The only subject I can speak with authority on is Yale's endowment (it's big, I've seen it), so I don't know how relevant this will be to the majority of schools, but...
Yale's endowment manager, David Swensen, came up with this model called, fittingly, the "Yale Model". It did not involve coke addictions or senior surprises (!), but rather had to do with multiple investment classes (funds) each targeting specific industries or commodities. One of his big successes, in fact, was realizing that the time horizon for a U endowment was so long that FICC expected returns trended towards 0 in the long run. So, Swensen put most of Yale's money into long-term assets. Really long-term assets. Illiquid, long-ass-term assets like timber fields, oil futures, etc. So though their value may be fluctuating now, the core value behind the majority of the portfolio is still there. That's the reason why Yale, unlike Harvard, is not severely cutting back on expansion plans (although they are freezing faculty and cutting staff) - there's confidence that the endowment has not lost permanent value the way Vassar's, or Brown's, or etc. etc. has.
I think you need to separate some issues and use a more coherent comparative frame than "these schools," since the issues are a little more complex than you're suggesting.
First, there's a difference between tuition-driven schools (where tuition covers a large portion of annual operating expenses, like at Vassar), and endowment-driven schools (where tuition payments aren't as crucial, such as at Harvard, where nearly 60% of undergrads receive financial aid of some sort), which is important when talking about what schools "should" and "should not" be spending money on during times of crisis.
Also, the term "staff" is not necessarily synonymous with "faculty," so cutting staff (as in administrators) does not automatically mean cutting teachers. I'm not saying that firing administrators is not a bad thing, but I am saying that your point about schools not focusing on "improving preexisting services, like teaching," is not a natural conclusion to draw from the news about Vassar's staff reductions, for example.
And, finally (for now, since there's more to say but whatever), graduate education and undergraduate education occupy such completely different economic realms within each institution that it's not even worth complaining about "new graduate campuses" in the same post. Unless you also want to talk about how much money schools make off of M.A, J.D., M.D, and other programs that they consider it a priority to expand the range of offerings available to the students willing to plunk down 5-6 figures for the privilege of an "elite" degree. Or talk about how many graduate students ARE the people that these institutions rely on to improve things like, say, teaching.
10/02/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
Yale's endowment manager, David Swensen, came up with this model called, fittingly, the "Yale Model". It did not involve coke addictions or senior surprises (!), but rather had to do with multiple investment classes (funds) each targeting specific industries or commodities. One of his big successes, in fact, was realizing that the time horizon for a U endowment was so long that FICC expected returns trended towards 0 in the long run. So, Swensen put most of Yale's money into long-term assets. Really long-term assets. Illiquid, long-ass-term assets like timber fields, oil futures, etc. So though their value may be fluctuating now, the core value behind the majority of the portfolio is still there. That's the reason why Yale, unlike Harvard, is not severely cutting back on expansion plans (although they are freezing faculty and cutting staff) - there's confidence that the endowment has not lost permanent value the way Vassar's, or Brown's, or etc. etc. has.
09/11/09
First, there's a difference between tuition-driven schools (where tuition covers a large portion of annual operating expenses, like at Vassar), and endowment-driven schools (where tuition payments aren't as crucial, such as at Harvard, where nearly 60% of undergrads receive financial aid of some sort), which is important when talking about what schools "should" and "should not" be spending money on during times of crisis.
Also, the term "staff" is not necessarily synonymous with "faculty," so cutting staff (as in administrators) does not automatically mean cutting teachers. I'm not saying that firing administrators is not a bad thing, but I am saying that your point about schools not focusing on "improving preexisting services, like teaching," is not a natural conclusion to draw from the news about Vassar's staff reductions, for example.
And, finally (for now, since there's more to say but whatever), graduate education and undergraduate education occupy such completely different economic realms within each institution that it's not even worth complaining about "new graduate campuses" in the same post. Unless you also want to talk about how much money schools make off of M.A, J.D., M.D, and other programs that they consider it a priority to expand the range of offerings available to the students willing to plunk down 5-6 figures for the privilege of an "elite" degree. Or talk about how many graduate students ARE the people that these institutions rely on to improve things like, say, teaching.
09/11/09
09/11/09
I know, I'm not smart enough to even be commenting on this. ::sad face::