<p>Phuriku:</p>
<p>Thanks for the analysis. I’ve been doing a bit more research on the issue of university fundraising, and, for the reasons I’ll present below, I don’t share your optimism for UChicago’s fundraising growth, at least in the next ~10 years or so. </p>
<p>In looking at the schools that boast the best fundraising numbers (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT, Hopkins, Columbia, etc.) all of these schools illustrate one fact: fundraising success is generally linked to strength and goals for a schools science/medical initiatives. </p>
<p>Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, MIT, and Penn, for example, have a number of key programs (each schools medical facilities and plant, major research labs, comp sci, engineering) that probably attract a tremendous amount of fundraising activity. For example, in 2009, Hopkins raised $3.7B, and a great deal of the funds raised went into the school’s medical facilities. You can read about Hopkins’ fundraising efforts for its last campaign here:</p>
<p>[Johns</a> Hopkins Capital Campaign Raises Near-Record $3.7 Billion | PND | Foundation Center](<a href=“http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=242200011]Johns”>http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=242200011)</p>
<p>Similarly, Yale is currently investing a tremendous amount in elevating its science facilities and medical plant, and this probably correlates to where a lot of the funds are raised and directed. As Princeton doesn’t have nearly the same range of facilities and schools (no medical school or hospital, for example), its fundraising totals lag behind Yale’s.</p>
<p>What these numbers tell me, then, is what we generally already know: UChicago’s science/medical offerings and initiatives are not nearly as expansive or reputable as those at its peer schools. UChicago has no engineering program, has a middling, extremely theoretical computer science program, and fundraising for the UChicago medical system lags extremely far behind the facilities and systems found at Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, and Duke. </p>
<p>I love UChicago, but for the areas that probably attract the most funds from foundations, corporations, etc., the school isn’t quite in the first tier. As another example of this, if you look at NIH funding, UChicago significantly trails Harvard, Hopkins, etc. Last year, UChicago received $300M in NIH funding, and Harvard received $1.7B, and Hopkins received about $500M. </p>
<p>So, Phuriku, I think that UChicago’s fundraising will improve in the years ahead, and some capital campaigns will cause a spike during the especially good years. Year in and year out, though, as UChicago’s medical/science facilities don’t have the reputation, stature, or expansiveness of some of its peers, I think it will still lag in this key area of fundraising effort. I’m not sure how UChicago can make up ground here, as its unlikely that these other schools will falter in their investment or attention to these key areas. </p>
<p>Changing admissions statistics and improving US News numbers is one (more manageable) thing, but drawing a larger share of the limited number of dollars available for university giving is another thing entirely, especially as the competition for these dollars grows ever more intense. </p>
<p>As an example, to really get in the ballpark of these other schools, UChicago’s giving would need to increase about 80-100% over the next 10 years, and all the other schools would have to stay about the same. I’m doubtful such a trend will occur.</p>