<p>How to measure a College’s return on investment? Check out the Top 100 Colleges on Forbes Grateful Graduates Index. [Measuring</a> A College’s Worth: The Grateful Grads Index - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2013/04/30/measuring-a-colleges-worth-the-grateful-grads-index/]Measuring”>Measuring A College's Worth: The 2013 Grateful Grads Index)</p>
<p>Interesting. Thanks for posting.</p>
<p>Interesting that Princeton has a $2 million endowment per student, whereas MIT has $1 million.</p>
<p>Let’s say that the endowment earns an average return of 5%, that is $50,000 more per student per year. Let’s also assume that MIT and Princeton could run the same with $1 million endowment per student. That means that Princeton could afford to give every student free tuition paid for by the return on the additional $1 million of endowment per student.</p>
<p>I’m blown away by the median donation amounts. I consider $100 to be generous haha. There are a lot of people doing very well from the top schools.</p>
<p>Many of the “top” institutions got there not because they produced students who went on to become rich, but rather because they were the places where rich families sent their kids for an education. What would be useful would be if “old” money and children coming from old money were removed from the analyses. Are X, Y, and Z truly better for a kid from middle America when compared to A, B, and C?</p>
<p>Cal Tech’s average donation is wildly higher than the rest of the pack, must be crazy Silicon Valley $$$$$$$$$$$$'s</p>
<p>So glad to see Berea College on that list. Just the opposite of a school that" because they were the places where rich families sent their kids for an education." They have supported some of the poorest students in Appalachia, one of the most under served areas of the country. Glad, but not surprised, to see their students giving back.
And off topic: students run the Boone Tavern, where I had one of the best lunches EVER.</p>
<p>from their site:</p>
<p>Room, Board, and Fees</p>
<p>Berea students and their families are expected to pay what they can afford toward the cost of room, board, and fees. Nearly all of our students receive additional aid and scholarships to assist with these costs due to financial need.</p>
<p>The total costs, before aid, for room, board and fees for 2012-13 are:
expenses cost
Room $3,102 / year
Board $2,864 / year
Fees $ 980 / year
Total $6,946 / year</p>
<p>my note:Most students qualify for full financial aid. No Loans.)</p>
<p>As I clicked through the list I was shocked by how many schools had crossed the $60k line. Then I got to my Son’s school (#43) and was :eek: to see Wake is one of them. 
We’re full pay and that’s not the amount in our bills. </p>
<p>At any rate, very cool list of the “usual suspects.” ;)</p>
<p>I actually created the list and your point about some of these schools attracting old money rich more able to donate is valid. Most of the top colleges claim to be need blind and do dole out a lot of financial aid. I may attempt to incorporate percent of students getting financial aid, in a future “refined” ranking, or percentage of alums actually donating, which speaks to ROI, but not necessarily financial success. For OperaDad, remember that a lot of those endowment assets are tied up in illiquid assets like real estate and may not be kicking off steady returns. Still I get your point about Princeton and its very full coffers. Re the comment about Caltech, remember some of the big research institutions get a boost from contracts and grants which were only pulled out of the number post 2009. My data is a 10 year median. Still the top 3 would clearly be in the top ten if the data was completely clean. Please feel free to comment on Forbes if you like…I appreciate your readership!</p>
<p>A school’s being need blind/aware should be irrelevant to applicants; it doesn’t affect quality or desirability, but rather the chance of admission, and that only for a few on the cusp. Meeting full need is what counts.</p>
<p>But why do a static ranking for the non-existent typical student? There are tools for each applicant to do custom ranking based on what’s important to an individual.</p>
<p>The list is of interest and I am very glad that schools such as Berea and College of the Ozarks (both zero/or low cost) made it.</p>
<p>However, I was dismayed at the choice of notable grads for some of the schools, in particular the heavy emphasis on entertainment people. </p>
<p>And how did Nancy Reagan (famous mostly for whom she married) win out over Gloria Steinem or Julia Child for Smith?</p>
<p>Why use ranking at all? Just go to the place that fits you personally the best (not imaginary average student that does not exist) and is free or close to be free FOR YOU, not somebody else. Do your own research, match UG to your own needs. Very well worth it. Many kids who use ranking end up transferring out of the place that is not good for them personaly…</p>
<p>Everybody is famous for 15 minutes, and every college gets to be top-ranked on some list somewhere. Make up your own rating factors, weight them strategically, and slice the baloney thin enough, and you too can make your (or your kid’s) college come out on top.</p>
<p>Back in 2005, Caltech was one of the best value schools. It was definitely less than CMU or MIT, plus they offered merit awards for juniors and seniors. </p>
<p>Happymomof1, Caltech and MIT are not rich kids’ colleges. I tend to agree with Yalemom, grateful alumni can be generous.</p>
<p>I hate lists that are made into slideshows.</p>
<p>QLM</p>
<p>My 25 year class gift at Yale was enormous but it was made of very large donations by some people who mostly were born into wealth.</p>
<p>Wow - those figures were the median amounts, not skewed by a handful of wealthy donors. Makes me feel utterly cheap because I typically give a hundred bucks or so a year unless it’s the silver or pearl reunion fundraiser where I would up it to a grand or two. </p>
<p>I wonder if I’ve interpreted it incorrectly. I find it hard to believe that it could represent the median donation of all graduates, perhaps of just those who have donated, but even then it’s most impressive.</p>
<p>^ I think it is the total amount of donations over the entire 10 year period. So at the bottom of the list is averages out to $600-700 per year, which still seems like a lot but is not outrageous.</p>
<p>An average of almost $6K per year for CalTech is crazy.</p>
<p>If those are per-year numbers… wow.</p>
<p>On re-reading, it’s gifts PER student not BY. I had initially read it as meaning that the median donation BY a Caltech alum was 59 grand and I thought this would be huge even if it was cumulative for 10 years. </p>
<p>I’m still not clear what exactly the figure represents, but it appears to be related to how much the donations of all the past alums works out when measured against how many current students the college has. If my interpretation is correct, if Caltech suddenly doubled its enrollment, the figure would drop to 30 grand assuming donations remained the same. How exactly he factored in median amounts as opposed to averages if this is the case is another puzzle.</p>