I understand one’s wish to give back to their alma mater to show gratitude and support but if charity is the real reason then instead of giving money to wealthy colleges with billions in endowments, why not give it to cash-strapped struggling institutions?
Many who give back to their alma mater do so because without those big endowments they would not have been able to attend, so they want to pay it forward to help another kid like them have that chance.
Also, as with other donations, sometime people decide that they have chosen the place best able to use the donation for particular purpose, without needing to “reinvent the wheel”.
I don’t think it appropriate to tell others how to spend their hard earned money. Just as I don’t judge people who attend colleges with the support of financial aid.
The admissions process is a fine balance that while not perfect it is fair. Not everyone that gets admitted to elite schools is a Legacy or URM in spite of attempts to portray it as such and in all cases they are deserving based on relative merit.
Lastly parents have a long time to prepare for college expenses. At a minimum 17 years. I always find it interesting when people retrospectively complain that they were wronged by The system because they are middle class and unprepared.
Everyone faces challenges that are unique to them. Displacing personal disappointment at the expense of others is simply wrong.
Read the history of Rowan college in NJ to find a story of a philanthropist who did just that. Its a great story.
My D received very generous need-based aid at her highly-ranked LAC. She is an active alum now and hopes to “pay it forward” with donations because attending this school was truly a life-changing experience for her.
Why is the institution struggling? Is it because their budget is way out of whack and their administrators can’t manage their finances? I don’t like giving to institutions with subpar financial controls. Is it because they continuously miscalculate yield or can’t drum up enough students to fill the seats? I don’t like giving to institutions which can’t manage a core function. Is it because their academic offerings are weak and so students prefer to go somewhere with higher standards? Why give to a mediocre institution when I can give to a high performing one?
Do you like to contribute to the museum in your town which has lost valuable works due to poor temperature control and insect infestation and vermin in storage areas, or do you like to contribute to the more successful museum a few towns over which can preserve its works responsibly for the future?
I’ve struggled with this, myself. I got my doctorate from a university with an endowment above well above $10 billion. Each year I send in a small donation, but I earmark it for their graduate fellowship fund, since that’s part of what funded my way through grad school.
But then I also give a larger amount each year to the community college where I started out (and that has less than $20 million in permanent endowment money)—and I put that one in their unrestricted endowment fund.
And if I’d gone to wealthy colleges all the way along? I’d probably put a chunk of money into whatever open-access college I live nearest.
People donate for many different reasons. My H and I make our college donations to specific programs that were meaningful when we attended our respective colleges – while the money we donate won’t make a dent in the coffers of our alma maters, it is our way of giving a little something back to schools/programs that made a difference in our lives. We also donate money as well as our time to other charitable causes that are meaningful to us and our family.
It is up to each individual to do what he/she sees fit. I would never presume to tell anyone what cause to donate to.
We donate to our colleges because they helped us get our degrees, and have good careers.
I was a student who got significant financial aid…so I appreciated those who donated before me…so I could benefit. I haven’t missed a year since I graduated, and I don’t intend to.
I get the dilemma.
Earmarking a donation to a specific cause usually doesn’t get them any more than they would if there were no donations. It’s similar to the United Way. If you designate the $10 you give to the Girl Scouts, the GS will only get an extra $10 if so many of the donors designated the GS as the recipient, and the GS need to get more than they were already scheduled to get. If the United Way budget had $5000 going to the girl scouts and 10 people designated $20 to the GS, the GS would get $5000, not $5200. If 100 people designated $100 to the GS, the GS would get $10k, and some other group would get less. If you want the GS to get your money, give it directly to the GS and not to the United Way.
I really like how my D’s school gives out Alum scholarships. An alum donates a specific amount (usually into a trust and the income from the trust is used each year), the FA office awards a specific amount to a student, and the student writes a thank you note to that Alum. If an Alum gives a $500 gift to be used for scholarships, some student gets that $500. If the alum wants it to go to a teacher or nurse, the alum can restrict it to that program.
Very easy explanation why. College endowments can’t stay stagnant. They have to grow in order to be able to buy the same bucket of goods and services and to anticipate needs that aren’t even on the horizon. Capital appreciation can’t be expected to do all the work.
I contribute a little to my UG and grad school, and son’s UG. Never received financial,aid.im just adding to statistic.
As a parent, I just made a contribution to my son’s wealthy college for two reasons: 1) without the very generous FA offer by the college, I wouldn’t have been able to send my son there, and 2) my contribution $$ helps them increase their FA for those students who are needier than us.
@CupCakeMuffins I am one who won’t donate to my wealthy alma mater. Their endowment per student is obscene and they don’t need my money. I would rather give my funds to schools that need it - and contrary to many opinions above I know of many well-run schools that aren’t obscenely wealthy. Many of them support a much higher percentage of low-income students than the top endowed colleges and I am all for that. I don’t judge people who bring “coals to Newcastle” with their giving, but that’s not my idea of putting my donations to good use.
Y’all are doing awesome by contributing as much as you can to your colleges and I admire the motives but I’m talking about mega donors. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet etc can also focus their philanthropy on their families, colleges and towns but they choose to look beyond their personal sphere. For example, similar amount of money can raise a lot more people through Khan Academy than through Harvard, it can do more at Doctors Without Borders or UNICEF than Mount Sinai Health System.
I am in the camp that if you have mega bucks, why not donate them to make a big difference. That big contribution to Harvard won’t change the world, probably won’t even change Harvard. That same contribution toward vaccinating people in third world countries could eradicate a disease and change the world. I always say that if I ever won the big lottery, I would say in my interviews ,Bill Gates call me up and help me use this money wisely!
Obviously, no one should tell other person how to spend their money but it may help to start initiatives to adopt a poor public school, nursing home or hospital initiative in order to attract these donors, there are so many issues in this country than expensive undergrad education for few hundred students every year. Some of these donors may like to adopt a poor institution if approached in right way. These are good people, looking to make a difference, sometimes just going for the obvious choice.
They do both. Before establishing the Gates Foundation in 2000 Gates gave $15 million to Harvard, $34 Million to UW and $6 million to Stanford. In total the Gates family and foundation have given $1.25 billion to UW, the school his mother, father and sister attended.
There’s no one right answer here.
Harvard’s the richest U.S. university, for example, and also one of the world’s foremost research universities. If you make an unrestricted donation of $1,000 to Harvard, your money has effectively funded $1,000 more of Harvard. On average, that’s quite a good thing, in that Harvard is Harvard, and you’re effectively investing in it.
That said, if you knew what specific purpose Harvard was using your money for, you might think it was great (maybe they’re funding the research of someone who’s going to cure cancer, or a full ride for a poor but brilliant kid), or average (they’re using it to renovate dorms or hire administrators), or lousy (they’re funding a building you consider wasteful, or the salary of a professor in a discipline that you think is a crock).
And then, as noted, Harvard is the richest U.S. university. Maybe on principle you don’t think you should donate to them for that reason (even though your donation might accomplish a great deal there depending on how you directed it). Maybe you’re interested in targeting your donation to a smaller institution that you feel needs it more. But maybe they aren’t as well-positioned as Harvard to use it in the way you want. Which recipient do you prefer?
What if you’d like to donate to your alma mater out of gratitude, but you don’t think they’d use your money well, or they don’t have programs of the type that you think are important to fund?
My suggestion: do your research and target your donation in such a way as to do the most of what you consider good. That can mean many different things.