William and Mary significantly increased its alumni giving rate after an aggressive effort. It’s at the end of its billion dollar For the Bold fundraising campaign. It seems like getting the last 40 or 50 million is really taking some time, but overall it sounds like the campaign has been a success. God for them. The school doesn’t have limitless fat cat donors, and I’m guessing that some good old boys aren’t the biggest fans of the milquetoast-seeming President. I haven’t seen admission stats for the next class, so I’ll assume they were about the same as lady year’s—good enough, but not great.

Anonymous wrote:My son is strongly considering W&M and likes the size, teacher/student ratio and the good things he has heard about the Business school. His only concern is that he has heard there is little to do outside of studying and that Williamsburg is very boring for college students. He has heard great things about the school spirit at UVA and VT. He wants a good balance of academics/social life.

There’s a heavy frat scene and a million clubs and rec sports.

Two thoughts:

1) A poster keeps suggesting that alumni giving is related to wealth of parents. Alumni giving is from the alum, not the parents. Unless the thought it that the parents are giving the $$ to the alum to donate? Not sure about that conclusion.

2) The complaints about the area surrounding W&M are odd, to me. I didn’t have money to go out anywhere when I was in college, and neither does my kid (at W&M). He is in college. I would expect most of his activities, dining and social, would be on campus, as they are, because he has no money to do anything off campus- no matter what school he attended.

My son is strongly considering W&M and likes the size, teacher/student ratio and the good things he has heard about the Business school. His only concern is that he has heard there is little to do outside of studying and that Williamsburg is very boring for college students. He has heard great things about the school spirit at UVA and VT. He wants a good balance of academics/social life.

Anonymous wrote:But no where have I said that W&M have unhappy alumni. I simply refuted the statement that because W&M is on the top of the list on alumni giving for public universities, that ergo they must have happy alumni. I pointed to factors such as W&M's size and wealth student population that leads it to have a high giving rate over other publics.

You refuted nothing. It is evidence of likely alumni satisfaction. If you had to bet your life on whether the school at the top of the alumni giving percentage list has higher alumni satisfaction or the school at the top of the alumni giving percentage list has higher alumni satisfaction, which would you pick? If you are being honest, I think you would pick the school at the top. Why? Because it is evidence of likely alumni satisfaction, and the vast majority of people would see it that way as well.

This is what USNWR says about it: Alumni giving rate average: The nonweighted mean percentage of undergraduate alumni of record who donated money to the college or university. The percentage of alumni giving serves as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school.

You can also find research that shows there is a correlation between satisfaction and giving rate. For instance, Ruffalo Noel Levitz, the firm that does graduate surveys for universities.

But no where have I said that W&M have unhappy alumni. I simply refuted the statement that because W&M is on the top of the list on alumni giving for public universities, that ergo they must have happy alumni. I pointed to factors such as W&M's size and wealth student population that leads it to have a high giving rate over other publics.

Anonymous wrote:Again, I have never compared W&M's giving rate to other private universities.

Since you are having a hard time with basic reading comprehension, here is the post I was originally responding to regarding W&M's giving rate compared to other public universities:

Perhaps the town or W&M isn't for everyone, but somehow W&M is in top 3 for graduation rate and is top for alumni giving rate among national public universities. Among all colleges, it is number 6 for happiest students in Princeton Review surveys.

I don't care how W&M compares to other private universities. My post was responding to W&M as it compares to other public universities.

Among institutional characteristics, the most significant in an analysis of over 200 universities was: Graduation rate; First year retention rate; % of students on campus (if you look at the list above, you can see many of these have a very high percentage of undergraduates housed on campus -- 94% in the case of Princeton); tuition price (positive correlation meaning higher price schools - typically private - have higher giving rates); student to faculty ratio (negative correlation); Full time student population (negative correlation).

All of these are characteristics that a small liberal arts college with a wealthy population has advantages over large universities with less wealthy populations.

1. Graduation rate: Schools like UC-Berkeley, U. Michigan, Georgia Tech, et. al. have lower graduation rate because a significant portion of the student population is in engineering, which can often take more than 4 years to complete compared to humanities.
2. % of students on campus: Another thing that small colleges have an advantage over large universities. Again, no way can a large public university like Berkeley, Michigan, et. al. house their entire student population on campus. They have 40,000 students.
3. tuition price: Another proxy for wealth of the student population. W&M has wealthier student population, it also has the highest tuition out of all public universities.
4. student to faculty ratio: Again, another proxy for size of the college.
5. Full time student population (negative correlation): Another proxy for both size and wealth of the student population. A lot of large publics have part-time students who work half the time while attending school, while wealthy student populations like W&M often don't have to work at all.

Again, everything you listed only further my heuristic that size of the college and wealth of the student population greatly affects alumni giving rate, more so than how much students enjoyed attending the college.

OK Bill, you've convinced me that it is truly a bad thing for W&M to be on the following list of USNWR national universities ranked in order of annual giving rate. And, since your heuristic is air tight, you are undoubtedly correct that the institutions on this list probably do not have satisfied alumni. They have unhappy alumni who for some reason willingly give to their detested alma maters:

Princeton, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, USC, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Penn, MIT, Duke, Harvard, Northwestern, Brown, Georgetown, William & Mary, Columbia, Stanford, Rice, Villanova, Yale, Caltech, Vanderbilt, Cornell

Furthermore, you have convinced me that I should always caveat my statements with a view to the fairness of said statements to schools like Berkeley and Michigan. For instance, if I were to say that William & Mary is the second oldest college in the U.S. after Harvard, I should be compelled to also say that Berkeley and Michigan might have been older than William & Mary if only they had been located in a colony or state that formed earlier.

Lastly, you have convinced me that there can only be one view of Williamsburg -- that of a boring cesspool that spawns unhappy W&M alumni who for some reason willingly give back to their detested alma mater. No other view can be acceptable. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder and variety is not the spice of life.

I hope this post provides evidence that my reading comprehension is showing slight signs of improvement.

Again, I have never compared W&M's giving rate to other private universities.

Since you are having a hard time with basic reading comprehension, here is the post I was originally responding to regarding W&M's giving rate compared to other public universities:

Perhaps the town or W&M isn't for everyone, but somehow W&M is in top 3 for graduation rate and is top for alumni giving rate among national public universities. Among all colleges, it is number 6 for happiest students in Princeton Review surveys.

I don't care how W&M compares to other private universities. My post was responding to W&M as it compares to other public universities.

Among institutional characteristics, the most significant in an analysis of over 200 universities was: Graduation rate; First year retention rate; % of students on campus (if you look at the list above, you can see many of these have a very high percentage of undergraduates housed on campus -- 94% in the case of Princeton); tuition price (positive correlation meaning higher price schools - typically private - have higher giving rates); student to faculty ratio (negative correlation); Full time student population (negative correlation).

All of these are characteristics that a small liberal arts college with a wealthy population has advantages over large universities with less wealthy populations.

1. Graduation rate: Schools like UC-Berkeley, U. Michigan, Georgia Tech, et. al. have lower graduation rate because a significant portion of the student population is in engineering, which can often take more than 4 years to complete compared to humanities.
2. % of students on campus: Another thing that small colleges have an advantage over large universities. Again, no way can a large public university like Berkeley, Michigan, et. al. house their entire student population on campus. They have 40,000 students.
3. tuition price: Another proxy for wealth of the student population. W&M has wealthier student population, it also has the highest tuition out of all public universities.
4. student to faculty ratio: Again, another proxy for size of the college.
5. Full time student population (negative correlation): Another proxy for both size and wealth of the student population. A lot of large publics have part-time students who work half the time while attending school, while wealthy student populations like W&M often don't have to work at all.

Again, everything you listed only further my heuristic that size of the college and wealth of the student population greatly affects alumni giving rate, more so than how much students enjoyed attending the college.

Anonymous wrote:Because W&M is small and has wealthy students. Comparing its giving rate to Michigan, Berkeley, UNC, etc. which are 3-5 times its size is not reasonable.

You are kind of like William Barr trying to intercept the Mueller report and put his spin on it before anyone else can read it and evaluate it for for themselves. I wrote the original statement, which is factually correct based on the information in USNWR. It just said W&M has the highest annual giving rate of all national public universities. To put it in a broader context, where people can form their own views of significance, here are USNWR national universities ranked in order by annual giving rate. People should take from it what they will:

Princeton, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, USC, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Penn, MIT, Duke, Harvard, Northwestern, Brown, Georgetown, William & Mary, Columbia, Stanford, Rice, Villanova, Yale, Caltech, Vanderbilt, Cornell

There is research out there on the predictors of alumni giving rates. Alumni satisfaction is correlated with giving rates, which is the reason why I cited it. Among institutional characteristics, the most significant in an analysis of over 200 universities was: Graduation rate; First year retention rate; % of students on campus (if you look at the list above, you can see many of these have a very high percentage of undergraduates housed on campus -- 94% in the case of Princeton); tuition price (positive correlation meaning higher price schools - typically private - have higher giving rates); student to faculty ratio (negative correlation); Full time student population (negative correlation).

So one of your points, full time student population was significant, but behind the variables listed before it.

There are other analyses on alumni characteristics. The most significant there appeared to be age, their income, two income family, and number of children (negative correlation).

I can't believe I've written this much on something that was about six words long.

Because W&M is small and has wealthy students. Comparing its giving rate to Michigan, Berkeley, UNC, etc. which are 3-5 times its size is not reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Columbia has a smaller undergraduate student population than UVA.
As I said, things that increase % of alumni donation when talking about W&M:
1. Undergrad student population size
2. Undergrad student population median family income/wealth

You are literally making my argument for me.

How does showing an example that violates one of your two arguments make your argument for you?

OK. Cornell has about the same undergraduate enrollment as UVA and has a lower median family income yet it has a higher alumni giving rate. That violates both of your rules.

Your factors may be valid, but I'm sure there are others. I suspect the most significant from a statistical standpoint is whether or not the school is private. The USNWR alumni giving list is dominated by private schools. W&M is public but still ranks pretty high. Why can't you give it a little credit for this one thing?

Cornell has lower undergraduate pop. than UVA.
Again, I have never compared W&M to privates.
The person I was responding to stated that W&M has the highest alumni giving of public universities. My statement was that that is highly due to the small undergrad student population and very high median income/wealth of the students' parents. This is really not a hard argument to understand and generally seems to hold.

Cornell's undergraduate population is 91% the size of UVA's. Cornell's median family income is 97% of that of UVA's median family income. Clearly similar. Cornell's alumni giving rate is 50% greater than UVA's alumni giving rate. In your statistical analysis, are you sure there are no other factors?

This is not a statistical analysis, it is only a heuristic. Cornell is private, perhaps that's another indication. I have a hard time believing Cornell undergrads have greater affection for their college than UVA undergrads though.

Privates tend to be small. But I think the bigger factor is being private (and selective). USC, a large private with 20K undergraduates has one of the highest giving rates.

That's fine, but the argument was about W&M being the topmost alumni giving among public universities.

It seemed relevant to me. Someone argued W&M having a high alumni giving rate was to be expected and not noteworthy because the school is relatively small, and small schools tend to have higher giving rate. The PP commented about causation and correlation. Private schools tend to have much higher giving rates and they tend to be small. Private is the cause, they were arguing and small was correlation. W&M is not private but still has a high giving rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Columbia has a smaller undergraduate student population than UVA.
As I said, things that increase % of alumni donation when talking about W&M:
1. Undergrad student population size
2. Undergrad student population median family income/wealth

You are literally making my argument for me.

How does showing an example that violates one of your two arguments make your argument for you?

OK. Cornell has about the same undergraduate enrollment as UVA and has a lower median family income yet it has a higher alumni giving rate. That violates both of your rules.

Your factors may be valid, but I'm sure there are others. I suspect the most significant from a statistical standpoint is whether or not the school is private. The USNWR alumni giving list is dominated by private schools. W&M is public but still ranks pretty high. Why can't you give it a little credit for this one thing?

Cornell has lower undergraduate pop. than UVA.
Again, I have never compared W&M to privates.
The person I was responding to stated that W&M has the highest alumni giving of public universities. My statement was that that is highly due to the small undergrad student population and very high median income/wealth of the students' parents. This is really not a hard argument to understand and generally seems to hold.

Cornell's undergraduate population is 91% the size of UVA's. Cornell's median family income is 97% of that of UVA's median family income. Clearly similar. Cornell's alumni giving rate is 50% greater than UVA's alumni giving rate. In your statistical analysis, are you sure there are no other factors?

This is not a statistical analysis, it is only a heuristic. Cornell is private, perhaps that's another indication. I have a hard time believing Cornell undergrads have greater affection for their college than UVA undergrads though.

Privates tend to be small. But I think the bigger factor is being private (and selective). USC, a large private with 20K undergraduates has one of the highest giving rates.

That's fine, but the argument was about W&M being the topmost alumni giving among public universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Columbia has a smaller undergraduate student population than UVA.
As I said, things that increase % of alumni donation when talking about W&M:
1. Undergrad student population size
2. Undergrad student population median family income/wealth

You are literally making my argument for me.

How does showing an example that violates one of your two arguments make your argument for you?

OK. Cornell has about the same undergraduate enrollment as UVA and has a lower median family income yet it has a higher alumni giving rate. That violates both of your rules.

Your factors may be valid, but I'm sure there are others. I suspect the most significant from a statistical standpoint is whether or not the school is private. The USNWR alumni giving list is dominated by private schools. W&M is public but still ranks pretty high. Why can't you give it a little credit for this one thing?

Cornell has lower undergraduate pop. than UVA.
Again, I have never compared W&M to privates.
The person I was responding to stated that W&M has the highest alumni giving of public universities. My statement was that that is highly due to the small undergrad student population and very high median income/wealth of the students' parents. This is really not a hard argument to understand and generally seems to hold.

Cornell's undergraduate population is 91% the size of UVA's. Cornell's median family income is 97% of that of UVA's median family income. Clearly similar. Cornell's alumni giving rate is 50% greater than UVA's alumni giving rate. In your statistical analysis, are you sure there are no other factors?

This is not a statistical analysis, it is only a heuristic. Cornell is private, perhaps that's another indication. I have a hard time believing Cornell undergrads have greater affection for their college than UVA undergrads though.

Privates tend to be small. But I think the bigger factor is being private (and selective). USC, a large private with 20K undergraduates has one of the highest giving rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Columbia has a smaller undergraduate student population than UVA.
As I said, things that increase % of alumni donation when talking about W&M:
1. Undergrad student population size
2. Undergrad student population median family income/wealth

You are literally making my argument for me.

How does showing an example that violates one of your two arguments make your argument for you?

OK. Cornell has about the same undergraduate enrollment as UVA and has a lower median family income yet it has a higher alumni giving rate. That violates both of your rules.

Your factors may be valid, but I'm sure there are others. I suspect the most significant from a statistical standpoint is whether or not the school is private. The USNWR alumni giving list is dominated by private schools. W&M is public but still ranks pretty high. Why can't you give it a little credit for this one thing?

Cornell has lower undergraduate pop. than UVA.
Again, I have never compared W&M to privates.
The person I was responding to stated that W&M has the highest alumni giving of public universities. My statement was that that is highly due to the small undergrad student population and very high median income/wealth of the students' parents. This is really not a hard argument to understand and generally seems to hold.

Cornell's undergraduate population is 91% the size of UVA's. Cornell's median family income is 97% of that of UVA's median family income. Clearly similar. Cornell's alumni giving rate is 50% greater than UVA's alumni giving rate. In your statistical analysis, are you sure there are no other factors?

This is not a statistical analysis, it is only a heuristic. Cornell is private, perhaps that's another indication. I have a hard time believing Cornell undergrads have greater affection for their college than UVA undergrads though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Columbia has a smaller undergraduate student population than UVA.
As I said, things that increase % of alumni donation when talking about W&M:
1. Undergrad student population size
2. Undergrad student population median family income/wealth

You are literally making my argument for me.

How does showing an example that violates one of your two arguments make your argument for you?

OK. Cornell has about the same undergraduate enrollment as UVA and has a lower median family income yet it has a higher alumni giving rate. That violates both of your rules.

Your factors may be valid, but I'm sure there are others. I suspect the most significant from a statistical standpoint is whether or not the school is private. The USNWR alumni giving list is dominated by private schools. W&M is public but still ranks pretty high. Why can't you give it a little credit for this one thing?

Cornell has lower undergraduate pop. than UVA.
Again, I have never compared W&M to privates.
The person I was responding to stated that W&M has the highest alumni giving of public universities. My statement was that that is highly due to the small undergrad student population and very high median income/wealth of the students' parents. This is really not a hard argument to understand and generally seems to hold.

Cornell's undergraduate population is 91% the size of UVA's. Cornell's median family income is 97% of that of UVA's median family income. Clearly similar. Cornell's alumni giving rate is 50% greater than UVA's alumni giving rate. In your statistical analysis, are you sure there are no other factors?