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

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

Anonymous wrote:Has annual giving to colleges in general also declined? Could just be part of a larger trend and not specific to Princeton.

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?

This.

Anonymous wrote:I think sensibilities have changed.

If you want to use your money to do good, a donation to an alma mater with billions is the last place you'd send it.

I would regard the 40 percent who are still donating to Princeton as people who are trying to game things for their offspring. A donation to Princeton is not the same as trying to end starvation or wars or helping orphans or assisting on any number of issues.

Princeton will do fine without your contribution. But those dollars can have a lot of impact elsewhere.

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

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

Anonymous wrote:Email the editors of the daily Princetonian and ask them. Maybe they can do a story about it.

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.

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

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:Other possibilities:
1) Legacy admissions, while still extant, has decreased enough such that alumni parents are unwilling to donate knowing that odds of admission are declining for legacy children.
2) The cost of college has become so high that even wealthier parents are unwilling to donate on top of the absurd cost of tuition, room and board.