9Fxtbg8f

It is all worth discussing but bear in mind he is a classics / ancient history professor who thinks that spending borrowed money for STEM while his own department is underfunded is a travesty.

DCUM ignoring that is classic DCUM

Anonymous wrote:They should never have dumped the football team. Big mistake.

They brought football back, some time ago now. D3 though, not Big Ten.