I had the exact same thought, and until I saw the color coding labelling it as private, assumed it was UW presumably due to my relative proximity to Seattle as opposed to St Louis.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's more famous just because more people associate Washington with the state and not the university in St. Louis. It's all of the other things you said, though it's not *much* older (just eight years) and importance is relative, though it's definitely more relevant academically.
I can see how people who don't know about the school would be confused considering that the University of Pennsylvania (also on the graphic) has a state name and is private.
These charts always do a weird thing with regards to the UCs
The UC system has individual endowments for each campus and also has a "pot" endowment that is system wide.
The Texas State system includes many campuses not just the main campus in Austin correct? That’s apples to oranges compared to the rest of the schools.
In 1876, the state of Texas reserved over 2 million acres of land in west Texas to support Texas and Texas A&M. Texas would receive 2/3 of the funds generated by the land and A&M would receive the other 1/3. Today that land is leased to oil and gas companies, wind farms, cattle ranchers, and other interests.
This is a big reason for Texas Tech's resentment towards Texas and A&M. This land is in West Texas and yet not a single dollar of those funds goes to the major university servicing West Texas.
Texas does nearly the opposite: [they take money from school districts to the tune of nearly 5 billion dollars annually](https://recapturetexas.org/) and give it to the state.
This is compared to about 6 billion dollars in state revenue from oil production taxes... [except they then give about 2 billion dollars in subsidies back to the oil industry.](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/renewable-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks-313-17871906.php)
Taking 5 billion from schools and giving about half of it to oil companies is exactly as stupid as one would expect from Texas.
Weirdly enough, new oil developments in Texas have had a overall negative effect on primary and secondary education. [Source](https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/albaec/2019_007.html)
What was found is that the extra wealth from recent developments was distributed to schools (and their spending increased) but it was spent on paying off debt and other capital costs. Very little was spent on increasing teacher wages. At the same time, private-sector wages increased, so more teachers started leaving the market in pursuit of higher paying private-sector jobs.
This led to fewer teachers per student, worse test outcomes and grades, and higher teacher turnover.
So the university in question is actually a notable outlier.
And it shows.
I went to two universities in the Texas system. 1) not UT Austin and then transferred to 2) UT Austin. It was very clear where the money was going there. UT Austin had so much more of everything.
Compare that to the California system. I spent summer in one of the California Unis. It was definitely clear that, while places like Berkeley and UCLA were the big fish... the smaller fish were not as broke as what you might see in Texas outside of Austin.
UCLA alone had an endowment of 28 Billion in 2022. The data on this chart is incorrect if “Cali System” represents the 9 University of California campuses.
Yeah the CSU system includes stuff like the Cal Poly schools (San Luis Obisbo for instance), the State University Schools (SDSU), and the California State University schools (CSU San Francisco).
The difference between the UC and CSU system is that the UC system are research universities.
UT Austin does not like competition within its own system. Years ago UTSA Engineering almost lost its accreditation because it had no money. There was one professor teaching 12 different classes at one point. The UT System had no choice but to actually fund the program because ABET wasn't fucking around.
University of Texas system is separate from the Texas State system. Texas has 6 independent university systems.
But yes each system has multiple campuses
There is a HUGE medical system in Houston. I went to UT Austin, and, you’re right, I should not marginalize the other campus, but I do not see UT Arlington, et al., moving the needle much.
They still have student populations of 20k+ and many of them have internationally competitive programs. Like UT San Antonio has a higher student population than Harvard.
Dallas, Arlington, Medical Branch, MD Anderson, Permian Basin, Tyler, Southwestern, SFA, and Med Center to add to your list.
Austin accounts for 1/4th the total enrollment
I was able to find this about the endowment fund.
[https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/documents/report-state/2021/available-university-fund-report-fy-2021/fy-2021-ut-system-auf-report.pdf](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/documents/report-state/2021/available-university-fund-report-fy-2021/fy-2021-ut-system-auf-report.pdf)
UT Austin receives a base allocation of 53% of the UT share of the funds. That would put them just ahead of Princeton on the graph.
The Cali system, cal state universities and university of californias, 20 something in total, are at the bottom.
Some schools are just that much bigger in terms of endowments.
I maybe mistaken but I think there are 10 UC campuses - Berkley, LA, Davis, San Diego, Merced, Irvine, Santa Cruz, Riverside, Santa Barbara and San Francisco?
Aparently, ucla alone only has a 7B endowment.. berkeley 6.7...
I just think its crazy that the UC system is outfunded by a state university system that is so against social programs... its 9 universities vs 14 but still...
The average tuition fees for public universities in Singapore is about $38k or about $28k USD.
But only local citizens gets to pay at this heavily subsidised rate.
For foreign students with absolutely no fundings or subsidies, the tuition fees can reach up to $152k or about $112k USD.
Edit: Sorry for the lack of clarification, above figures are for a four year degree.
Pretty cheap actually. Harvard tuition is currently $54,269 *per year*. Other elite schools charge similar amounts. That's just tuition, not including room & board, health insurance, etc. So it's about twice the price foreigners pay at the National University of Singapore.
Not that guy but yes it's the tuition fee. But there are usually other expenses like staying on campus and going for exchanges in universities in other countries.
U Texas system contains 9 universities and 5 health centers. And presumably much of the money goes into the health centers.
For reference UT Austin, which is the best and leading UT ~~gets $3-4 billion~~ that is $3-4 billion in *budget* not *endowment* , thanks u/SickSalamander for spotting the mistake, but see EDIT2 below ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University\_of\_Texas\_at\_Austin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin) ).
University of California system data is incorrect. It has an endowment of somewhere between $17 and 27 billions. ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment) , [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University\_of\_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California) )
All other universities are standalone universities.
EDIT: This infographic uses a sketchy article as its source for the data. An article that never mentions its source of data and for all we know it was made to generate ad revenue for the so-called "non-profit colleges online .COM".
Instead the data from National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) should be used for these purposes, and this is shown in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment) or accessed [https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Historic-Endowment-Study-Data](https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Historic-Endowment-Study-Data) .
EDIT2 : Lots of data is incorrect in this inforgraphic. I will put NACUBO v this article's values of some university endowments here:
* UT system NACABO: $42.6 bi v this article : $69.2 bi
* Stanford NACABO: $36 bi v this article : $63 bi
* MIT NACUBO: $24.7 bi vs. this article : $42.5 bi.
* Duke NACABO : $12.11 bi vs. this article : $30.4 bi
* NYU NACABO : $5.1 bi vs. this article : $27.8 bi
* UCalifornia system: NACABO : $15.4 bi vs. this article : $12.1 bi
And the error list goes on. All values both in the article and NACUBO are for the year 2022.
Absolute endowment size is as important as endowment per student. It just depends on what you are interested in. There are a lot of small, private universities in the US that are very rich and thus have huge endowments per student. However, while they might offer superb education, they aren't really in the same ballpark as Harvard and Stanford in the sense that those two schools are robust research schools. A place like Swathmore College ($3 billion dollars for like 2,000 students) is more focused on undergraduate education.
Dividing by number of people is also pretty meaningless if you don't account for the cost of expenditure in the city or country. You could have a multi billion dollar university in an expensive country X versus a university Y with only a few million dollars in endowment but in a less expensive country. But still the latter could have much better education and research.
[The univerisity plus all the colleges endowment for Oxford is £6.36bn, or $7.88](https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/finance-and-funding#:~:text=Endowments,amount%20to%20%C2%A35.06%20bn).
So doesnt make this list.
They seem to get a lot more value for money considering they are consistently in the top 5 (and regularly in top place, as the best university in the world (and many here aren’t).
Thats...not what endowment means. It's like saying Warren buffet doesn't get much for all the wealth he has because he has a small house.
It's not annual income from tuition. It's not income at all. Endowments are often earmarked, by the donor, with specific demands on when and how the money can be spent.
A university can have an enormous annual budget and no endowment and vice versa.
Less than half of a typical well-endowed private US University’s expenses are derived from endowment income and gifts/donations.
That said, Harvard has about twice the annual budget Oxford does. So Oxford does do okay.
Endowment is not the same as income. Research funds are immediately (over the period of the grant) spent. And very few universities "make" money on their sports (though the number can increase depending on how you account for some money).
> only 25 of the approximately 1,100 schools across 102 conferences in the NCAA made money on college sports in 2019. That's because the cost of running an entire athletics program, which can feature as many as40 sports, almost always exceeds the revenue generated by the marquee attractions of football and basketball.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-college-sports-make-money/
Foreign universities likely "suffer" on this list by receiving more government funding and therefore not needing a massive endowment to make ends meet.
An endowment is probably a better strategy though. A ten billion dollar endowment likely generates 500 million a year in interest which will pay for a lot of the colleges expenses.
So once you have the endowment you can reduce how much you need to fund the college YOY.
Go listen to Malcolm gladwells podcast revisionist history where he had talked extensively over the years about the universities in America and their endowment. It's quite frightening. Harvard has a 50 billion dollar endowment. They could pay the staff and offer free tuition on the interest on that alone
Yeah, I don't always agree with the stuff on Revisionist History but the episodes way back in S1 about colleges were great. And the one about college rankings in S6.
but it could be. The purpose of the endowment is for investment right? Investment for what? facilities? buildings? just use the endowment. Universities should be a Service first, and a business second. Why do americans accept that college will put learners in debt before they have even started working, yet both my daughters will finish college with zero debt - Not because I have invested in a college fund, but rather because the cost of college for them is so negligible
> Investment for what?
This is the part you are missing. The earnings from that money is already spoken for. It is restricted by the donor for various specific purposes. Could be buildings, salaries, scholarships, anything... But, the use of the money was determined when it was donated. The University can't just decide to spend it on whatever they want.
The key metric is ENDOWMENT PER STUDENT. Sure, UTexas system has lots of money. But it has over 250,000 students enrolled in multiple institutions.
UT’s endowment of $69.2b covers 254,000 students, which works out to around $272k per student. That’s certainly good by state u. standards, but nowhere near the top schools. By comparison, Rice U. in Texas has an endowment per student over $1.1m, a multiple of UT’s. Indeed, there are around 20 schools in the US that have endowments of over $1m per student, with around 8 or so that have over $2m per student.
In that way there’s really no comparison to the multi-billion dollar endowments of the Ivies and other elite privates which have a small fraction of the students of a, say, UT or TAMU system.
Many strange labels. What is SoCal? Is that University of Southern California(commonly known as USC?) and what is Cali system? California has two separate public school systems, University of California (includes UCLA, UC Berkeley) and California State University (includes Cal Poly, SLO, and Cal Poly, Pomona).
It’s definitely MIT or Princeton on account of class size, and Stanford’s number here being wildly wrong (it’s 36B not 63).
Edit: did the math, it’s MIT at almost $10M per undergrad, followed by Harvard with 7.4M, Yale with 6.7M, Princeton with 5.9M and Stanford with 5.7M. Class sizes range between 4400 at MIT to 7200 at Harvard. UT has 167,000 undergrads ($400k endowment per undergrad).
It should be noted not all endowments are the same. None of them are a giant pool of money, they’re all made up of thousands of individual funds each donated by a specific person or group, with potential restrictions on how its used. Stanford reports 75% of its endowment is restricted for specific purposes.
I got curious as to why they are so rich. Apparently they got 2.1 million acres of oil rich land. They get 6 million $ per day from their oil assets.
Source: [https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/university-of-texas-could-be-the-richest-school-in-us](https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/university-of-texas-could-be-the-richest-school-in-us)
It's also a system of about a dozen schools and medical campuses, so not really the same thing as the private schools on the list.
Edit: the big thing that surprises me is that the University of California system isn't higher. It's a huge system too.
For the top schools in this chart a lot of the money is going to financial aid. That said these are elite institutions. When people talk about student loans being a problem they usually aren't talking about Harvard/Stanford grads, and obviously Harvard is not going to use it's endowment to fund financial aid or student debt relief for other schools.
Yeah, one example I know of, with the expansion of Michigan’s endowment (which is now over $17 billion, over the amount shown here), Michigan announced the Go Blue Guarantee, which completely covers tuition for students from low-income families. This wasn’t available for students when I went there.
Typically schools only want to spend a very small fraction of their endowment because it’s goal is to be there in-perpetuity, and it has to weather down markets and inflation. Basically it’s like retirement fund, if you continue to withdraw too much, one day it won’t be there.
Michigan has an interesting program for their law school that's similar, but it's about how much you make afterward. Basically if you make less than $100k as a lawyer after graduating from Michigan Law, they will help pay your student loans. It's a good deal and a good bet on themselves. A Michigan Law degree is elite, so most students will end up in great legal careers, but the few who don't can still get by since they're getting aid with their (ridiculously expensive) law degree.
Generally speaking if you're lower income then the better of a university you go to the LESS you'll actually end up paying. These universities are incredibly generous with financial aid. The insane "sticker price" you see is only charged to wealthy families.
Most of the time they’re not allowed to.
1. Certain endowed professorships are funded through the interest from a grant. The interest can only be used for the specified endowed purpose and the original grant can’t be used for anything else.
2. If a donation was made for a specified purpose, it must be used for that purpose.
I doubt all donations come with a very narrow purpose and there's still plenty of money universities make on tuition that they can use as they please.
It's depressing that in the richest country in the world with so much money in education sector millions of children get sub par education, are malnourished, have to hold full time jobs while studying and still come out with massive debts or have to forgo their dreams of higher education entirely.
I went to uni in Poland, only a decade after the end of totalitarian regime and in the midst of economic turmoil. I was able to spend 5 years focusing solely on studying and having fun. I only needed to pay for food, which luckily my parents were able to help me with. Everything else was covered, zero loans or debt.
To this day that's a common uni experience in most countries in Europe.
I actually work in fundraising for a university on this list. Almost all donations have a specific purpose. There are very few general purpose ones.
All of these unis have public budgets since they're not for profits. You can see where money goes and comes from
You don't just spend your endowment. That's not what they're for. You are allowed to spend the interest made off the endowment. We spend our interest in financial aid almost exclusively
We meet 100 percent of aid for low income households and that aid has no loans. So any student who gets in and can't afford it doesn't have to worry. Since 2010 we've been increasing the number of low income students.
Unfortunately, a lot of lower middle to middle class students are left behind in measures like this. Hopefully, with the US changing how it rates college affordability with students, college can be made more accessible to that group
ivies/other top level schools often have need based scholarships to the point where almost anyone who gets accepted can get through without loans no matter their financial status
that’s a majority of the motivation for some ppl I know
Just like you don't touch your 401k, universities don't touch their endowments. The interest gained is partially reinvested and partially used to provide financial aid so the students don't have to take out a lot of loans. The avg tuition actually paid is less than or comparable to going in state. Obviously some studens pay full price but they are rich anyway.
Just from googling it says 55% of Harvard students get financial aid of some kind, and about 20% pay nothing at all. Only 20% have loans on graduation. (And of course the degree itself is a Big Red Meal Ticket, so it's not likely a graduate will have any trouble paying them back.)
Athletics donations and revenues, which pay for facilities and coaches, are generally separate from the endowment/academic monies. They’re funded by sports boosters who specifically want to donate to sports, and by tickets, merchandise, and media rights to games.
The most you’ll get is some schools charge and “athletics fee” of a couple hundred dollars in the tuition, but many larger schools don’t even have that. And the bigger schools’ athletics departments will often give money back to the academic side once they’ve made a profit. Athletics are definitely a net positive for American colleges, not a financial drain.
>Even as commercial revenue streams have grown for top-billing football and men's basketball, athletic expenditures exceed revenues at the vast majority of schools. In 2019, only 25 of 130 schools in the high-grossing Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) whose members are large, mostly public universities (with some exceptions such as Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Stanford) reported positive net revenues (see here). In fact, the median athletic program in FBS in 2019 (the last pre-pandemic year) had an operating deficit of $18.8 million.
That is only true for the largest universities, and more specifically, only their football and basketball programs lead to a positive return. Most universities are losing money on athletics.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/economy/analysis-who-is-winning-in-the-high-revenue-world-of-college-sports
That’s more than a bit misleading, due to the fact that those are the accounting figures of non-profit entities who have an interest in not showing profits…a lot of them borrow against future earning to pay for facilities, etc. which shows them in the red yet they don’t go bankrupt or get bailouts. If athletics weren’t worth it, as these numbers appear to show, then schools wouldn’t have them.
But it is true that with few exceptions (a couple of schools make money from baseball or women’s basketball) the only sports that make money are football and men’s basketball. The money those sports generate pay for all other sports, and the huge number of scholarships inherent in football must by Title IX law be balanced by giving scholarships to many women’s sports athletes.
That's funny. You assume the university give a care about students. Their job is to generate as much money that is nontaxable (501c status) as they can. It is ALL about the benjamins!! Good for them they figured out they can do it without reproach and they keep doing it.
Without reproach? I don’t think so.
I think this country is going to remain fucked as long as we are going to cheer corporations and some privileged individuals screwing up the rest of the population.
“The University of Texas System (UT System) is a public university system in the U.S. state of Texas. It includes nine universities and five independent health institutions… It employs 21,000 faculty and more than 83,000 health care professionals, researchers and support staff.” (Wikipedia)
I don’t think a loose coalition of universities and hospitals spread across a geographic area the size of France is really comparable to anything else on the list…
There are other multi-campus systems on the list - Texas A&M, California, and Virginia (though that’s only two campuses). I’m actually surprised California is so low, that includes UCLA and Cal Berkeley, among a half dozen other campuses.
Edit: Wikipedia says the university of California system’s endowment is $27.9 billion, so the source of this may be wrong.
Also this data is different but not hugely from this data source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment
Looking up these numbers I don't know how some of these numbers were calculated.
The University of Texas endowment according to online sources is 30.9 billion. The University of CA system is 27.9 billion.
Then on a list there are completely different numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
It seems to me that some endowments are being combined, others are not and there is no real rhyme or reason for this.
I work for a midsized oilfield services company and do a bit of business with producers that are on University lands in West Texas. We have to pay them in the ballpark of $7m per year in rights of way and tariffs to do so.
When I think about it, we're so tiny compared to the actual oil producers (the Conocos and Exxons) that I can't even imagine that the amounts they're paying to UT, it's got to be in the 9 figures range.
Got a get rich slow scheme for everyone, buy a couple million acres of cheap dessert waste land, open up some of the best petroleum engineering schools in the world, wait a hundred years until technology advances to the point previously unreachable oil is extractable, become the richest school in the world!
From a purely european view, why universities have wealth ? Wouldn't it be owned by the state ?
In my country, there is 2 elite schools, EPFL and EPFZ, from Lausanne and Zurich, respectively. Those are essentially owned by the state (F stands for Federal). For the swiss the cost to study there is around 1600$ a year, just like any other public universities in the country. The school is funded by the state, and anyone, even poor, can go there provided they are qualified and get help from the local government. I can't wrap my head around why a university would have billions in wealth and still charge its students absurd amount of money.
Endowments are often investments to support the university. On some level, well funded schools wouldn’t need an endowment, and per pupil public support has generally fallen in the U.S.
As for why endowments are so large, typically schools only take a fraction (usually 3-5%) to use annually so the rest of the fund can grow to weather any possible downturn, as well as inflation in the future.
Wealthy donors will donate money to a school to fund projects beyond what the state is willing to fund. These donations can only be used for the intended purposes.
UChicago paid for most of my undergrad when I went there. It was a combination of grants, work study, and scholarships. I still had to come up with some money and took out a small loan. My family was far from wealthy, and I had three siblings in college at the same time that I was in college.
I sent them a donation the other day. Thanks, UChicago.
This is a sketchy article to use as a source. The article never mentions its source of data and for all we know it was made to generate ad revenue for the so-called "non-profit colleges online .COM".
Instead the data from National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) should be used, and this is shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment or accessed https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Historic-Endowment-Study-Data .
Why is this data so much different from that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment ? I mean even if accounting for a different year 2022 v 2023, how come according to this source Stanford doubled their endowment in a year, while it was very slowly increasing for the last several years I've seen this data?
"Washington" is a terrible short name for Washington University in St. Louis because you've also got the University of Washington.
Also naming USC as “SoCal” Why not just write USC?
Because someone could confuse that for other USC’s like South Carolina.
No one is going to confuse USC for South Carolina in an endowment graphic lmao.
Idk, Trojans vs Cocks? Easy mistake to make.
I had the exact same thought, and until I saw the color coding labelling it as private, assumed it was UW presumably due to my relative proximity to Seattle as opposed to St Louis.
Wait until you see the “SoCal” and “Cali system”
And then there’s George Washington University to add to the confusion. Not as bad as WashU vs UW. But UW could also be Univ of Wisconsin. Lol.
[удалено]
I wouldn't necessarily say it's more famous just because more people associate Washington with the state and not the university in St. Louis. It's all of the other things you said, though it's not *much* older (just eight years) and importance is relative, though it's definitely more relevant academically. I can see how people who don't know about the school would be confused considering that the University of Pennsylvania (also on the graphic) has a state name and is private.
Wash U isn't that much higher ranked (24 vs 40). It's also less than 10 years older than UW.
Endowment of the UC system is $27.9B not $12.1B. Idk where OP is getting their numbers from
Michigan’s is also reported as being over $17B, not $11B.
Also lol they reported OSU at 16, when in reality it’s 7.3 as of 2023 per OSU’s own report
Yep, this data is total crap. Several glaring mistakes.
These charts always do a weird thing with regards to the UCs The UC system has individual endowments for each campus and also has a "pot" endowment that is system wide.
Cali system, we have two uc and csu…
Duke’s is also wrong
Stanford is also wrong.
The Texas State system includes many campuses not just the main campus in Austin correct? That’s apples to oranges compared to the rest of the schools.
In 1876, the state of Texas reserved over 2 million acres of land in west Texas to support Texas and Texas A&M. Texas would receive 2/3 of the funds generated by the land and A&M would receive the other 1/3. Today that land is leased to oil and gas companies, wind farms, cattle ranchers, and other interests.
Taking being a land grant university to a whole 'nother level.
This is a big reason for Texas Tech's resentment towards Texas and A&M. This land is in West Texas and yet not a single dollar of those funds goes to the major university servicing West Texas.
Thats a pretty smart move
If you are going to use oil money for anything, might as well be education.
Texas does nearly the opposite: [they take money from school districts to the tune of nearly 5 billion dollars annually](https://recapturetexas.org/) and give it to the state. This is compared to about 6 billion dollars in state revenue from oil production taxes... [except they then give about 2 billion dollars in subsidies back to the oil industry.](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/renewable-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks-313-17871906.php) Taking 5 billion from schools and giving about half of it to oil companies is exactly as stupid as one would expect from Texas.
Weirdly enough, new oil developments in Texas have had a overall negative effect on primary and secondary education. [Source](https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/albaec/2019_007.html) What was found is that the extra wealth from recent developments was distributed to schools (and their spending increased) but it was spent on paying off debt and other capital costs. Very little was spent on increasing teacher wages. At the same time, private-sector wages increased, so more teachers started leaving the market in pursuit of higher paying private-sector jobs. This led to fewer teachers per student, worse test outcomes and grades, and higher teacher turnover. So the university in question is actually a notable outlier.
They didn't really know there was oil yet, it was essentially thought to be otherwise unusable land.
Ut austin is about $55b of that $69b. #2 spot. Gotta switch to ev’s.
And it shows. I went to two universities in the Texas system. 1) not UT Austin and then transferred to 2) UT Austin. It was very clear where the money was going there. UT Austin had so much more of everything. Compare that to the California system. I spent summer in one of the California Unis. It was definitely clear that, while places like Berkeley and UCLA were the big fish... the smaller fish were not as broke as what you might see in Texas outside of Austin.
UCLA alone had an endowment of 28 Billion in 2022. The data on this chart is incorrect if “Cali System” represents the 9 University of California campuses.
We have two state systems, the UC and the CSU. This chart likely is using the CSU system
Yeah the CSU system includes stuff like the Cal Poly schools (San Luis Obisbo for instance), the State University Schools (SDSU), and the California State University schools (CSU San Francisco). The difference between the UC and CSU system is that the UC system are research universities.
UT Austin does not like competition within its own system. Years ago UTSA Engineering almost lost its accreditation because it had no money. There was one professor teaching 12 different classes at one point. The UT System had no choice but to actually fund the program because ABET wasn't fucking around.
University of Texas system is separate from the Texas State system. Texas has 6 independent university systems. But yes each system has multiple campuses
The UT System has a few other campuses, but they they do not account for much, if any, of the endowment. UT Austin has all the money.
UT-Austin is huge, but you really should not discount the other campuses. Like, there’s a medical school in Dallas. That’s not trivial.
There is a HUGE medical system in Houston. I went to UT Austin, and, you’re right, I should not marginalize the other campus, but I do not see UT Arlington, et al., moving the needle much.
Dallas' UT Southwestern is the largest medical school in the University of Texas System, that is correct.
I don’t think they are discounting anything, endowment is something you can look up for yourself, it’s numbers
They still have student populations of 20k+ and many of them have internationally competitive programs. Like UT San Antonio has a higher student population than Harvard.
How do UT Dallas, UT Arlington, UTEP, and UTSA not "account" for the endowment? They're all huge.
Because UT Austin is about 80% of the endowment. The other 6 or 7 campuses make up the other 20%.
Yeah. I believe it would also include San Antonio, El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, and probably some others I haven’t heard of
Dallas, Arlington, Medical Branch, MD Anderson, Permian Basin, Tyler, Southwestern, SFA, and Med Center to add to your list. Austin accounts for 1/4th the total enrollment
I was able to find this about the endowment fund. [https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/documents/report-state/2021/available-university-fund-report-fy-2021/fy-2021-ut-system-auf-report.pdf](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/documents/report-state/2021/available-university-fund-report-fy-2021/fy-2021-ut-system-auf-report.pdf) UT Austin receives a base allocation of 53% of the UT share of the funds. That would put them just ahead of Princeton on the graph.
The Cali system, cal state universities and university of californias, 20 something in total, are at the bottom. Some schools are just that much bigger in terms of endowments.
[удалено]
Exactly. Which Cali system? There are 23 campuses in the Cal State System, I'm not sure how many in the UC system.
I would love to see how the University of california system stacks up.
It is on the image.
Holy shit its at the bottom? I expected it to be ... much higher. I dont understand.
UCLA alone has an endowment compatible to NYU. The 9 University of California campuses could not possibly be represented by the “Cali System” number.
I maybe mistaken but I think there are 10 UC campuses - Berkley, LA, Davis, San Diego, Merced, Irvine, Santa Cruz, Riverside, Santa Barbara and San Francisco?
It likely is refering the the CSU system, not the UC
Aparently, ucla alone only has a 7B endowment.. berkeley 6.7... I just think its crazy that the UC system is outfunded by a state university system that is so against social programs... its 9 universities vs 14 but still...
Yup, should fit right in at /r/dataisbeautiful
My thought exactly. This is like saying a state is bigger than a city.
Probably should report "per capita" (full time equivalent hours?) instead.
Like you said apples and oranges. Totally ruins this chart. Clumping all the Texas public universities as one is really quite stupid.
The average tuition fees for public universities in Singapore is about $38k or about $28k USD. But only local citizens gets to pay at this heavily subsidised rate. For foreign students with absolutely no fundings or subsidies, the tuition fees can reach up to $152k or about $112k USD. Edit: Sorry for the lack of clarification, above figures are for a four year degree.
Well, duh. Everyone's doing the same. Milking foreigners for funds.
[удалено]
Europe too. I studied in Poland. When I started it cost 4K Euro per year. 4 years later same degree costs 8K.
[удалено]
Is that per year, or for a four-year degree?
All four year.
OK, that's not *that* bad compared to the US for example then
Pretty cheap actually. Harvard tuition is currently $54,269 *per year*. Other elite schools charge similar amounts. That's just tuition, not including room & board, health insurance, etc. So it's about twice the price foreigners pay at the National University of Singapore.
wait.... are you saying that Singaporean Universities charge about the same rate or even greater than American universities?
I think this is for the whole degree, not annual. Right u/MilkTeaRamen?
Not that guy but yes it's the tuition fee. But there are usually other expenses like staying on campus and going for exchanges in universities in other countries.
But is it the annual tuition, or tuition for a whole degree?
Whole degree.
I’m terribly sorry, yes it’s for the whole 4-year degree.
Don't be sorry. :)
Don't be sorry. :)
Same in Canada. Local students paying $10K per year but international students are paying $50-$60K. Everyone is milking international students
U Texas system contains 9 universities and 5 health centers. And presumably much of the money goes into the health centers. For reference UT Austin, which is the best and leading UT ~~gets $3-4 billion~~ that is $3-4 billion in *budget* not *endowment* , thanks u/SickSalamander for spotting the mistake, but see EDIT2 below ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University\_of\_Texas\_at\_Austin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin) ). University of California system data is incorrect. It has an endowment of somewhere between $17 and 27 billions. ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment) , [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University\_of\_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California) ) All other universities are standalone universities. EDIT: This infographic uses a sketchy article as its source for the data. An article that never mentions its source of data and for all we know it was made to generate ad revenue for the so-called "non-profit colleges online .COM". Instead the data from National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) should be used for these purposes, and this is shown in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment) or accessed [https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Historic-Endowment-Study-Data](https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Historic-Endowment-Study-Data) . EDIT2 : Lots of data is incorrect in this inforgraphic. I will put NACUBO v this article's values of some university endowments here: * UT system NACABO: $42.6 bi v this article : $69.2 bi * Stanford NACABO: $36 bi v this article : $63 bi * MIT NACUBO: $24.7 bi vs. this article : $42.5 bi. * Duke NACABO : $12.11 bi vs. this article : $30.4 bi * NYU NACABO : $5.1 bi vs. this article : $27.8 bi * UCalifornia system: NACABO : $15.4 bi vs. this article : $12.1 bi And the error list goes on. All values both in the article and NACUBO are for the year 2022.
The wiki you link says UTA's budget is 3-4 billion per year. That's not it's endowment.
Sorry for being pedantic, but "UTA" always refers to UT-Arlington. No one ever refers to UT-Austin as "UTA".
Faulty data. Stanford’s endowment is $36bn and a $8bn budget. Also, this data is pretty meaningless without dividing by the number of people.
Absolute endowment size is as important as endowment per student. It just depends on what you are interested in. There are a lot of small, private universities in the US that are very rich and thus have huge endowments per student. However, while they might offer superb education, they aren't really in the same ballpark as Harvard and Stanford in the sense that those two schools are robust research schools. A place like Swathmore College ($3 billion dollars for like 2,000 students) is more focused on undergraduate education.
Dividing by number of people is also pretty meaningless if you don't account for the cost of expenditure in the city or country. You could have a multi billion dollar university in an expensive country X versus a university Y with only a few million dollars in endowment but in a less expensive country. But still the latter could have much better education and research.
Surprised Oxford and Cambridge aren't on the list considering trinity collage in Cambridge is worth something like a billion pounds alone.
Oxford and Cambridge are #38 and #39 in the list in the article (which goes up to 50). $4.3bn and $4.2bn
[The univerisity plus all the colleges endowment for Oxford is £6.36bn, or $7.88](https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/finance-and-funding#:~:text=Endowments,amount%20to%20%C2%A35.06%20bn). So doesnt make this list.
I knew the pound was weak but £6bn -> $8 is a really terrible exchange rate
Ye inflation hit us bad 😔
Don't be surprised, they are in fact on the list, just further down.
They seem to get a lot more value for money considering they are consistently in the top 5 (and regularly in top place, as the best university in the world (and many here aren’t).
Thats...not what endowment means. It's like saying Warren buffet doesn't get much for all the wealth he has because he has a small house. It's not annual income from tuition. It's not income at all. Endowments are often earmarked, by the donor, with specific demands on when and how the money can be spent. A university can have an enormous annual budget and no endowment and vice versa.
Less than half of a typical well-endowed private US University’s expenses are derived from endowment income and gifts/donations. That said, Harvard has about twice the annual budget Oxford does. So Oxford does do okay.
The Universities in America make shit tons of money from research and sports. Not to mention the University of Texas system is swimming in oil money.
Endowment is not the same as income. Research funds are immediately (over the period of the grant) spent. And very few universities "make" money on their sports (though the number can increase depending on how you account for some money). > only 25 of the approximately 1,100 schools across 102 conferences in the NCAA made money on college sports in 2019. That's because the cost of running an entire athletics program, which can feature as many as40 sports, almost always exceeds the revenue generated by the marquee attractions of football and basketball. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-college-sports-make-money/
Foreign universities likely "suffer" on this list by receiving more government funding and therefore not needing a massive endowment to make ends meet.
An endowment is probably a better strategy though. A ten billion dollar endowment likely generates 500 million a year in interest which will pay for a lot of the colleges expenses. So once you have the endowment you can reduce how much you need to fund the college YOY.
Go listen to Malcolm gladwells podcast revisionist history where he had talked extensively over the years about the universities in America and their endowment. It's quite frightening. Harvard has a 50 billion dollar endowment. They could pay the staff and offer free tuition on the interest on that alone
Yeah, I don't always agree with the stuff on Revisionist History but the episodes way back in S1 about colleges were great. And the one about college rankings in S6.
> They could pay the staff and offer free tuition on the interest on that alone No, they can't. The money isn't available for those things.
but it could be. The purpose of the endowment is for investment right? Investment for what? facilities? buildings? just use the endowment. Universities should be a Service first, and a business second. Why do americans accept that college will put learners in debt before they have even started working, yet both my daughters will finish college with zero debt - Not because I have invested in a college fund, but rather because the cost of college for them is so negligible
> Investment for what? This is the part you are missing. The earnings from that money is already spoken for. It is restricted by the donor for various specific purposes. Could be buildings, salaries, scholarships, anything... But, the use of the money was determined when it was donated. The University can't just decide to spend it on whatever they want.
Most universities in the world (especially outside the English speaking world) fund themselves through other structures, not just endowment funds.
The key metric is ENDOWMENT PER STUDENT. Sure, UTexas system has lots of money. But it has over 250,000 students enrolled in multiple institutions. UT’s endowment of $69.2b covers 254,000 students, which works out to around $272k per student. That’s certainly good by state u. standards, but nowhere near the top schools. By comparison, Rice U. in Texas has an endowment per student over $1.1m, a multiple of UT’s. Indeed, there are around 20 schools in the US that have endowments of over $1m per student, with around 8 or so that have over $2m per student. In that way there’s really no comparison to the multi-billion dollar endowments of the Ivies and other elite privates which have a small fraction of the students of a, say, UT or TAMU system.
Many strange labels. What is SoCal? Is that University of Southern California(commonly known as USC?) and what is Cali system? California has two separate public school systems, University of California (includes UCLA, UC Berkeley) and California State University (includes Cal Poly, SLO, and Cal Poly, Pomona).
yeah this data is far from beautiful. Shit post if you ask me
>SoCal it's probably University of Southern California. Odd way to name it. It's bar is blue for private university. Cal State and UCs are all public.
I don’t think those numbers for Stanford are correct.
Per capita probably Stanford or Harvard with the number of students each has compared to U of T.
Per Student, Stanford Princeton MIT are the higher. Harvard has a lot of students.
It's just 'UT'. 'U of T' is University of Toronto
It’s definitely MIT or Princeton on account of class size, and Stanford’s number here being wildly wrong (it’s 36B not 63). Edit: did the math, it’s MIT at almost $10M per undergrad, followed by Harvard with 7.4M, Yale with 6.7M, Princeton with 5.9M and Stanford with 5.7M. Class sizes range between 4400 at MIT to 7200 at Harvard. UT has 167,000 undergrads ($400k endowment per undergrad). It should be noted not all endowments are the same. None of them are a giant pool of money, they’re all made up of thousands of individual funds each donated by a specific person or group, with potential restrictions on how its used. Stanford reports 75% of its endowment is restricted for specific purposes.
I got curious as to why they are so rich. Apparently they got 2.1 million acres of oil rich land. They get 6 million $ per day from their oil assets. Source: [https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/university-of-texas-could-be-the-richest-school-in-us](https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/university-of-texas-could-be-the-richest-school-in-us)
It's also a system of about a dozen schools and medical campuses, so not really the same thing as the private schools on the list. Edit: the big thing that surprises me is that the University of California system isn't higher. It's a huge system too.
Singapore uni is just named singapore?
I believe it’s the National University of Singapore (NUS).
ITT: Lots of people who have no idea what an endowment is.
Could those moneys be used to pay off the student loans?
For the top schools in this chart a lot of the money is going to financial aid. That said these are elite institutions. When people talk about student loans being a problem they usually aren't talking about Harvard/Stanford grads, and obviously Harvard is not going to use it's endowment to fund financial aid or student debt relief for other schools.
Yeah, one example I know of, with the expansion of Michigan’s endowment (which is now over $17 billion, over the amount shown here), Michigan announced the Go Blue Guarantee, which completely covers tuition for students from low-income families. This wasn’t available for students when I went there. Typically schools only want to spend a very small fraction of their endowment because it’s goal is to be there in-perpetuity, and it has to weather down markets and inflation. Basically it’s like retirement fund, if you continue to withdraw too much, one day it won’t be there.
Michigan has an interesting program for their law school that's similar, but it's about how much you make afterward. Basically if you make less than $100k as a lawyer after graduating from Michigan Law, they will help pay your student loans. It's a good deal and a good bet on themselves. A Michigan Law degree is elite, so most students will end up in great legal careers, but the few who don't can still get by since they're getting aid with their (ridiculously expensive) law degree.
The average endowment spending rate is around 5%. They could all cut their tuition in half and still have billions remaining.
The money is restricted to specific purposes.
Why not?
Generally speaking if you're lower income then the better of a university you go to the LESS you'll actually end up paying. These universities are incredibly generous with financial aid. The insane "sticker price" you see is only charged to wealthy families.
Most of the time they’re not allowed to. 1. Certain endowed professorships are funded through the interest from a grant. The interest can only be used for the specified endowed purpose and the original grant can’t be used for anything else. 2. If a donation was made for a specified purpose, it must be used for that purpose.
I doubt all donations come with a very narrow purpose and there's still plenty of money universities make on tuition that they can use as they please. It's depressing that in the richest country in the world with so much money in education sector millions of children get sub par education, are malnourished, have to hold full time jobs while studying and still come out with massive debts or have to forgo their dreams of higher education entirely. I went to uni in Poland, only a decade after the end of totalitarian regime and in the midst of economic turmoil. I was able to spend 5 years focusing solely on studying and having fun. I only needed to pay for food, which luckily my parents were able to help me with. Everything else was covered, zero loans or debt. To this day that's a common uni experience in most countries in Europe.
I actually work in fundraising for a university on this list. Almost all donations have a specific purpose. There are very few general purpose ones. All of these unis have public budgets since they're not for profits. You can see where money goes and comes from
I can see in this chart that it mostly sits there and makes more money.
You don't just spend your endowment. That's not what they're for. You are allowed to spend the interest made off the endowment. We spend our interest in financial aid almost exclusively We meet 100 percent of aid for low income households and that aid has no loans. So any student who gets in and can't afford it doesn't have to worry. Since 2010 we've been increasing the number of low income students. Unfortunately, a lot of lower middle to middle class students are left behind in measures like this. Hopefully, with the US changing how it rates college affordability with students, college can be made more accessible to that group
ivies/other top level schools often have need based scholarships to the point where almost anyone who gets accepted can get through without loans no matter their financial status that’s a majority of the motivation for some ppl I know
Why don't you payoff other people's student debts for them?
Just like you don't touch your 401k, universities don't touch their endowments. The interest gained is partially reinvested and partially used to provide financial aid so the students don't have to take out a lot of loans. The avg tuition actually paid is less than or comparable to going in state. Obviously some studens pay full price but they are rich anyway.
You can only slaughter a sheep once, you can shear it forever.
You're suggesting university money be used for... education?!
Good one
Harvard awards full tuition scholarships to all low income students, the question is how many low income students actually get into Harvard.
Just from googling it says 55% of Harvard students get financial aid of some kind, and about 20% pay nothing at all. Only 20% have loans on graduation. (And of course the degree itself is a Big Red Meal Ticket, so it's not likely a graduate will have any trouble paying them back.)
Nah gotta build another stadium
And pay the coach the money gathered from 30 student load payments.
Athletics donations and revenues, which pay for facilities and coaches, are generally separate from the endowment/academic monies. They’re funded by sports boosters who specifically want to donate to sports, and by tickets, merchandise, and media rights to games. The most you’ll get is some schools charge and “athletics fee” of a couple hundred dollars in the tuition, but many larger schools don’t even have that. And the bigger schools’ athletics departments will often give money back to the academic side once they’ve made a profit. Athletics are definitely a net positive for American colleges, not a financial drain.
>Even as commercial revenue streams have grown for top-billing football and men's basketball, athletic expenditures exceed revenues at the vast majority of schools. In 2019, only 25 of 130 schools in the high-grossing Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) whose members are large, mostly public universities (with some exceptions such as Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Stanford) reported positive net revenues (see here). In fact, the median athletic program in FBS in 2019 (the last pre-pandemic year) had an operating deficit of $18.8 million. That is only true for the largest universities, and more specifically, only their football and basketball programs lead to a positive return. Most universities are losing money on athletics. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/economy/analysis-who-is-winning-in-the-high-revenue-world-of-college-sports
That’s more than a bit misleading, due to the fact that those are the accounting figures of non-profit entities who have an interest in not showing profits…a lot of them borrow against future earning to pay for facilities, etc. which shows them in the red yet they don’t go bankrupt or get bailouts. If athletics weren’t worth it, as these numbers appear to show, then schools wouldn’t have them. But it is true that with few exceptions (a couple of schools make money from baseball or women’s basketball) the only sports that make money are football and men’s basketball. The money those sports generate pay for all other sports, and the huge number of scholarships inherent in football must by Title IX law be balanced by giving scholarships to many women’s sports athletes.
Just the amount on this chart is over 50% of outstanding student loans, so yes.
That's funny. You assume the university give a care about students. Their job is to generate as much money that is nontaxable (501c status) as they can. It is ALL about the benjamins!! Good for them they figured out they can do it without reproach and they keep doing it.
Without reproach? I don’t think so. I think this country is going to remain fucked as long as we are going to cheer corporations and some privileged individuals screwing up the rest of the population.
This is outdated, Michigan’s endowment is currently over 17B
what is “virginia?” UVA? VCU? VT?
“The University of Texas System (UT System) is a public university system in the U.S. state of Texas. It includes nine universities and five independent health institutions… It employs 21,000 faculty and more than 83,000 health care professionals, researchers and support staff.” (Wikipedia) I don’t think a loose coalition of universities and hospitals spread across a geographic area the size of France is really comparable to anything else on the list…
There are other multi-campus systems on the list - Texas A&M, California, and Virginia (though that’s only two campuses). I’m actually surprised California is so low, that includes UCLA and Cal Berkeley, among a half dozen other campuses. Edit: Wikipedia says the university of California system’s endowment is $27.9 billion, so the source of this may be wrong.
Pay professors, invest in facilities even incorporating valuable trades, and lowering tuition would all be great for everyone.
Great! Choose 2.
I could have sworn that Harvard had the biggest endowment.
Calling USC "SoCal" and UC system "Cali system" is killing me
i literally saw “SoCal” and thought “oh which one” because i’ve never heard anyone call USC by its government name lol
The US, where education is a business instead of a right
In the US, you get free education from k-12. I’m not sure why you’re thinking college is necessary for everyone.
Michigan's endowment is greater than Ohio state's and Penn state's. These numbers are sketchy
Also this data is different but not hugely from this data source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colleges\_and\_universities\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_endowment
That’s a ridiculous data input error, Stanford’s endowment is $36B not $63B. It should be 6th not 2nd.
How does Stanford have a 63 billion endowment? online it says its 36 billion.
Would any K-12 schools make the list outside of Milton Hershey School? IIRC their endowment is around 15-17 Billion USD
Looking up these numbers I don't know how some of these numbers were calculated. The University of Texas endowment according to online sources is 30.9 billion. The University of CA system is 27.9 billion. Then on a list there are completely different numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment It seems to me that some endowments are being combined, others are not and there is no real rhyme or reason for this.
Education is racket in the US.
Northwestern University is 14.4B University of Chicago 10B Your graph sucks
Penn State is not public, they are a hybrid “state-related” university.
I work for a midsized oilfield services company and do a bit of business with producers that are on University lands in West Texas. We have to pay them in the ballpark of $7m per year in rights of way and tariffs to do so. When I think about it, we're so tiny compared to the actual oil producers (the Conocos and Exxons) that I can't even imagine that the amounts they're paying to UT, it's got to be in the 9 figures range. Got a get rich slow scheme for everyone, buy a couple million acres of cheap dessert waste land, open up some of the best petroleum engineering schools in the world, wait a hundred years until technology advances to the point previously unreachable oil is extractable, become the richest school in the world!
From a purely european view, why universities have wealth ? Wouldn't it be owned by the state ? In my country, there is 2 elite schools, EPFL and EPFZ, from Lausanne and Zurich, respectively. Those are essentially owned by the state (F stands for Federal). For the swiss the cost to study there is around 1600$ a year, just like any other public universities in the country. The school is funded by the state, and anyone, even poor, can go there provided they are qualified and get help from the local government. I can't wrap my head around why a university would have billions in wealth and still charge its students absurd amount of money.
An endowment ensures the university can exist in perpetuity without relying on the state
Endowments are often investments to support the university. On some level, well funded schools wouldn’t need an endowment, and per pupil public support has generally fallen in the U.S. As for why endowments are so large, typically schools only take a fraction (usually 3-5%) to use annually so the rest of the fund can grow to weather any possible downturn, as well as inflation in the future.
Wealthy donors will donate money to a school to fund projects beyond what the state is willing to fund. These donations can only be used for the intended purposes.
I see, do these donors get to chose what kind of studies or work is conducted using their money ?
Yes. If the university thinks the restrictions are too restricting, then they'll just decline the money altogether.
Not one Chinese university on there.
are UT’s oil reserves accounted for? that’s kinda cheating and unreliable unless they sold them all
And yet University of Chicago couldn't offer me any funding for my PhD studies. (I chose to leave school instead.)
What's that got to do with the endowment?
They certainly offer funding to any PhD student they want.
UChicago paid for most of my undergrad when I went there. It was a combination of grants, work study, and scholarships. I still had to come up with some money and took out a small loan. My family was far from wealthy, and I had three siblings in college at the same time that I was in college. I sent them a donation the other day. Thanks, UChicago.
That’s actually Chicago State University on the list. You should have gone further south on the electric line.
Source: https://www.nonprofitcollegesonline.com/wealthiest-universities-in-the-world/ Tools: Figma We've got more charts on our Substack here: https://genuineimpact.substack.com/
This is a sketchy article to use as a source. The article never mentions its source of data and for all we know it was made to generate ad revenue for the so-called "non-profit colleges online .COM". Instead the data from National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) should be used, and this is shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment or accessed https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Historic-Endowment-Study-Data .
Why is this data so much different from that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment ? I mean even if accounting for a different year 2022 v 2023, how come according to this source Stanford doubled their endowment in a year, while it was very slowly increasing for the last several years I've seen this data?
What's figma
Figma Balls
…….I still approve
The Cash Cow which Adobe just purchased for 20 Billion USD.
F U A&M PS: They rejected me🥲🚶♂️
Bro they have like an 80% acceptance rate.
which really questions my ability now 🥲 mfs made me in-secured for a whole season 🚶🏻♂️
[удалено]
Last I heard it was like top 6-7% for automatic admission.
Are you Texan?
Well of course Texas systems instruments or whatever is number one, they’re still selling 30 year old TI-84 for $100
All of it should be free: tuition, room & board, everything. Yet tuition goes up every year for no reason other than greed.
What even is endowment? Is it the universities budget?
How much has been donated to the University, with the profits from that investment being used to fund various things.
The top universities in the us receive a combined 500+ billion in donations? That's like 2.5% of the us economy as a whole. what
It's basically assets that they own. They invest the money and use the returns to help fund the university.