OT - Columbia raises $6.1 billion

[J187Money]

Wow. In my inbox today.

Dear fellow members of the Columbia community: I am writing to mark the end of The Columbia Campaign, which we announced in September 2006 and concluded on December 31, 2013. This is truly an instance where the number speaks for itself: the final total was more than $6.1 billion, representing the largest sum raised by a single fundraising campaign in Ivy League history and the second largest ever raised by any university. Of three things we can be certain. This record will be broken – indeed, by Columbia in our next campaign! We will not for a moment pause in the effort to supplement the University's financial foundation, which is the eternal spring that feeds the creativity of our extraordinary students and unmatched faculty. And we will not waiver in strengthening the sense of a devoted Columbia community sharing a common future, which was notably enhanced during the Campaign by the growth and development of the new Columbia Alumni Association (CAA), working in partnership with all of Columbia's schools. Even the bare statistics underlying the Campaign total are amazing and should give us heart for Columbia's future: more than $1 billion has been raised for student financial aid across our schools. Close to $1 billion in capital funding has been dedicated to 40 different facilities projects, which will make their presence felt on the Morningside campus, at the Medical Center, at our Baker Athletics Complex, at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and, most significantly, on our new 17-acre campus in West Harlem, in an area by the Hudson River known as Manhattanville. More than 260 endowed professorships will enhance Columbia's world-class faculty. All this and more, remarkably, has been made possible by Columbia supporters residing in 141 countries, with 128,000 new donors. This vast personal engagement with the institution and commitment of resources is nothing less than extraordinary, and, so too, is the institution's renewed capacity for Columbia to help society overcome the fateful challenges in the century ahead. The education of each new generation is our collective responsibility, as is the search for new knowledge that will redound to the betterment of humankind and the natural world. These undertakings are both precious and priceless, and together constitute the fundamental reason why Columbia University has now endured for 260 years and – I have not the slightest doubt – will continue to be one of a handful of leading academic institutions for centuries to come. But, in that arc of institutional history, this particular moment should be hailed as the milestone it is, and as the achievement of more than 200,000 donors and volunteers who have given so generously of both their resources and their energies to make this possible. With all of you, we share our most sincere and deepest thanks and a sense of heightened possibilities as we begin to write Columbia's next chapter. Sincerely, Lee C. Bollinger

 

[BlueDogs]

..and tuition will increase... At 5% on the principal that's 300 Million. That's 30,000 a year for 10, 000 students. Yale is even worse with a 20 billion endowment. It's obscene and morally bankrupt what these schools get away with. The campaigns line the pockets of administrators and professors.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I guess cocaine is legal down there now? Look at all the tax benefits.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

..and tuition will increase... At 5% on the principal that's 300 Million. That's 30,000 a year for 10, 000 students. Yale is even worse with a 20 billion endowment. It's obscene and morally bankrupt what these schools get away with. The campaigns line the pockets of administrators and professors.

That's BS. Academia is a competitive atmosphere for top professors. You're competing against other top universities and the private sector. If they didn't have the top quality professors, then they wouldn't be Columbia and able to raise that much money. I hated when students whined about this while I was at UConn. If they wanted a cheaper school, where less money was going to the professors and to build up the university, they should have gone to one of the other less respected state universities.

 

[J187Money]

Just shows we have a long way to go.

BTW when they call me I tell them that I give to UCONN (and SCSU) because they NEED the money more than Columbia does.

 

[jbdphi]

Just shows we have a long way to go.

BTW when they call me I tell them that I give to UCONN (and SCSU) because they NEED the money more than Columbia does.

Funny, I just got the same e-mail and thought the same thing in comparison to UConn. I'm not a UConn grad but I can certainly say that Columbia (I'm a b-school grad) is constantly on me to donate more. Every single year not only do they send me mailings requesting donations but they also have someone call me in person (before I moved overseas).

And BlueDogs, not shocking at all that once again I completely disagree with your take. How is it obscene that all of this money is privately donated? You are aware that all of the Ivies are moving towards need-based tuition charging, right?

http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/college-planning/low-income-ivy-league.htm

 

[CTMike]

A staggering sum of money.

 

[noeynox]

Funny, I just got the same e-mail and thought the same thing in comparison to UConn. I'm not a UConn grad but I can certainly say that Columbia (I'm a b-school grad) is constantly on me to donate more. Every single year not only do they send me mailings requesting donations but they also have someone call me in person (before I moved overseas).

And BlueDogs, not shocking at all that once again I completely disagree with your take. How is it obscene that all of this money is privately donated? You are aware that all of the Ivies are moving towards need-based tuition charging, right?

http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/college-planning/low-income-ivy-league.htm

A coworker of mine at the time was sending his kid to Dartmouth and they were already doing it back around 2003-04.

 

[Chuck]

That's BS. Academia is a competitive atmosphere for top professors. You're competing against other top universities and the private sector. If they didn't have the top quality professors, then they wouldn't be Columbia and able to raise that much money. I hated when students whined about this while I was at UConn. If they wanted a cheaper school, where less money was going to the professors and to build up the university, they should have gone to one of the other less respected state universities.

I don't think that's really true. Becoming a professor is super competitive. I have friends and family that have ridiculous academic credentials. Only one is a tenure track professor at what you would consider a top school. Some of them make good money, but their salaries have not gone up nearly as much as tuition has. Not even close. Also, there was an article in the NY Times last week about adjunct professors. Most schools use them, especially for night classes, and they make almost nothing.

School should be cheaper. I agree that there should be more "trade school" or "training school" options that may have less skilled/lower paid professors. That can be a way to shave a couple thousand off tuition, but I think schools should be much cheaper than that and paying better professors isn't the reason they are expensive. No, college tuition has skyrocketed because the government made student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. This allows loans to be made without any real risk analysis, which in turn allows schools to keep raising prices. In my opinion, making loans harder to get (not impossible) will not keep kids from being able to get to college (the poorest kids will have other avenues to get money), it'll make tuition become more competitive. Middle class kids will still come out of college with debt, but hopefully much less.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I don't think that's really true. Becoming a professor is super competitive. I have friends and family that have ridiculous academic credentials. Only one is a tenure track professor at what you would consider a top school. Some of them make good money, but their salaries have not gone up nearly as much as tuition has. Not even close. Also, there was an article in the NY Times last week about adjunct professors. Most schools use them, especially for night classes, and they make almost nothing.

School should be cheaper. I agree that there should be more "trade school" or "training school" options that may have less skilled/lower paid professors. That can be a way to shave a couple thousand off tuition, but I think schools should be much cheaper than that and paying better professors isn't the reason they are expensive. No, college tuition has skyrocketed because the government made student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. This allows loans to be made without any real risk analysis, which in turn allows schools to keep raising prices. In my opinion, making loans harder to get (not impossible) will not keep kids from being able to get to college (the poorest kids will have other avenues to get money), it'll make tuition become more competitive. Middle class kids will still come out of college with debt, but hopefully much less.

We're talking totally different levels of schools more than likely. As an example, my brother is a grad student at Columbia right now and one of his classes is being taught by the deputy director of the CIA, who is on sabbatical to teach. I guarantee that doesn't come cheap. The top business and engineering professors make a very hefty salary because the top schools have to compete with the private sector (a number of my accounting professors at UConn were making north of $200K annually). If you're a liberal arts prof, you're probably not making as much because there's not much private sector competition. But I assure you, schools like Columbia have some VERY well-respected professors and need to pay top dollar to get them.

 

[J187Money]

We're talking totally different levels of schools more than likely. As an example, my brother is a grad student at Columbia right now and one of his classes is being taught by the deputy director of the CIA, who is on sabbatical to teach. I guarantee that doesn't come cheap. The top business and engineering professors make a very hefty salary because the top schools have to compete with the private sector (a number of my accounting professors at UConn were making north of $200K annually). If you're a liberal arts prof, you're probably not making as much because there's not much private sector competition. But I assure you, schools like Columbia have some VERY well-respected professors and need to pay top dollar to get them.

Yes, and my Equity Markets class at Columbia (EMBA) was taught by an ex-Goldman partner that I used to support when I was there. No way he comes cheap. But 2003, the EMBA program cost $115K for 2 years. And they were entering 3 groups a year at ~150/group. So in any given year there are 900 people in the program with $52M of tuition per year. Nowhere near that sum of money goes to the profs.

 

[NYCHusky]

We're talking totally different levels of schools more than likely. As an example, my brother is a grad student at Columbia right now and one of his classes is being taught by the deputy director of the CIA, who is on sabbatical to teach. I guarantee that doesn't come cheap. The top business and engineering professors make a very hefty salary because the top schools have to compete with the private sector (a number of my accounting professors at UConn were making north of $200K annually). If you're a liberal arts prof, you're probably not making as much because there's not much private sector competition. But I assure you, schools like Columbia have some VERY well-respected professors and need to pay top dollar to get them.

In some ways this doesn't really make sense and is one of the issues with the university system. Just because someone may be successful in the private sector, doesn't give them the ability to teach. Some of the worst professors I ever had (in both undergrad and later on when going for an MBA), were those with multiple degrees that were "name" professors. They lacked fundamental teaching skills and were in many ways arrogant.

 

[Chuck]

We're talking totally different levels of schools more than likely. As an example, my brother is a grad student at Columbia right now and one of his classes is being taught by the deputy director of the CIA, who is on sabbatical to teach. I guarantee that doesn't come cheap. The top business and engineering professors make a very hefty salary because the top schools have to compete with the private sector (a number of my accounting professors at UConn were making north of $200K annually). If you're a liberal arts prof, you're probably not making as much because there's not much private sector competition. But I assure you, schools like Columbia have some VERY well-respected professors and need to pay top dollar to get them.

I don't disagree, but I don't think those professors make as much as you think. The average tenure track professor makes a bit over $200k at Columbia. Remember that they still get paid for publications, speaking, etc. Either way $1 million here, and $1 million there shouldn't result in the tuition charged by most schools.

I do think Columbia/Harvard/Yale type schools SHOULD be more than mediocre schools and I know I'm getting sidetracked because the OP was about Columbia. Just pissed about how much I'm going to be paying for my twins in 11 years!

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yeah.....well, Columbia football is awful.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

In some ways this doesn't really make sense and is one of the issues with the university system. Just because someone may be successful in the private sector, doesn't give them the ability to teach. Some of the worst professors I ever had (in both undergrad and later on when going for an MBA), were those with multiple degrees that were "name" professors. They lacked fundamental teaching skills and were in many ways arrogant.

Well I don't disagree with that. There were some I had who were definitely awful. That being said, the two best professors I had at UConn (one was a management professor and one was an accounting professor) were both very successful private sector people and that real-life experience combined with the ability to teach put them WAY ahead of the pure academia accounting professors, who were there to do accounting research.

 

[NYCHusky]

Well I don't disagree with that. There were some I had who were definitely awful. That being said, the two best professors I had at UConn (one was a management professor and one was an accounting professor) were both very successful private sector people and that real-life experience combined with the ability to teach put them WAY ahead of the pure academia accounting professors, who were there to do accounting research.

I happen to agree with that too. It works both ways, someone very successful from the private sector may not have the ability to teach, while a professor with 5 degrees that specializes in research may not be able to teach either. Not even really sure what the answer is, but with the skyrocketing cost of tuition there has to be a better way to evaluate professors that isn't tied to the research they do.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I don't disagree, but I don't think those professors make as much as you think. The average tenure track professor makes a bit over $200k at Columbia. Remember that they still get paid for publications, speaking, etc. Either way $1 million here, and $1 million there shouldn't result in the tuition charged by most schools.

I do think Columbia/Harvard/Yale type schools SHOULD be more than mediocre schools and I know I'm getting sidetracked because the OP was about Columbia. Just pissed about how much I'm going to be paying for my twins in 11 years!

I don't think they're pulling in millions a year, but top guys make a decent salary. But regardless, it's not just $1 million here and there for salary. These schools are essentially like running a small town. There's a lot of expenses beyond just professor salary. Walk around Columbia for a bit and then walk around WCSU for a bit and where all that extra money goes becomes very apparent. One looks like an old high school in a lot of places and the other has absolutely gorgeous buildings. Again, it's a value proposition and if someone doesn't agree with where that money goes, they have plenty of other options.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Yes, and my Equity Markets class at Columbia (EMBA) was taught by an ex-Goldman partner that I used to support when I was there. No way he comes cheap. But 2003, the EMBA program cost $115K for 2 years. And they were entering 3 groups a year at ~150/group. So in any given year there are 900 people in the program with $52M of tuition per year. Nowhere near that sum of money goes to the profs.

So how much is the average actually paid in that program? With need and merit-based financial aid, I would be shocked if it was actually $115k. And no I'm never claiming that it is but these schools need to get the best of everything to keep their reputation. Best professors, best facilities, etc. Running, improving, and upkeeping a campus like Columbia's costs a lot of money, which I'm sure I don't need to explain to you since you went there. The expenses never stop for these big places, but if anyone doesn't agree with paying that much, there are numerous other cheaper options out there.

 

[J187Money]

So how much is the average actually paid in that program? With need and merit-based financial aid, I would be shocked if it was actually $115k. And no I'm never claiming that it is but these schools need to get the best of everything to keep their reputation. Best professors, best facilities, etc. Running, improving, and upkeeping a campus like Columbia's costs a lot of money, which I'm sure I don't need to explain to you since you went there. The expenses never stop for these big places, but if anyone doesn't agree with paying that much, there are numerous other cheaper options out there.

In the EMBA program, you need to get sponsored by your employer. In most cases, the employer pays (and you generally get forced into signing an agreement that you will stay at your company X years after graduation). You need the sponsorship because you will be out of the office every other Friday/Saturday to attend classes and there are 2-3 weeks that you need to attend as well. There might be some aid here and there but based on the people that are in that program the vast majority of that money is coughed up by employers or students. The regular full-time MBA program is also going at the same time and I have no idea how many students are in that program at any given time.

 

[J187Money]

Current fees for new EMBA students: $168K

http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/programs-admissions/executive-mba/tuition/overview

 

[WhereistheDove?]

In the EMBA program, you need to get sponsored by your employer. In most cases, the employer pays (and you generally get forced into signing an agreement that you will stay at your company X years after graduation). You need the sponsorship because you will be out of the office every other Friday/Saturday to attend classes and there are 2-3 weeks that you need to attend as well. There might be some aid here and there but based on the people that are in that program the vast majority of that money is coughed up by employers or students. The regular full-time MBA program is also going at the same time and I have no idea how many students are in that program at any given time.

Ahh, well in that case ring wring those employers for everything they've got. But regardless, these schools are like an arms race. People would protest at UConn over a 3% tuition increase but then complain about the aging classrooms, student rec facility, etc. To keep everything from academics to student life competitive, it costs a fortune. The better the school, the more it ends up costing.

 

[FDNY99]

Columbia pretty much owns except for the Dinosaur BBQ and Fairway Market from 125th Street to 135th St Broadway to the river.

 

[upstater]

This report doesn't break down actual donations and research grants funding, labs, etc. I'm always a little suspicious when I see this. Tex A&M put out a similar PR piece last month. Most of their "donations" were research grants.

Just a few facts for people to chew on:

In 1991, the state of Cali. subsidized UC-Berkeley in the amount of $16,350 per student.
In 2011, the state of Cali. subsidized UC-Berkeley in the amount of $9,875 per student.

From 1991 to 2011, tuition at UC-Berkeley increased around $600%. It went from $2,350 to $11,500.

In 1991, the budget for UC-Berkeley was $1.275 billion.
In 2011, the budget for UC-Berkeley was $1.67 billion.

Changes over that 20 year stretch include:

1. Higher health insurance costs for employees
2. The rapidly increased use of contingent (i.e. part-time) faculty.
3. A buildout of tech facilities and wiring for the internet.
4. New buildings for campus life.
5. More administrators earning higher salaries (perversely, the drive for more administrators comes from increased emphasis on efficiency, Six Sigma, metrics, assessments, etc.)
6. Bigger sports budgets with more money supporting sports from the academic side.
7. Much bigger classes, faculty responsibilities (as a result of the drop in the number of full-time faculty)

Chancellor Mark Yudof at the incoming freshman orientation of 2011 at UC-Berkeley began his speech by telling them, "If you finish your degree here, you will have paid so much more for your education than the generation before you, and you will receive so much less for your money."

 

[UConn9604]

In 1991, the budget for UC-Berkeley was $1.275 billion.
In 2011, the budget for UC-Berkeley was $1.67 billion.

How did they manage this? That's a 31.0% increase over 20 years. From 1991 to 2011, inflation was 62.61% and the CPI was 65.15%, or about twice the budget increase.

There must be something else that was pulled out of the Berkeley budget or reassigned somewhere else.

 

[upstater]

How did they manage this? That's a 31.0% increase over 20 years. From 1991 to 2011, inflation was 62.61% and the CPI was 65.15%, or about twice the budget increase.

There must be something else that was pulled out of the Berkeley budget or reassigned somewhere else.

Under George W. Bush, the government looked into the rapid increase in tuition with a commission back in 2002. The commission was composed of bipartisan congressmen, business people, academics. They conducted a thorough investigation that took years and determined that there was actually a high degree of efficiency. It might not look like that on the outside.

Here are a few factors in how expenditures have been kept down:

1. Nationally, the number of full-time faculty has dropped from 75% a generation ago to under 30% today.
2. The number of students admitted to the U. Cal. system hasn't risen in ages.
3. Even though administrator pay has increased rapidly over the last two decades, by huge percentages actually, it is still below 1% of the total budget of universities nationally.

The lower subsidy from the state removed hundreds of millions in revenues. So, they kept costs down because they had to. You're looking at a slight increase in expenditures precisely because hundreds of millions in subsidy were cut. Raising tuition was an answer to stop some of the bleeding. But not all. The rest was increased worker responsibilities and lower pay (not for full-time faculty) for faculty. Pay for full-time faculty has tracked inflation over the years with often automatic 3% increases per union contracts. Since 2008, almost every school I know has not given any automatic increases in new contracts.