PonyFans.com

We also have a 500M debt to consider. All the more reason we need to start planning it soon.

Nacubo is the authority on this. I actually think it will be updated soon.

Just looked it up. According to NACUBO SMU is still slightly ahead, at 1,466 B as compared to TCU at 1,442 B.

When you do it per undergrad we are well ahead, since they are about 1,500 undergrads larger than we are.

Nonetheless, I totally agree we need to get above 2billion, and in view it was a mistake to not focus on this as a larger part of the last campaign. We won't get our reputational rating up until we have a larger endowment. One non building area we really moved up was endowed professors - that was embarrassingly low and is now in very solid range.

Que mrydel with comment on endowed professors (or lack thereof) in 4..3..2..1..

Per the SMU year end report our endowment is $1.505B.

SMU enrollment: 6,357
TCU enrollment: 8,894

Their enrollment is about 2,500 more undergrad.

gostangs wrote:Just looked it up. According to NACUBO SMU is still slightly ahead, at 1,466 B as compared to TCU at 1,442 B.

When you do it per undergrad we are well ahead, since they are about 1,500 undergrads larger than we are.

Nonetheless, I totally agree we need to get above 2billion, and in view it was a mistake to not focus on this as a larger part of the last campaign. We won't get our reputational rating up until we have a larger endowment. One non building area we really moved up was endowed professors - that was embarrassingly low and is now in very solid range.

Que mrydel with comment on endowed professors (or lack thereof) in 4..3..2..1..

Better to be well endowed

PonySnob wrote:

gostangs wrote:Just looked it up. According to NACUBO SMU is still slightly ahead, at 1,466 B as compared to TCU at 1,442 B.

When you do it per undergrad we are well ahead, since they are about 1,500 undergrads larger than we are.

Nonetheless, I totally agree we need to get above 2billion, and in view it was a mistake to not focus on this as a larger part of the last campaign. We won't get our reputational rating up until we have a larger endowment. One non building area we really moved up was endowed professors - that was embarrassingly low and is now in very solid range.

Que mrydel with comment on endowed professors (or lack thereof) in 4..3..2..1..

Better to be well endowed

TWSS.

1. never actually source information from wiki.....you can read their BS, but always check the actual sources from there

2. total investments are not the same as an endowment of course

you can have shorter term investments that are in cash equivalents to you can do things like make payroll, pay the light bill. service bond debt (a big one there for most schools I am sure), money in a short term fund that you have borrowed on a short term construction bond to complete an on going capital project before you bond out a longer term bond, money that you had left over from construction projects that were under budget (this adds up for things like the UT System and A&M System), money you actually MADE on money you had in short term cash like investments that you are going to spend on something else (again this adds up for things like the UT and A&M System or for any place that has a lot of projects going at one time), money from long term bonds you have let for a project, but you have a second phase or a "finish out" of some part of it to complete, but it was easier to bond it all at one time as one project or money for grants and contracts for research....this can be huge money at major research universities with tens or hundreds of millions in multi year research and even the interest generated from that money you are sitting on waiting for that 3 year research project to spend it up...or lastly money that was donated, but not necessarily for an endowment like money that is targeted to pay for a $70,000 startup package for a new research professor to get a lab equipped and running

it all adds up fast especially if you have it in the right safe investments and the times are right

When was TCU's last capital campaign?

http://dis.tcu.edu/tcu_outlook_winter_2014/TCU_Outlook_Winter_2014.html#2-3/z
I noticed that between June 2012 and October 2014, they raised $197 million. Of that, 46% was for facilities. I wonder how much that compares with SMU's recent campaign. Also, 42% of those funds came from foundations and corporations. Dallas ought to have more foundations and corporations and those sources may be a bit more loosely tied to undergraduate enrollment than alumni, family and friends.

tristatecoog wrote:When was TCU's last capital campaign?

http://dis.tcu.edu/tcu_outlook_winter_2014/TCU_Outlook_Winter_2014.html#2-3/z
I noticed that between June 2012 and October 2014, they raised $197 million. Of that, 46% was for facilities. I wonder how much that compares with SMU's recent campaign. Also, 42% of those funds came from foundations and corporations. Dallas ought to have more foundations and corporations and those sources may be a bit more loosely tied to undergraduate enrollment than alumni, family and friends.

Our last capital campaign ended in 2012.

As for college endowments, I would imagine all of them have taken a hit so far this year.

I was a bit surprised they didn't wrap the campaign with a big donation. Ended kind of quietly in my opinion.

They were waiting on your check.

smusic 00 wrote:They were waiting on your check.

No, they got it, it just bounced.

I know your comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it was just an observation. They usually time a big announcement for the end. Was just a quiet ending.

TCU is not exactly known for its accuracy in reporting information.

For instance, they continue to misreport the number of applications they receive on their Common Data Sets. This information, in turn, is used by college guide books and for various rankings.

The Common Data Set instructions clearly state that a university must report COMPLETED applications:

Applicants should include only those students who fulfilled the requirements for consideration for admission (i.e., who completed actionable applications) and who have been notified of one of the following actions: admission, nonadmission, placement on waiting list, or application withdrawn (by applicant or institution)

TCU, instead, includes individuals who partially complete their applications.

For instance, on the top of page 7 of their 2014-2015 Common Data Set, TCU reports applications from 6,536 males and 10,493 females, for a total of 17,029 applicants.

http://www.ir.tcu.edu/zfiles/TCUCDS2014.pdf

However, TCU had completed applications of 12,362 for 2014-2015.

http://www.ir.tcu.edu/factbooks/2015/entering_freshman.asp

Therefore, TCU reported an acceptance rate of 48.87%, when they should have reported an acceptance rate of 67.32%. 8,322 acceptances/12632 completed applications.

Other universities have gotten in trouble for using this trick, but that doesn't stop TCU.

TCU also receives unwarranted media attention as a result of misreporting their applications:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/06/25/number-of-student-applications-to-tcu-explodes/

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/TCU-Applicants-at-Record-Number-124620824.html

2015 completed applications to SMU: 12,992
2015 completed applications to TCU: 12,765

2015 acceptances by SMU: 6,360 or 48.95%
2015 acceptances by TCU: 7,973 or 62.46%

http://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/ir/Trends/2015/Student/First_Time_Admissions_2015-2016.ashx?la=en

Very interesting.

Washington and Lee University declared in its official reports last year that 5,972 students applied for admission and 19 percent were accepted. Those numbers helped define the public profile of one of the nation’s most-selective liberal arts schools.

They also were the result of a counting method that worked to benefit the university’s image.

Internal university data obtained by The Washington Post show that more than 1,100 applications for the class of 2016 at the private Virginia school — roughly one out of every six — were never completed. The files were missing required elements such as teacher recommendations or test scores, raising questions about how many of them were seriously considered for admission.

What Washington and Lee does in computing its selectivity does not appear to break the rules for reporting data to the federal government or market analysts such as U.S. News & World Report. Some top schools count only completed applications, and others use Washington and Lee’s method.

“If counting them one way helps you, and counting them in the other way doesn’t,” he said, “there’s often an incentive to count it in the way that helps you.”

Hartog said the university’s counting method is common among its peers and follows federal rules. Washington and Lee makes every effort to get applicants to send in all required materials, he said, but the school sometimes admits students who don’t.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... story.html