Skip to main content

Higher Ed's Hedgefunds

OK, I got your attention.  That title is admittedly a bit harsh.

But before I talk about the data, there are lots of caveats here, and some background will help.  Last week, NACUBO released its 2021 Study of Endowments, along with lots of data for the public, and more if you are a member.  I used the free data here.  The last person you want to get angry at you is the business officers.  So the first caveat is that NACUBO is much quicker than IPEDS in getting data out, and the IPEDS data I'll use here is a year older, and generally, less rosy than the 2021 FY stuff from NACUBO.

However, the IPEDS data is more granular.  When talking about endowments, that's important.  The university endowment is not just a big pot of money you can spend, nor is the income always available to you to do whatever you want.  Much of the investment return is restricted, that is, the income can only be used for certain things (an endowed chair in the physical sciences, or a center for the study of South American politics, or student scholarships, for instance.)  I've known restricted endowments that cost a university money, by requiring some sort of contribution to the thing that's endowed.  This is the second caveat.

The third caveat is complexity: Some universities have good returns on restricted endowments, and losses on unrestricted.  Others are the opposite.  Some lose money on everything.    Even if you're an accountant, this can get complex.   And, of course, while the fund may have increased by $100M, for example, you generally don't spend it in the same year because it would be almost impossible to.

The fourth caveat is that not all growth is from investment growth.  Some of it is from new money coming in.

The final caveat is volatility.  While investments can go way up, they can also go way down.  An endowment is intended to exist for the university in perpetuity, which can be a long time.

So, with that in mind, I wondered: When does a college or university stop being an institution of higher education, and start being considered an investment firm that runs educational enterprises on the side?  I asked in a tweet what a list of colleges had in common.  I offered a hint that I had been playing with NACUBO and IPEDS data.  And I got some good guesses.  And some bad ones, including things you couldn't tell from IPEDS or NACUBO.

The answer is that all 19 of the institutions listed in the tweet, and on the visualization below, had unrestricted endowment earnings that exceeded the total amount of tuition they collected in the same year.  And, as I indicated, the numbers in FY 21 appear to be mostly higher (by a lot) than in FY 20 (the years shown here.)  Harvard, for instance, had a total return of almost $11B in FY 21. (That should put them on the list easily next year, but for FY 20 they have to settle for a paltry ratio of 0.9).

The column on the left shows the ratio: Princeton, for instance, collected about $133M in tuition in the same year its endowment returned almost $1.5B, or just about eleven times as much.  For Grinnell, it was 1.9, for Stanford, 4.3.

I'll probably dig in a little deeper later, but because the data are reported differently across platforms, and the timing is not great, it may be a while.  And perhaps this will all be less relevant if the market goes down or levels off this year.

What would you like to see?  Let me know, and I'll consider it.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Changes in AP Scores, 2022 to 2024

Used to be, with a little work, you could download very detailed data on AP results from the College Board website: For every state, and for every course, you could see performance by ethnicity.  And, if you wanted to dig really deep, you could break out details by private and public schools, and by grade level.  I used to publish the data every couple of years. Those days are gone.  The transparency The College Board touts as a value seems to have its limits, and I understand this to some extent: Racists loved to twist the data using single-factor analysis, and that's not good for a company who is trying to make business inroads with under-represented communities as they cloak their pursuit of revenue as an altruistic push toward access. They still publish data, but as I wrote about in my last post , it's far less detailed; what's more, what is easily accessible is fairly sterile, and what's more detailed seems to be structured in a way that suggests the company doesn...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...
Post a Comment
Read more