The 11.7 Baseball Scholarship Myth

Discuss anything else athletic or non-athletic related that doesn't belong on the main Tulane athletics forum.
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:11 pm

Well, according to this wikipedia page that tracked the size of endowments from 2007-2016, Tulane's endowment today is largely in line with many of the other universities that had similar endowments in 2007 (University of Cincinnati, Syracuse, Lehigh, Wake Forest, Baylor, etc.). Because there appears to be few universities with endowments of around $1B even in 2007 that saw huge increases between then and 2016, Tulane would still significantly lag behind the wealthy private schools even if it copied the strongest increase for a private school that started with about $1B (Carnegie Mellon - $1.1B to $1.7B). It seems like Tulane fell behind a long time ago, and there is no easy way to catch up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _endowment

Southern schools with larger endowments than Tulane that you wouldn't think have larger endowments than Tulane include the University of Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth.


McWave
Low Tide
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:45 am
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:36 pm

wow...and some have done really well. The following shows the growth from 2007 to 2016 based on the 2007 starting point:

TU: 16% increase from $1.009 billion
Gtown: 40% increase from $1.059 billion
Boston U: 50% increase from $1.101 billion
Carnegie Mellon: 53% increase from $1.116 billion
George Wash: 32% increase from $1.185 billion
Mich. St.: 78% increase from $1.248 billion
GT: 43% increase from $1.291 billion

don't know if this is a development or investment difference.

thanks..1892
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 17990
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:38 pm

McWave wrote:wow...and some have done really well. The following shows the growth from 2007 to 2016 based on the 2007 starting point:

TU: 16% increase from $1.009 billion
Gtown: 40% increase from $1.059 billion
Boston U: 50% increase from $1.101 billion
Carnegie Mellon: 53% increase from $1.116 billion
George Wash: 32% increase from $1.185 billion
Mich. St.: 78% increase from $1.248 billion
GT: 43% increase from $1.291 billion

don't know if this is a development or investment difference.

thanks..1892
1.7% a year for 9 years. Failure. Not even keeping up with the rate of inflation 1.9% a year.
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:07 pm

Don't forget that Tulane was, and likely still is, losing $20M per year from its endowment due to the annual operating deficit, as that certainly plays a role in the disappointing returns.

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/ ... 6dfb3.html

The below purely second hand information from someone who worked with Cowen who I spoke to, so I'm not going to hold it out as being the truth:

I was told that Cowen was aware of the operating deficit and figured that Tulane would never catch up with Emory/Rice/Vanderbilt/et al, and that that belief came into play with the decisions that were made after Katrina. Basically, Cowen wanted Tulane to be structured more like a Liberal Arts school than a high research school since Tulane neither had the resources to remain competitive against the other high profile research universities nor had a path to gaining the resources in order to do so. In order to achieve that goal, and, because the Tulane brand was/is still prestigious, it made sense to him to cut a lot of the programs in areas that Tulane is either not known for being "relevant" in or were not revenue positive since while Tulane is well known for a few areas, its lack of resources would prevent it from ever becoming relevant in areas that it is not already well known in and investing tons of resources in those areas would not be a good investment of Tulane's limited resources. As an example, supposedly, Cowen said that if student wants to study engineering and they have a 32+ on the ACT, it's extremely unlikely that they would choose Tulane over GaTech (paraphrased).

Again, the above is secondhand information, and I'm not saying that it was in any way true or accurate.
User avatar
Show Me
Riptide
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: Saint Bernard
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:31 pm

So let me get this straight. Tulane blames it's small endowment for the reason it can't offer what many other successful privates can offer. Yet it takes no blame for its small endowment. Ok I get it now. :roll:
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 17990
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:35 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Don't forget that Tulane was, and likely still is, losing $20M per year from its endowment due to the annual operating deficit, as that certainly plays a role in the disappointing returns.

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/ ... 6dfb3.html

The below purely second hand information from someone who worked with Cowen who I spoke to, so I'm not going to hold it out as being the truth:

I was told that Cowen was aware of the operating deficit and figured that Tulane would never catch up with Emory/Rice/Vanderbilt/et al, and that that belief came into play with the decisions that were made after Katrina. Basically, Cowen wanted Tulane to be structured more like a Liberal Arts school than a high research school since Tulane neither had the resources to remain competitive against the other high profile research universities nor had a path to gaining the resources in order to do so. In order to achieve that goal, and, because the Tulane brand was/is still prestigious, it made sense to him to cut a lot of the programs in areas that Tulane is either not known for being "relevant" in or were not revenue positive since while Tulane is well known for a few areas, its lack of resources would prevent it from ever becoming relevant in areas that it is not already well known in and investing tons of resources in those areas would not be a good investment of Tulane's limited resources. As an example, supposedly, Cowen said that if student wants to study engineering and they have a 32+ on the ACT, it's extremely unlikely that they would choose Tulane over GaTech (paraphrased).

Again, the above is secondhand information, and I'm not saying that it was in any way true or accurate.
Even more reason why the returns need to be better. Failure at its finest. Hopefully Fitts can turn the tide. At least he has in the US News and World rankings. Maybe the endowment can follow. I don't know and don't like what I see. Or what I don't see.
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
User avatar
ajcalhoun
Swell
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:42 pm
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:49 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote: I was told that Cowen was aware of the operating deficit and figured that Tulane would never catch up with Emory/Rice/Vanderbilt/et al, and that that belief came into play with the decisions that were made after Katrina. Basically, Cowen wanted Tulane to be structured more like a Liberal Arts school than a high research school since Tulane neither had the resources to remain competitive against the other high profile research universities nor had a path to gaining the resources in order to do so. In order to achieve that goal, and, because the Tulane brand was/is still prestigious, it made sense to him to cut a lot of the programs in areas that Tulane is either not known for being "relevant" in or were not revenue positive since while Tulane is well known for a few areas, its lack of resources would prevent it from ever becoming relevant in areas that it is not already well known in and investing tons of resources in those areas would not be a good investment of Tulane's limited resources. As an example, supposedly, Cowen said that if student wants to study engineering and they have a 32+ on the ACT, it's extremely unlikely that they would choose Tulane over GaTech (paraphrased).

Again, the above is secondhand information, and I'm not saying that it was in any way true or accurate.
I'm no fan of Cowen but I do see the logic behind that plan,
Welcome to gotula.net, where it's never too late to mention Tanner Lee, Andy Cannizaro, Lindsey Scott Jr., Rich Rodriguez, David Pierce, or, of course, Scott Cowen. You see, no horse here is so dead that it cannot be beaten just a little bit more.
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6395
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:56 pm

ajcalhoun wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote: I was told that Cowen was aware of the operating deficit and figured that Tulane would never catch up with Emory/Rice/Vanderbilt/et al, and that that belief came into play with the decisions that were made after Katrina. Basically, Cowen wanted Tulane to be structured more like a Liberal Arts school than a high research school since Tulane neither had the resources to remain competitive against the other high profile research universities nor had a path to gaining the resources in order to do so. In order to achieve that goal, and, because the Tulane brand was/is still prestigious, it made sense to him to cut a lot of the programs in areas that Tulane is either not known for being "relevant" in or were not revenue positive since while Tulane is well known for a few areas, its lack of resources would prevent it from ever becoming relevant in areas that it is not already well known in and investing tons of resources in those areas would not be a good investment of Tulane's limited resources. As an example, supposedly, Cowen said that if student wants to study engineering and they have a 32+ on the ACT, it's extremely unlikely that they would choose Tulane over GaTech (paraphrased).

Again, the above is secondhand information, and I'm not saying that it was in any way true or accurate.
I'm no fan of Cowen but I do see the logic behind that plan,
I don't see that logic at all, and I'm an Arts & Sciences grad. What I see is a Tulane President that couldn't fund raise, so he basically gave up. Why he was allowed to stay as long as he did while failing at his most important task (fundraising) is beyond me. There's an old adage that says investments should DOUBLE every 18 years given average market returns. What did our endowment do in his 16 years? COWEN = FAILURE.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
User avatar
chain gang x man
Swell
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:02 pm
Location: Destrehan
Contact:
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:47 am

Baseball has fewer scholarships than Lacrosse
CWS attendance 330K+

https://twitter.com/eddyfurniss/status/ ... 2994448384
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:33 am

DfromCT wrote: I don't see that logic at all, and I'm an Arts & Sciences grad. What I see is a Tulane President that couldn't fund raise, so he basically gave up. Why he was allowed to stay as long as he did while failing at his most important task (fundraising) is beyond me. There's an old adage that says investments should DOUBLE every 18 years given average market returns. What did our endowment do in his 16 years? COWEN = FAILURE.
Well, it's complicated. Looking at a snapshot of the endowments of the Tulane's historical competition in 1998 - 1998 was selected because that was when Cowen became Tulane's president - Emory had the 5th largest endowment overall at $5.1B, WashU was number 10 with $3.4B, Rice was 13 with $2.7B, Vanderbilt was 19 with $1.5B, and Duke was 23 with $1.3B. At that same time, Tulane was number 76 with $500M, so it seems like Tulane was significantly behind even before Cowen came aboard. Glancing at the 2015 endowment numbers, in regard increases of the endowments of the other schools, Emory's has not increased that much ($5.1 to $6.6B), WashU has doubled ($3.4B to $6.8B), Rice has a little more than doubled ($2.7 to $5.5B), Vanderbilt has almost tripled ($1.5 to $4.1B), and Duke has multiplied x5+ ($1.3 to $7.2B). Considering that Tulane's endowment has more than doubled since 1998, its increase since that time is largely in line with the increases at WashU and Rice, significantly better than the increase at Emory, and significantly lags the increases Vanderbilt and Duke. Technically speaking, that's not a terrible increase relative to the historical peers.

Tulane's rank of 76 was below private universities like Tulsa, Lehigh, George Washington, Boston University and Baylor but above private universities like Syracuse, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Tufts, and Miami. Interestingly enough, none of the private universities the were right above Tulane or right below Tulane in 1998 have endowments of over $1.65B today. In fact, it does not appear as though any private universities with endowments smaller than Tulane's in 1998 have endowments of over $2B. There appears to be an issue there that may be worth researching, since it appears as though private universities that did not already have $700M+ in 1998 were not able to reach $2B+ by 2015.

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-C ... ments.html
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6395
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:40 am

Aberzombie1892 wrote: Well, it's complicated. Looking at a snapshot of the endowments of the Tulane's historical competition in 1998 - 1998 was selected because that was when Cowen became Tulane's president - Emory had the 5th largest endowment overall at $5.1B, WashU was number 10 with $3.4B, Rice was 13 with $2.7B, Vanderbilt was 19 with $1.5B, and Duke was 23 with $1.3B. At that same time, Tulane was number 76 with $500M, so it seems like Tulane was significantly behind even before Cowen came aboard. Glancing at the 2015 endowment numbers, in regard increases of the endowments of the other schools, Emory's has not increased that much ($5.1 to $6.6B), WashU has doubled ($3.4B to $6.8B), Rice has a little more than doubled ($2.7 to $5.5B), Vanderbilt has almost tripled ($1.5 to $4.1B), and Duke has multiplied x5+ ($1.3 to $7.2B). Considering that Tulane's endowment has more than doubled since 1998, its increase since that time is largely in line with the increases at WashU and Rice, significantly better than the increase at Emory, and significantly lags the increases Vanderbilt and Duke. Technically speaking, that's not a terrible increase relative to the historical peers.

Tulane's rank of 76 was below private universities like Tulsa, Lehigh, George Washington, Boston University and Baylor but above private universities like Syracuse, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Tufts, and Miami. Interestingly enough, none of the private universities the were right above Tulane or right below Tulane in 1998 have endowments of over $1.65B today. In fact, it does not appear as though any private universities with endowments smaller than Tulane's in 1998 have endowments of over $2B. There appears to be an issue there that may be worth researching, since it appears as though private universities that did not already have $700M+ in 1998 were not able to reach $2B+ by 2015.

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-C ... ments.html
Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me, researching and posting this. I still don't understand the decision to drop Engineering as it relates to endowment growth. Was Engineering a net loss on the balance sheet? Is Liberal Arts a big money maker?
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 17990
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:49 am

DfromCT wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote: Well, it's complicated. Looking at a snapshot of the endowments of the Tulane's historical competition in 1998 - 1998 was selected because that was when Cowen became Tulane's president - Emory had the 5th largest endowment overall at $5.1B, WashU was number 10 with $3.4B, Rice was 13 with $2.7B, Vanderbilt was 19 with $1.5B, and Duke was 23 with $1.3B. At that same time, Tulane was number 76 with $500M, so it seems like Tulane was significantly behind even before Cowen came aboard. Glancing at the 2015 endowment numbers, in regard increases of the endowments of the other schools, Emory's has not increased that much ($5.1 to $6.6B), WashU has doubled ($3.4B to $6.8B), Rice has a little more than doubled ($2.7 to $5.5B), Vanderbilt has almost tripled ($1.5 to $4.1B), and Duke has multiplied x5+ ($1.3 to $7.2B). Considering that Tulane's endowment has more than doubled since 1998, its increase since that time is largely in line with the increases at WashU and Rice, significantly better than the increase at Emory, and significantly lags the increases Vanderbilt and Duke. Technically speaking, that's not a terrible increase relative to the historical peers.

Tulane's rank of 76 was below private universities like Tulsa, Lehigh, George Washington, Boston University and Baylor but above private universities like Syracuse, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Tufts, and Miami. Interestingly enough, none of the private universities the were right above Tulane or right below Tulane in 1998 have endowments of over $1.65B today. In fact, it does not appear as though any private universities with endowments smaller than Tulane's in 1998 have endowments of over $2B. There appears to be an issue there that may be worth researching, since it appears as though private universities that did not already have $700M+ in 1998 were not able to reach $2B+ by 2015.

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-C ... ments.html
Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me, researching and posting this. I still don't understand the decision to drop Engineering as it relates to endowment growth. Was Engineering a net loss on the balance sheet? Is Liberal Arts a big money maker?
Right. In general a Engineering degree earns more than a Liberal Arts degree. Hence you should be able to expect a higher donation from that person in regards to the endowment. I don't get it.
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5216
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:01 am

tpstulane wrote:
DfromCT wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote: Well, it's complicated. Looking at a snapshot of the endowments of the Tulane's historical competition in 1998 - 1998 was selected because that was when Cowen became Tulane's president - Emory had the 5th largest endowment overall at $5.1B, WashU was number 10 with $3.4B, Rice was 13 with $2.7B, Vanderbilt was 19 with $1.5B, and Duke was 23 with $1.3B. At that same time, Tulane was number 76 with $500M, so it seems like Tulane was significantly behind even before Cowen came aboard. Glancing at the 2015 endowment numbers, in regard increases of the endowments of the other schools, Emory's has not increased that much ($5.1 to $6.6B), WashU has doubled ($3.4B to $6.8B), Rice has a little more than doubled ($2.7 to $5.5B), Vanderbilt has almost tripled ($1.5 to $4.1B), and Duke has multiplied x5+ ($1.3 to $7.2B). Considering that Tulane's endowment has more than doubled since 1998, its increase since that time is largely in line with the increases at WashU and Rice, significantly better than the increase at Emory, and significantly lags the increases Vanderbilt and Duke. Technically speaking, that's not a terrible increase relative to the historical peers.

Tulane's rank of 76 was below private universities like Tulsa, Lehigh, George Washington, Boston University and Baylor but above private universities like Syracuse, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Tufts, and Miami. Interestingly enough, none of the private universities the were right above Tulane or right below Tulane in 1998 have endowments of over $1.65B today. In fact, it does not appear as though any private universities with endowments smaller than Tulane's in 1998 have endowments of over $2B. There appears to be an issue there that may be worth researching, since it appears as though private universities that did not already have $700M+ in 1998 were not able to reach $2B+ by 2015.

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-C ... ments.html
Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me, researching and posting this. I still don't understand the decision to drop Engineering as it relates to endowment growth. Was Engineering a net loss on the balance sheet? Is Liberal Arts a big money maker?
Right. In general a Engineering degree earns more than a Liberal Arts degree. Hence you should be able to expect a higher donation from that person in regards to the endowment. I don't get it.
It's not just about the higher salary, it about the leader of your university understanding the changing dynamics of education. Instead of cutting engineering cause it wasn't as good as Vandy or GTech, we should have been working to improve it do to the fact that fewer people will be paying huge money for liberal arts degrees. STEM is the future of education. We have the worst civil engineering disaster in the history of the US and we cut Civil Engineering?
Last edited by mbawavefan12 on Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Show Me
Riptide
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: Saint Bernard
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:04 am

Easy to see now why Cowen ran a $20 million a year deficit. "Penny wise dollar foolish."
Show Me!
McWave
Low Tide
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:45 am
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:46 pm

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowme ... eturns.pdf

This link has the average investment returns of higher ed. endowments

Over $1 billion Endowment Return
1 yr., 4.3%
3 yr., 10.8%
5 yr., 10.4%
10 yr., 7.2%

https://www2.tulane.edu/tef/upload/Newe ... t-2015.pdf

Tulane
1 yr., 6.9%
3 yr., 11.8%
5 yr., 10.0%
7 yr., 7.0%

Appears to be inline with average over the longer term.
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:50 pm

tpstulane wrote:
DfromCT wrote:Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me, researching and posting this. I still don't understand the decision to drop Engineering as it relates to endowment growth. Was Engineering a net loss on the balance sheet? Is Liberal Arts a big money maker?
Right. In general a Engineering degree earns more than a Liberal Arts degree. Hence you should be able to expect a higher donation from that person in regards to the endowment. I don't get it.
It's difficult to answer this question in a few words, and it's also difficult to decide where to begin. Tulane recruits incoming students on a national level, and it does so because (1) Louisiana doesn't not produce a lot of students with high GPAs and high ACT/SAT scores and (2) Louisiana hands out full scholarships to in-state schools with students with a 20 on the ACT with a 3.5 GPA via TOPS, (3) in state students that meet Tulane's lowered -
but still higher than TOPS - entrance requirements for Louisiana residents would receive a full ride plus stipend if they went to a Louisiana state school via TOPS and (4) Tulane needs to graduate students that leave the state after acquiring their degrees so that not only can they can land attractive jobs after graduation since Louisiana is not home to many employers that regularly hire big groups of recent graduates but also so other perspective students can see how successful Tulane graduates are in terms of gaining employment outside Louisiana. Because of those factors, Tulane doesn't focus on what in-state students are interested in in regard to its programs outside of the massive School of Professional Advancement, which was formerly the the School of Continuing Studies. Instead, Tulane focuses on what out of state prospective students with high test scores would be interested in since those students are its targets, as the applications, high test scores, and top high school ranks from those students are a big reason why Tulane is ranked #39 on US News right now while the few in-state students that have been admitted are generally dragging Tulane's rank in the wrong direction due to the lower entrance requirements that they need to meet in order to be admitted.

The issue then becomes how Tulane determines what those students are interested in, and it does so by comparing its programs/costs to programs/costs offered at schools that those students would also apply to. This is more complicated than it sounds, and there are two main ways that this comparison takes place. The first is that the types of students that generally apply to Tulane apply across a spectrum schools. So, for example, a student may have some hail mary applications, some target applications, some safety applications, and then some non-elite state/private school applications with Tulane possibly falling into any one of those categories except for the last one for any randomly selected applicant. Tulane captures this application information both in the application from the students, by asking what other schools a student applies to, and also in the exit survey if the student is admitted to Tulane but turns down for Tulane for a different school, by asking what school the student decided to attend instead and why*. Tulane aggregates this data internally, combines it with the ACT/SAT/GPA/preliminary area of study of the applicant on the application, and uses that information to come to conclusions about Tulane's general position in regard to other schools**. The second is that the price that the student ultimately has to pay frequently plays a role in which school they choose to attend, even when the student is wealthy. Some wealthy applicants with 31 on the ACT may be admitted to "higher" profile schools than Tulane, but those schools are frequently less likely than Tulane to give merit aid to the wealthy applicants than Tulane is***^.

So, given that Tulane is aware of its general position on average by aggregating data from different cycles, it looks for the best way to get students that meet its average thresholds to apply. The issue here become a little more uncertain because there is not a lot of external information available. Once all of the above is said and done, Tulane is aware of what the perspective majors are of the geographically diverse students that decline an acceptance to Tulane, and Tulane knows where they choose to go instead. Given that, and, given that Tulane virtually hands out non-need/athletic scholarships in order to buy ACT/SATs, the most likely outcome is that only applicants with lower ACT/SATs applied to, and were willing to attend Tulane in order to study engineering versus Tulane's "peers". Tulane, and likely Tulane alone, has the data to prove or disprove that, but it seems like the most likely outcome.

*I even have personal experience - when I applied to Tulane's law school, it asked me what other programs I was applying to for law. During my time there, I applied to the MBA program which asked a similar question. When I declined the offer for admittance to the MBA program, it asked which program I decided to attend instead.

**The below link is old (2012), but it shows which universities other universities have selected to be their peers and vice versa. The University of Rochester, Tulsa, USC, Northwestern, SMU, Baylor, Brandeis, Northeastern, Miami, Notre Dame, University of Virginia, Vanderbilt, and WashU have selected Tulane as a peer.
http://www.chronicle.com/interactives/peers-network?

***At the link below, the wealth of undergraduate student bodies of universities is examined. Overall Tulane is #43 overall for highest median parent income at $180,000 - higher than Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Swarthmore, and USC but lower than George Washington, Notre Dame and Boston College. Additional info - 12.8% of Tulane's undergrads are from the top 1% ($630k+) and 16.9% is from the bottom 60% (less than $65,000). Further, only 8.9% of the student body is in the bottom 40% and 69% of the study body is in the top 20% ($110k+). https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/pro ... university

^The below article shows that Tulane provides non-athletic, non-need aid to 37% of its freshmen, and that is more than 2x the percentage of the freshmen that WashU offers such aid to. Further, Tulane's average award in this category was over $22K, which, again, was more than double WashU. Contrast that with 3% of the freshmen at the University of Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... ce4777f08c
mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5216
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:57 pm

McWave wrote:http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowme ... eturns.pdf

This link has the average investment returns of higher ed. endowments

Over $1 billion Endowment Return
1 yr., 4.3%
3 yr., 10.8%
5 yr., 10.4%
10 yr., 7.2%

https://www2.tulane.edu/tef/upload/Newe ... t-2015.pdf

Tulane
1 yr., 6.9%
3 yr., 11.8%
5 yr., 10.0%
7 yr., 7.0%

Appears to be inline with average over the longer term.
For starters average isn't something to brag about. With that said, we should be comparing the average return for top 50 US News schools (colleges and universities). There are literally 400+ 4-year schools, many don;t hire private hedge funds to manage their endowment portfolio. Also, are these retunrs after fees?
McWave
Low Tide
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:45 am
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:15 pm

I agree with your comments. I said they were "in line with average", which they appear to be. I am not please with that and would expect more for a university with TU's resources and access to top asset managers.

The Cambridge Associates 430 endowment comparison is large in numbers but how small is #430? :roll:

Tulane is ranked in the 70's at about $1 billion in assets. A comparison to anything outside the top 100 seems weak and I would agree top 50 US news is preferred.

Maybe that's why a baseball team in the top 80's (RPI) is deemed acceptable. (This is not directed at any coach current, past, future, or otherwise. So I am not going there.) Top 100 football team, etc. ;)
RollWaveRoll
Low Tide
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:21 am
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:30 pm

We need to have a major campaign announcement for an Endowment Push to raise 1+ Billion. Several Universities have done this recently, announcing raising multi billion dollar campaigns for the endowments. Our Admin cant be setting on their hands.... we need to join this asap or we will get left in the dust.

Thanks for bringing this up! This is something i've been wanting to post for a long time. Here are some examples but their are many more. All of these were roughly in the last year.

USC has 6$ Billion Dollar Goal - already reached 5 of it.
https://news.usc.edu/97247/campaign-for ... lion-mark/

SMU has a 1.15 Billion Campaign.
https://www.smu.edu/News/2016/campaign- ... -26feb2016

Penn raised 4.3$B on a 3.5$B goal - blew it out of water
https://news.upenn.edu/news/penn-campai ... university

Clemson - 1$B
http://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediarelat ... 6-billion/

Kansas raised 1.6$B on a 1.2$B goal
https://news.ku.edu/2016/08/02/far-abov ... .6-billion

Florida announced 1.5$B Goal to double endowment
http://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/2 ... 146042/GS/

Washington announces 5$B campaing by 2020
http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/10/ ... -campaign/

Duke is raising 3.25$B in 1 year.

https://dukeforward.duke.edu/overview/by-the-numbers/
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 6395
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:51 pm

RollWaveRoll wrote:We need to have a major campaign announcement for an Endowment Push to raise 1+ Billion. Several Universities have done this recently, announcing raising multi billion dollar campaigns for the endowments. Our Admin cant be setting on their hands.... we need to join this asap or we will get left in the dust.

Thanks for bringing this up! This is something i've been wanting to post for a long time. Here are some examples but their are many more. All of these were roughly in the last year.

USC has 6$ Billion Dollar Goal - already reached 5 of it.
https://news.usc.edu/97247/campaign-for ... lion-mark/

SMU has a 1.15 Billion Campaign.
https://www.smu.edu/News/2016/campaign- ... -26feb2016

Penn raised 4.3$B on a 3.5$B goal - blew it out of water
https://news.upenn.edu/news/penn-campai ... university

Clemson - 1$B
http://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediarelat ... 6-billion/

Kansas raised 1.6$B on a 1.2$B goal
https://news.ku.edu/2016/08/02/far-abov ... .6-billion

Florida announced 1.5$B Goal to double endowment
http://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/2 ... 146042/GS/

Washington announces 5$B campaing by 2020
http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/10/ ... -campaign/

Duke is raising 3.25$B in 1 year.

https://dukeforward.duke.edu/overview/by-the-numbers/
I couldn't agree more with your assertion that we need a significant announcement on a $1 billion fundraising campaign. However some of those headlines are a bit misleading. Duke, for example, had a $3.2 billion campaign over 2 or 3 years, and "only" $1 billion of it was earmarked for "permanent endowment growth."

But if we could double our endowment through fundraising in a year or even three, it would be a huge improvement to the quality of expansion the University could enjoy over the next decade or two. "If you're not moving forward, you're getting left behind."
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
RollWaveRoll
Low Tide
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:21 am
Status: Offline

Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:02 pm

DfromCT wrote:
RollWaveRoll wrote:We need to have a major campaign announcement for an Endowment Push to raise 1+ Billion. Several Universities have done this recently, announcing raising multi billion dollar campaigns for the endowments. Our Admin cant be setting on their hands.... we need to join this asap or we will get left in the dust.

Thanks for bringing this up! This is something i've been wanting to post for a long time. Here are some examples but their are many more. All of these were roughly in the last year.

USC has 6$ Billion Dollar Goal - already reached 5 of it.
https://news.usc.edu/97247/campaign-for ... lion-mark/

SMU has a 1.15 Billion Campaign.
https://www.smu.edu/News/2016/campaign- ... -26feb2016

Penn raised 4.3$B on a 3.5$B goal - blew it out of water
https://news.upenn.edu/news/penn-campai ... university

Clemson - 1$B
http://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediarelat ... 6-billion/

Kansas raised 1.6$B on a 1.2$B goal
https://news.ku.edu/2016/08/02/far-abov ... .6-billion

Florida announced 1.5$B Goal to double endowment
http://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/2 ... 146042/GS/

Washington announces 5$B campaing by 2020
http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/10/ ... -campaign/

Duke is raising 3.25$B in 1 year.

https://dukeforward.duke.edu/overview/by-the-numbers/
I couldn't agree more with your assertion that we need a significant announcement on a $1 billion fundraising campaign. However some of those headlines are a bit misleading. Duke, for example, had a $3.2 billion campaign over 2 or 3 years, and "only" $1 billion of it was earmarked for "permanent endowment growth."

But if we could double our endowment through fundraising in a year or even three, it would be a huge improvement to the quality of expansion the University could enjoy over the next decade or two. "If you're not moving forward, you're getting left behind."

agree 100%. Some of these are 5 year campaigns and some are 1 year campaigns. not all is earmarked for endowment on some of them, but some are.

Tulane Endowment University Ranking By Year
1990 - 59
1991 - 61
1992 - 65
1993 - 65
1994 - 69
1995 - 71
1996 - 74
1997 - 74
1998 - 76
1999 - 77
2000 - 78
2001 - 72
2002 - 72
2003 - 72
2004 - 76
2005 - 72
2006 - 74
2007 - 76
2008 - 73
2009 - 73
2010 - 70
2011 - 74
2012 - 77
2013 - 79
2014 - 77
2015 - 72
2016 - ?

We really took a hit from 1990-1995 dropping from 59th highest endowment to 71st among all universities. Other universities performed much better than us knocking us down the pecking order. But since then our performance has not increased our standing and been pretty constant....meaning we are just avg. Some universities that are ranked in the 70s currently right theri with us, were ranked in the 300s in 1990.

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-C ... ments.html
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm

Tulane gives a lot more non-need, non-athletic aid to entering freshmen than a lot of its peer schools do (i.e. more than 2x as much as WashU or 12x+ as much as UVA). There are different reasons for this, but the most likely one is that Tulane uses that non-need, non-athletic aid to convince wealthier students with high scores to choose to attend Tulane over similarly ranked or subjectively "better" schools that are less willing to give aid to those wealthier students. This is supported by the fact that the median household income for Tulane's undergraduate student body is $180,000, and some of the schools that are ranked higher but give less non-need, non-athletic aid have a lower median household income for their student bodies (i.e. Northwestern and Johns Hopkins).

The above is important for posters that are frustrated with the baseball situation, as Tulane almost certainly spends more on non-need, non-athletic aid than it does on need and athletic aid put tougher. However, if Tulane adjusted its commitments between the two groups in order to take aware funds from the former to give to the latter, it would risk lowering the ranking of its undergraduate school since it couldn't convince so many wealthier students with high scores to attend, so it's probably not in the best interests of the university to do so.

As for the endowment, it's returns have been in line with the big 5 southern private research schools, but it's just that Tulane started with a lot less money. Going back to 1990, WashU was #8 nationally, Emory was #9, Rice was #11, Vanderbilt was #16, and Duke was #25, while Tulane was #59 in endowment ranking. Whenever Tulane fell behind, it was before then.
User avatar
chain gang x man
Swell
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:02 pm
Location: Destrehan
Contact:
Status: Offline

Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:02 am

User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 17990
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:01 am

chain gang x man wrote:Ron Polk not a fan of NCAA

https://twitter.com/coachronpolk/status ... 2051126274
Kudos to Ron. He's been preaching to the choir for years unfortunately the NCAA has no interest in increasing the baseball scholarships from 11.7.
Rick Jones has also tried to convince the NCAA but only to have it also fall on deaf ears. Perhaps if it wasn't all about the money Chase Solesky and others would be less likely to have to leave. It really hurts privates more than publics that's probably why the limit has not changed in years. Not enough schools are impacted yet. However as tuition rises across the nation maybe more schools will complain about the lack of baseball scholarships.
Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 12611
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:12 am

Remember that Polk coached at a public yet he's always been the leading voice for increasing scholarships. Mississippi doesn't have a lottery so they don't have a TOPS type program. In fact an article that is in one of these threads covered how many of the state schools in various states feel disadvantaged and want more scholarships. Unfortunately whatever increase baseball gets would have to be matched on the women's side. That's a big reason there hasn't been an increase.
High School Stadium Gets You High School Football
Post Reply