Corbett

The differences shown above are not huge, and I'm not convinced that they are particularly accurate or meaningful. But if it's true that Swarthmore's giving rate is slightly lower than those of some other top LACs, then I would speculate that the reason might have something to do with athletics. This may sound crazy, but there is a theory that athletic success builds school spirit and is a point of alumni pride.

For comparison, Williams, Amherst, and Middlebury are usually among the Top 10 Division III athletic programs (as per the NACDA rankings); Bowdoin usually makes the Top 20; and Davidson actually competes at the NCAA Division I level. The few universities with comparable giving rates are Princeton, Dartmouth, Duke, and Notre Dame, all of which are known for high levels of athletic interest and/or participation. I admit that Carleton seems like an exception.

Swarthmore, on the other hand, is not particularly noted for strong athletics; it doesn't even have a football team (neither does Haverford, or of course Wellesley). It wouldn't surprise me if the greater emphasis on athletics at the other schools listed above gives them a little extra edge in terms of alumni support.

So Swarthmore may not compete well in this respect. But realistically, I don't think anyone goes to Swarthmore with the expectation that it's a "jock school".

A.E.

Wait, weren't you the person who first introduced alumni giving rate as a metric for student satisfaction? Yes, you were:

Now you're arguing with yourself? That's very Swarthmore, if nothing else.

Anyway, if you don't think a difference of, say, 10%, such as between Amherst and Swarthmore is significant or meaningful, what is? Swarthmore's alumni population is just under 20,000 and, given the size of Amherst's student enrollment, its is probably around 24,000. That means around 10,200 Swarthmore alumni are giving to Swarthmore while 14,640 Amherst alumni are giving to Amherst. If Amherst had Swarthmore's alumni population, then it would have 12,200 alumni giving. That's quite a gap, an increase of 19.6%.

I realize there's more speculation than hard fact being thrown around here, but your casual dismissal of these numbers or attribution of them to "school spirit" (The Swarthmoreans I know wouldn't have more school spirit if they had more sports teams to not watch, not play on, and not care about) is mysterious to me.

Corbett

The metrics used by US News are meaningful, but not to a hair-splitting extent. Yes, I believe that alumni giving rate does have some relationship to alumni satisfaction -- but no, I'm not too excited about the difference between a school that is ranked #2 (Amherst) vs. a school that is "only" ranked #9 (Swarthmore). Given that there are 248 National LACs, both schools rank above the 95th percentile overall, and so I regard both schools as excellent as far as this particular metric goes.

Over on the National University side, the "alumni giving" rate gap is even larger (14 points) between #2 Duke and #9 Stanford. Is this really a difference that you would be concerned about if you happened to be choosing between these two (fine) schools ?

Yes, that's the point. The schools with the highest alumni giving rates tend to be those with lots of interest/participation in sports and spirited, pep-rally attitudes towards their alma maters.

And I simply don't think Swarthmore attracts that kind of personality (in fact, you seem to be a case in point). This may not help the school in terms of fund-raising (think of the annual fundraising campaign as a kind of pep rally), but may make it a more interesting place in other ways.

A.E.

There are a lot of reasons to compare the school to its peer group when using this metric to assess student satisfaction. The main reason, in this case, has to do with the affluence of the typical graduate. Swarthmore graduates are probably more affluent than graduates from lower tier schools, for myriad reasons. This translates to an ability (although maybe not willingness) to contribute to the school that is not present at lower tier schools.

Maybe it is something a potential matriculant should consider. Duke and Stanford both have a lot of "school spirit" and top-flight athletic programs. Why is Duke's alumni giving rate so much higher? I think there could be an enlightening answer to that question, much as there is to the question of why Amherst or Carleton has substantially higher rate of alumni giving than Swarthmore.

This could contribute to Swarthmore's reduced rate of alumni giving. When I was 16, one of the reasons I decided I wanted to go to Swarthmore was that, at the time, I did eschew such things as branding, elitist labels, and school spirit, as I was more interested in the academic core of an institution and what it could teach me, and Swarthmore seemed to be less concerned with those things I disliked than other elite schools such as the Ivies or even many of the other top LACs. What can I say... I was 16, and I thought this was somehow important. Anyhow, if other people like me chose Swarthmore with similar criteria in mind, then perhaps they, too, would be like me in feeling no desire to contribute to the school once we left. But, I don't think this effect is strong enough to account for the full difference we see between the top schools and Swarthmore in alumni giving, and that a higher level of student dissatisfaction at Swarthmore as compared to the others is at work, because a Swarthmore student and an Amherst student or Carleton student aren't that different. The degree of such may not be as much as the figures cited in the first post of this thread suggest, but there is likely a non-negligible gap.

interesteddad

I tried to answer this question a while back: the primary cause of small differences in alumni giving can be attributed to the amount of time, money, and effort invested in alumni fundraising. Some colleges invest enormous resources into calling every living alumni over and over and over until a donation is received on the spot over the phone, even if it's five bucks just to bump the participation rate for USNEWS rankings.

Swarthmore is more laid back in its fundraising. Although I must admit, they are getting pretty slick....assigning my kid's friends (whom I know) to call here for the Parents Fund. How do you say no to that?

interesteddad

AE:

Again. Since you seem to pushing the notion of a "higher level of student dissatisfaction at Swarthmore", why don't you call Institutional Research and see where Swat falls on that measurement relative to the entire universe of COFHE schools? You keep making an argument for which you have no valid basis.

A.E.

The difference between 51% and 64% is not small.

No, they aren't. They hassle me incessantly with paper mail and they won't stop. I don't equate a constant influx of letters with "laid back," and the only reason they don't call me, I'm sure, is that they don't have my phone number. They still call my parents, though.

For one, the "entire universe" of COFHE schools doesn't even include all of the schools in my opening post. I would like to compare Swarthmore to those schools, because those are its closest peers. Secondly, I'd rather get my data from a more neutral source than Swarthmore's office of Institutional Research, and I'd rather get something that's free, not for pay or for members only. Technically, I don't even know if Institutional Research should be giving that data out.

swatparent

I have heard that more students at Swarthmore go into public interest fields or nonprofits and may just not have the money for giving. And their techniques for rasing money are very mild. My good friend who graduated from a large Ivy is hounded constantly for money, and basically they don't give up until he does give it up for them.

Some large football schools also prioritize football tickets for contributors. They also have deals for individual football tickets if you contribute. And there are indirect donations given to the school via sports tickets. Football is very important for some people. I am personally very happy that Swarthmore has no football, for several reasons.

If Swarthmore wants to increase their alumni contributions then they will have to change their approach. Any suggestions?

Also, the fact that Swat's endowment per student is so large may make alums think that the college doesn't need the money.

interesteddad

Link to just completed COFHE Parents Survey at Swarthmore (58% of Swat Parents participated).

http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/..._fall07_2w.pdf

A.E.

I wonder if there is any data available comparing the recruitment efforts and expenditures of the schools listed in the OP. If so, we could see if Amherst, for instance, really does spend 10% more time and money to get 10% more of its alumni to give than Swarthmore does.

Amherst's endowment per student is 97.6% that of Swarthmore's. Swarthmore's alumni giving rate is 83.6% that of Amherst's.

jrpar

ID, I'm going to weigh in on the "some colleges invest enormous resources into calling every living alumni over and over and over until a donation is received on the spot over the phone, even if it's five bucks just to bump the participation rate for USNEWS rankings".

It's not Williams investing resources here - it's some very enthusiastic alumni in your class that are doing this. Your class is particularly well known for this - and it's no accident that year after year your class has one of the highest % of alumni giving among all Wms alumni. (If it drives you nuts you could ask them to stop calling so often, they'll probably listen)

interesteddad

It doesn't really drive me nuts. Hey, it works. Usually. It's kind of running joke, actually. "It's about time for XXXXX to start calling!"

They figured out how to game the percentages with my wife and I years ago. Any gift, from either of us, is automatically split between the two class years, thus increasing everyone's percentages across the board. Higher for the school. Higher for the two classes in competition. And, so forth.

I think this might have been first year they struck out with both of us. My wife thinks any school that will tear down a library built since she was there just because it's ugly doesn't need the money. For me, Mary Jane Hitler was the last straw.

interesteddad

The current alumni giving rate at Swarthmore (fiscal year 2006-07) is 59.2%

http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/...n/ir/Gifts.pdf

The 51% figure USNEWS reports is five or six years old. I have no idea where they got that number. It's not reported on the Common Data Set.

One other point, whenever you see Duke at the top of a category, keep in mind that most USNEWS categories can be are and are gamed by certain schools. The LACs I've looked at, including Swarthmore/Williams/Amherst, appear to be scrupulously honest in their reporting. But, all a university has to do to boost their alumni giving percentages is "lose" the addresses of alumni who refuse to give. Just like they "lose" the SAT scores of basketball recruits. Not calling out Duke or anything, but I always take Duke's "stats" with a big grain of salt.

Forgetmenots

Just so you know, you can contact the alumni fund at any time to ask them to stop sending you things. They really are very chill about that - if they DO contact you and you want them to quit contacting you, they will gladly remove you from their list, you just have to let them know instead of voicing it here. They don't like to contact people who obviously don't want to be contacted. It's not such a waste of time or energy though, since students are given paid positions to do a lot of things with the alumni fund, and the work-study opportunities like those are highly important to me and others.

And yes, as ID has provided a link for, our alumni giving rate is definitely much higher than 51% - this year it'll be closer to 61%. Maybe all the other schools rates have also increased, but Swat's known for having very high rates of alums donating. :]

interesteddad

forgetmenots:

What a delicious irony. By dropping A.E. from the mailing list, Swarthmore would increase its alumni giving rate and improve its alumni satisfaction ranking in the USNEWS ratings.

Now, that's a win/win.