Tag: Finance & Operations

The Backlog That Could Threaten Higher Ed’s Viability

California State University-Dominguez Hills started building on its current site in 1965, amid America’s postwar higher-education boom, and its campus looks like a lot of regional state universities: a core of Brutalist concrete buildings with glassy, modern structures surrounding them. This campus of 16,000 students is emblematic in another way — it’s racking up a mounting tab for deferred maintenance.

Administrators tally the deferred maintenance there at $130 million, and growing to $252 million over the next 10 years. In September last year, the California State University system requested $1.3 billion from the State of California to address the problem. In a January draft of the state budget, Cal State leaders got a sense of how much of that request the state would deliver: zero.

That $1.3 billion was just a fraction of the $5.8-billion backlog of repairs and renewals needed across its 23 institutions — an amount that grows by about $280 million a year. CSU-Dominguez Hills was relatively fortunate — it recently received about $1 million a year from the state to tackle priority projects across the campus. Still, that math doesn’t add up.

“We’re behind every year,” says Jonathan Scheffler, associate vice president for facilities management and operations. He and his staff have to get creative, finding money for projects through energy-saving partnerships with a local utility or incorporating infrastructure repairs with other projects. Much of what nags at Scheffler and his colleagues on the facilities staff are problems never seen by students and faculty, and they are not the parts of buildings that donors want to put a name on.

“In our buildings that were built in the ‘70s — those are some of the core buildings — we have infrastructure issues,” he says. “You know, the electrical, the plumbing, the sewer, the storm-drain systems. We keep up on our roofing, but all those behind-the-wall type of systems are at or beyond their useful lives.” The switchgear that distribute electricity throughout the campus are from the founding of the institution.

“That’s the thing that keeps me up at night,” Scheffler says. “If we lose something like that, what do we do to replace it? How do we keep it going? Even getting electrical components nowadays, with the long lead times, is crazy.”

Dominguez Hills is an example of a problem plaguing higher education. Deferred maintenance — or as some call it, “deferred capital renewal” — has been a persistent worry for colleges, but a range of events and forces seem to be leading to an inflection point: Higher education may be reaching a stage where the backlog of needs on campuses becomes so overwhelming that it threatens the viability of many institutions and demands major action.

We’ve just been growing since the ‘50s, assuming that there will be more and more students to come.

Consider that for 70 years, higher education has built like never before — and may never again. In the post-World War II years, colleges built up their campuses to accommodate an expanding national population and fundamental societal shift pushing college after high school. During the height of the Cold War and into the internet era, they built to serve an era of growing research and advancing technology, adding facilities for science and health care. More recently, they built to compete with a neighbor or peer — recreation facilities and residence halls to capture the attention of students, academic buildings to draw star faculty, and signature buildings to grab the attention of the media. And sometimes they built at the behest of a donor who wanted a name on something, or a president who wanted to point to an accomplishment before moving on to another college.

Building satisfied the needs of the time. College leaders often thought less about the unglamorous work of maintaining what they already had.

The result of all this building has been hundreds of millions of added square feet to college campuses, and much of that was predicated on future growth. But higher education’s growth years may be behind it for a while, with students falling out of the system during the pandemic and a long-predicted demographic downturn just on the horizon. (And even in the growth years, it’s not as though money was always there for repair and renewal, as organizations like the American Society of Civil Engineers have routinely noted the mediocre-to-failing condition of the nation’s infrastructure.)

Meanwhile, bricks, steel, concrete, and mortar follow the laws of entropy. As a rule, buildings have two critical stages in their lifetimes: At 25 years, a building needs significant updates and renovations; at 50, a major overhaul of its structure and systems. In recent decades, colleges went through two peaks of construction, one in the early 1970s and another in the late ‘90s and early 2000s. Do the math: Two building life cycles will come due in the 2020s.

Lander Medlin, the president and chief executive of APPA, an association of higher-education facilities managers, points out that the construction costs of a building represent only about 25 percent of the total lifetime expenses. Recurring annual costs, like utilities, everyday maintenance, and operations, represent another 35 to 40 percent.

The rest is periodic costs in the lifecycle of essential building systems: replacing the roof after 50 years, updating the heating and cooling system after 20, the plumbing and wiring, the building’s skin, and more. “The forgotten costs are the periodic costs,” says Medlin. They are rarely calculated or allocated for at the beginning of a project. And the longevity of such systems is often affected by the attention to the recurring annual maintenance.

This week, Gordian, a company that tracks facilities’ conditions in higher education and advises colleges on strategy, released its 10th annual “State of Facilities in Higher Education,” a study of the facilities needs among the member institutions in Gordian’s portfolio. The capital-renewal needs at colleges, which had hovered around $100 per square foot in recent years, suddenly jumped up to $133 per square foot.

The recent spike in inflation in the economy has affected prices of building materials, accounting for some of that jump. But the report notes other long-term trends that have exacerbated the growing capital-renewal gap: For about a decade, space has grown while enrollment has been flat or declining at baccalaureate and master’s institutions, and capital spending has neither met campus-investment needs nor kept up with inflation.

No one wants to hear that your space should be smaller, because that appears like you’re giving up.

And the report notes the headwinds and complications colleges face in addressing the problem: enrollment (and financial) challenges stemming from demographic trends; questions about the value of a college degree; public disinvestment in higher ed; and a shift to hybrid and online courses. Facilities workers themselves embody some of those challenges. For years, higher education has noted a graying of that work force, while younger workers in the trades have been hard to find and in high demand.

All of this may point to a new attitude about construction on campus.

“We’ve just been growing since the ‘50s, assuming that there will be more and more students to come,” says Pete Zuraw, vice president for market strategy and development at Gordian. “The question is, do we need all the space we built? Can we learn to live with less?” That’s not a conversation that Americans are accustomed to, but in higher education in particular, it’s foreign. “There’s nobody on these campuses that ever lived at a time when there wasn’t this expansive kind of nature.”

The costs of deferred maintenance are piling up for institutions and systems both large and small.

In Vermont, colleges have closed and consolidated as the state has been among the first to feel a student-population dip. Deferred maintenance in the Vermont State Colleges system — $18 million in a small system — has grown 53 percent since 2017, compared to 37-percent growth among its peer institutions.

“We are overbuilt, really dramatically, in terms of academic spaces,” says Sharron Scott, the system’s chief financial and operating officer. Academic-space utilization is around 30 percent during regular business hours on its campuses. Ideally, it would be closer to 60 to 65 percent. Meanwhile, working from home has become more common across higher ed since the pandemic.

All of this means less need for space. The Vermont system’s square footage needs to shrink by up to 30 percent to be sustainable, says Scott.

In higher education, “growing is easy. Becoming smaller is hard,” says Scott. “There’s an axiom about making sure that you have a crane on campus when you have admissions days coming, because it’s exciting to see something new. No one wants to hear that your space should be smaller, because that appears like you’re giving up.”

Underutilized public buildings are white elephants in depopulated rural areas, says Scott, but the system is considering ways it could offer space to health-care systems or nonprofit organizations that could provide jobs or other services to students. The system might try to lease space to organizations through public-private partnerships. As a last resort, some buildings might be demolished, a move that can be costly in terms of remediating toxic substances — and in angering faculty or alumni with sentimental ties to the spaces.

At a much-larger university in a more-populous state, the backlog becomes a dizzying figure. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has a 10-year renewal need of $4.2 billion, with more than seven-million-gross square feet of space in poor or critical condition. (Facilities managers often frame the renewal need in terms of helping the institution plan to raise money and prepare for upcoming projects in the coming decade.) The university plans to manage that backlog by investing in critical, high-priority buildings and projects, and right-sizing the campus by offloading and demolishing less-important spaces.

But the university is never going to erase that $4.2-billion backlog. “I don’t know that we honestly catch up as much as we decide where we’re going to focus,” says Bill Paulus, associate vice president for facilities management at the University of Minnesota. “You pick your priorities and you go after those.”

The tough part is defining which projects are “critical,” he says. Is it putting in ramps and other accessibility features on a structure built before the Americans with Disabilities Act? Is it replacing old roofs and windows in a building that is leaking energy and wasting money? Is it installing new elevators that meet modern safety codes? Is it updating the classrooms to meet modern teaching styles and requirements?

On a campus with competing interests and limited resources, “somebody has to make this interpretation,” he says.

What makes the problem of deferred maintenance so troubling for higher education is the sector’s unusual relationship with its properties. Unlike many businesses and organizations, higher-education institutions typically construct and own most of their buildings. And unlike major real-estate businesses, colleges can’t sell off their buildings and move to another geographic location. When they build, they are binding themselves to a structure and a location for decades — and possibly centuries.

That permanence comes with obvious disadvantages — an institution can’t just walk away from a broken-down hulk — but also some opportunities. “You could say there is an advantage in that you can create long-term partnerships that others may not be able to do,” says Paulus. For example, a university can work out a multidecade deal with a local power company to create a local solar or wind farm, to lock in below-market electricity rates for years to come. “The stability can give you benefits both in confidence with your partnerships and your decision-making.”

Entering into partnerships is one strategy to find the resources for updating aging buildings. That’s what CSU-Dominguez Hills has done with Southern California Edison, the local utility. Kenneth Seeton, the university’s central plant manager, is constantly looking for companies or organizations that can offer Dominguez Hills money or components that will help with the maintenance and bottom line.

The university joined Edison’s Clean Energy Optimization Pilot, which granted it $1.2 million in 2021 with the goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and saving energy. The university is in line to get another $2.4-million rebate check this year. The campus has been a leader in the system for greenhouse-gas reductions.

Through that partnership and others, the university has installed high-efficiency LED lighting, experimented with solar hot water, and replaced pneumatic components with digital controls in its heating and ventilation systems. Over the past few years, Dominguez Hills has reduced its energy use in many of its buildings by 50 percent, while also replacing old components.

“You have 30- and 40-year-old buildings that are still running with pneumatics, and it’s not running correctly,” says Seeton. “You can’t get parts for this stuff anymore.”

Efficiencies are where institutions can start to catch up, Seeton says — but delaying some of those upgrades costs money as time goes on. Seeton’s latest focus is getting off natural gas. The university had 20-year-old direct gas-fired absorption chillers, which make water cold by burning gas, and it replaced them with more efficient electrical units. Over the winter, because of global demand and the Russia-Ukraine war, gas prices tripled. The university’s gas bill went from $50,000 one month to $170,000 the next. It would have been $300,000 if the university hadn’t done work in improving its energy efficiency.

“We can’t continue running these buildings on 1970s technology, because it doesn’t work and it doesn’t give us the control that we need to be able to save — the energy that we have to save,” he says. “Now, it’s become an economic thing. It’s not just about making you happy in your space.”

Scott Carlson

Source link

March 31, 2023
These 3 Colleges Are Closing. They Share Some Key Traits.

When Finlandia University announced early this month that it would shut down at the end of the academic year, the reasons the college gave echoed those of other small, less-selective colleges that have also closed.

The Michigan college has struggled to recruit students in one of the many areas of the country where the number of high-school graduates is declining and fewer of those graduates are choosing to go on to college. In addition, as the chair of the Board of Trustees said in a statement, Finlandia is burdened by an “unbearable debt load.”

Deciding not to enroll students for the 2023-24 academic year was a way to allow the 126-year-old college to “end its operations with as much grace and dignity as possible,” the statement said.

Finlandia is one of three small, private nonprofit colleges whose plans to close this year have been made public since December. The class of 2023 will also be the last at Cazenovia College, in Central New York, and Holy Names University, in Oakland.

Cazenovia has grappled with falling enrollment for almost a decade — a trend made worse when the pandemic affected the institution’s recruitment efforts, the college said. When students postponed attending college, the tuition-dependent Cazenovia saw its finances falter.

In announcing the shutdown on its website, Cazenovia said “being a small college without a large endowment has made the college’s challenges formidable.” Federal data shows that Cazenovia had an endowment valued at $4.2 million at the end of the 2021 fiscal year. And that was before the markets tumbled in 2022.

Another factor in Cazenovia’s impending closure: It defaulted on a $25-million bond payment last year. The college wasn’t able to refinance the debt.

An unsustainable debt load, in part, kept Holy Names University from finding a merger partner in an effort to stave off closure. The Board of Trustees at Holy Names said in a statement that the university’s property debt of $49 million, coupled with about $200 million in deferred maintenance costs was “a large undertaking for any college or university.”

The pandemic also made the university’s financial challenges worse and “disproportionately impacted” Holy Names students, many of whom are from under-resourced communities or are first-generation college students.

Here’s a look at some of the key traits the three institutions shared:

Audrey Williams June

Source link

March 6, 2023
9 Humanities Majors Are On the Chopping Block at Marymount U.

Marymount University, in Virginia, plans to make a sharp turn away from the humanities, eliminating nine liberal-arts majors for undergraduate students. The move highlights tough decisions that many colleges are making in a challenging financial environment, as well as a broader debate about the kind of education colleges should offer.

The plan, backed by Marymount President Irma Becerra, would sunset majors in English, math, economics, philosophy, and the arts, among others. The cuts would affect one-sixth of all undergraduate majors offered at Marymount. Becerra submitted her plan on Wednesday to the university’s Board of Trustees, which will make a final decision on February 24, according to emails shared with The Chronicle.

Many faculty members say the president’s decision raises concerns about whether the university is still committed to the liberal arts at all. They also question whether senior administrators are respecting shared governance and listening to the perspectives of faculty, students, and alumni, many of whom expressed doubts about the plan.

The university’s Academic Policy, Budget, and Planning Committee — whose membership includes two faculty members from each of its three colleges, the dean of each college, and other administrators — first proposed eliminating the nine majors.

Becerra rejected recommendations from the Faculty Council to keep seven of the majors and modify six of them. The ideas outlined by the committee “more closely align with the strategic goals of the institution,” Becerra wrote in a letter to the Faculty Council’s president.

“True to our mission, all university programs will continue to be grounded in the liberal arts and focused on the education of the whole person,” Becerra wrote, “but MU cannot financially sustain offering majors with consistently low enrollment, low graduation rates, and lack of potential for growth.”

Marymount’s Student Government Association and the American Historical Association sent letters to Becerra, urging her to reverse course and preserve the majors. Some alumni started an online petition.

“Cutting portions of the School of Humanities as well as math and art programs would be detrimental to the diversity of our student body,” wrote Ashly Trejo Mejia, Marymount’s student-government president, in her letter. “We fear that removing programs will alter the foundation and identity Marymount University was built on.”

Even though the cuts aren’t official until the board signs off, students in the affected majors received an email on Thursday from Stephanie Ellis Foster, the university’s vice provost, informing them that their programs were being phased out.

“What this means is that we will not accept new students in these programs but we are committed to continue to offer classes until all current students graduate,” Foster wrote in the email to affected students and shared with The Chronicle. “We have made arrangements to provide the required courses for your major [eliminated majors] without disruption.”

Mejia wrote in her letter to Becerra that alumni and current students are concerned that the president’s decision will weaken the perception of their degrees.

“Current and future alumni want to be proud of their alma mater and they fear that with this action their success will be hindered by a weakened perception of their MU education from a program that no longer exists,” Mejia wrote.

Ariane Economos, an associate professor of philosophy who serves as director of the School of Humanities and the liberal-arts core curriculum, said that Marymount faculty largely support keeping the programs. The Faculty Council voted 88-49, with seven abstentions, to modify the curriculum changes in order to keep seven of the majors, according to meeting minutes.

“I wish our administration would respect the role of faculty governance in determining the curriculum,” Economos said.

Economos said the recommendations from the committee are based on the number of students enrolled in each major, which she said doesn’t provide a complete picture of the value of those programs.

Economos created a “data-informed” report that described some of the other factors that she thought Marymount leaders should consider — including programs that are available at the university’s peer institutions; programs at R2 universities, which Marymount aspires to be; credit hours generated by programs; effects on student recruitment and retention; the impact on Marymount’s reputation; and the contributions of the majors to the university’s overall mission.

“If they want to change the mission, then say that and say what that change is,” Economos said. “But getting rid of theology and religious studies at a Catholic university, that doesn’t fit with the mission.”

Economos calculated, based on average enrollment in the nine majors over the past five years and the results of a survey by the School of Humanities asking whether students would leave the university without those majors, that Marymount could lose as much as $2.74 million in tuition, room, and board revenue.

In an emailed statement, Marymount spokesperson Nicholas Munson wrote that Marymount’s mission is “unchanged,” but that the institution would be making changes “to better position the university for long-term growth and success.” He said these specific changes were “not financially driven” but would allow the university “to redeploy resources” toward majors with growing student interest.

“We believe investing in programs that appeal to students and prepare them for highly sought-after professions is not only our mission but our responsibility,” Munson said.

Julian Roberts-Grmela

Source link

February 17, 2023
Federal Covid Relief Is Ending. Connecticut’s Public Colleges Could Face Big Cuts.

Last week, a governor had a strong message for public colleges in his state: Get ready for a world without Covid-relief funding.

Gov. Ned Lamont of Connecticut, a Democrat, has directed substantial cuts to higher ed in his state-budget proposal for the 2024 fiscal year. Lamont’s chief budget official told CT Mirror that the influx of federal money that’s poured in over the last three years was always temporary, and that colleges should have planned accordingly.

The governor’s proposal hasn’t sat well with higher-ed leaders. Radenka Maric, the University of Connecticut’s president, estimated that her campus could lose $160 million in state funding next year. In response, Maric has threatened to sever ties with the arena in Hartford where the basketball team typically plays, according to The Daily Campus, the student newspaper, citing, in part, that the costs of the arena deal benefit the state and local businesses more than the university.

Mason Holland, UConn’s student-body president, called on students to walk out of class on Wednesday and travel to the state capitol to protest the cuts.

Colleges received more than $76 billion from three Covid-relief measures passed by Congress in 2020 and 2021. The aid allowed many colleges to keep students enrolled and maintain critical programs throughout the pandemic, while also scaling up investments in mental-health counselors, basic-needs resources, and other student-support initiatives.

But that aid has mostly run out and will end entirely in a few months, leaving some colleges scrambling to find funding to cover the rising cost of operations. That challenge has come into sharp relief in Connecticut, where the state’s financial realities raise serious questions about how colleges can adjust.

Robert Kelchen, a professor of higher education and head of the department of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, said declines in enrollment, the rising cost of facility maintenance and utilities, and salary increases for faculty and staff are driving increasing costs.

The University of Connecticut originally received a one-time $28.4-million infusion of direct pandemic-related aid, which university officials said they distributed through grants to students and used to cover pandemic-related costs during the 2022 fiscal year. After Connecticut policy makers negotiated salary increases with public employees, state officials also gave colleges additional funding from the American Rescue Plan in 2023 to help cover the costs.

Instead of states using their budget surpluses to make those investments in higher education, many states have been engaged in a race to the bottom with tax cuts.

This year, UConn leaders again requested more state funding to help cover those employee-related costs, which will grow next year. But by the looks of Lamont’s budget, that isn’t going to happen.

The proposal would decrease higher-ed funding over the next two fiscal years — amounting to a $159.6-million budget reduction at UConn next year and a $197.1-million reduction the following year based on a preliminary review, according to Maric.

“The appropriations proposed for UConn and UConn Health fall far short of what is necessary to adequately fund the university, carry out our critical public health mission most effectively, and fully cover the sizable costs the state seeks to pass along to us,” Maric said in a letter to the university community last week.

Terrence Cheng, president of Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, said the proposal has the potential to create “long-term harm” to the state’s institutions.

Lamont’s office didn’t respond to several requests for comment from The Chronicle.

As Kelchen sees it, economic challenges are a key driver of what’s happening in Connecticut.

“Covid-relief funding helped plug a lot of gaps in states with budget challenges, and Connecticut is one of the states that hasn’t seen the growth and the revenue that other states have seen during the last couple of years,” Kelchen said.

Beyond Connecticut, states across the country are considering tax cuts that would exacerbate higher-ed funding problems, said Tom Harnisch, vice president for government relations at the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.

“Instead of states using their budget surpluses to make those investments in higher education, many states have been engaged in a race to the bottom with tax cuts,” Harnisch said. “This will affect the ability of states to make investments in key priorities such as higher education when the economy slows down, and federal funds disappear.”

If UConn were to try and cover the cost of these potential shortfalls by raising tuition, that would mean an increase of 19 percent — or $3,000 — per student next year, Maric said.

“We simply cannot provide less while asking our students to pay more,” Maric said.

Raising tuition is one way to alleviate financial pressures, both Kelchen and Harnisch noted. That isn’t always an option in states where the legislature or state governing board controls tuition. Colleges have the authority to raise tuition in Connecticut, but Harnisch said that approach has drawbacks.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” Harnisch said. “Unfortunately, it ends with students taking on more debt.”

Eva Surovell

Source link

February 14, 2023
A University Paused a Long-Awaited Plan to Reduce Faculty Workload. Then the Plan’s Booster Stepped Down.

The provost of Metropolitan State University of Denver is stepping down after the institution’s Board of Trustees put on hold a plan to reduce faculty workload that he’d advocated.

Faculty members at MSU-Denver had for decades talked about cutting down workloads, not simply the teaching load, and Alfred W. Tatum said that he’d “embraced” the project “as my supreme charge as provost.” Under a proposal backed by Tatum and the Faculty Senate, most tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty members would go from teaching four classes per semester to three, without an accompanying increase in research or service expectations, beginning this fall. The goal of the proposal was to enable the faculty to “maintain the vitality of its programs while affording faculty the time to think innovatively to revise academic programs when warranted to best serve the needs and aspirations of traditional, non-traditional, and transfer students,” Tatum wrote.

But concerns about the plan’s long-term financial viability prompted MSU-Denver’s board to pause the plan, highlighting the tension between two pandemic-driven forces that have dominated higher ed in the past three years — faculty burnout and financial constraint.

The decision to delay the plan, months before it was set to go into effect, came as a shock to faculty and administrators, Colorado Public Radio reported. But the board thought it didn’t have adequate information to move forward, Kristin Hultquist, the vice chair, told The Chronicle. After hearing a presentation from Tatum in late January about how the plan would be rolled out — including the hiring of about 78 new faculty members at a cost of $7.4 million in the 2023 fiscal year — board members posed questions about its long-term financial implications and about whether the plan would impede MSU-Denver’s ability to pay faculty well.

“We reached the conclusion that we didn’t have, ourselves as a board, the level of information we needed to take this significant step,” Hultquist said. “So we asked our president, ‘Do you have the information you need to make a recommendation?’ And she told us, ‘Frankly, I don’t.’” Together, Hultquist said, the board and the university’s president, Janine A. Davidson, decided they needed more time and information.

‘Can We Afford It?’

The idea of reducing workload has been a goal for “close to 20 years,” Tatum wrote in the proposal. “This request hit a crescendo during the Covid-19 pandemic.” Hultquist acknowledged that the board knew that cutting workload was a “stated priority” of MSU-Denver’s Faculty Senate. “This is not a brand-new conversation for us. But what is important is that the strategic decision to extend this policy to all of our tenure and tenure-line faculty is really a significant budget question, and significant budget questions are the fiduciary responsibility of the board,” she said.

At the same time, she added, among the board’s priorities is ensuring that faculty members feel valued and that their concerns about workload and pandemic-induced fatigue are heard. “While we deeply understand and respect that this would be a good direction for our faculty and for our students, it’s, Can we afford it? How much can we afford, and what can we afford now?” Hultquist said. She cited enrollment declines and low state funding — among states, Colorado had the second-lowest allocation of higher-education funding per student in 2021, according to federal data — as additional constraints on the institution’s budget.

In a memo on January 31, Davidson informed faculty members the plan was being delayed, noting the board believed it could have “critical implications for budget and mission.” That announcement was met with consternation from many who’d already begun planning fall schedules, CPR reported. But Hultquist said she’s also heard from faculty who favor the pause.

Davidson’s memo said that the board would discuss the issue at its fall retreat, though Hultquist said a decision could come sooner. “If we have the information we need before then, we’ll make a decision before then,” she said.

In the meantime, MSU-Denver faces the loss of Tatum, who commissioned a committee to explore the possibility of trimming faculty obligations shortly after his arrival in 2021. That group’s recommendations were approved by the Faculty Senate, and endorsed by Tatum, in March 2022. He had also earmarked about $3 million in faculty savings to put toward the plan’s $7.4-million cost.

Even in deciding to step down, Tatum threw his support behind the plan. “I am convinced that our students will be the beneficiaries, and the university could enact fiscal stewardships to honor the faculty’s decades-old request as we diversify our resources,” he said in a statement to The Chronicle. “I am convinced my university colleagues will ultimately move in this direction as they gather more fiscal certainty.”

Tatum, a scholar of literacy development in Black boys, will remain on the faculty, and he told The Chronicle he “could no longer resist my sacred calling to become a professor again.” Hultquist said she respected Tatum’s decision to step down. Marie Mora, the deputy provost, will serve as interim provost beginning March 16, according to a university statement.

Four faculty leaders said they’ll continue pushing for lesser workloads despite Tatum’s departure. In a statement to The Chronicle, these leaders vowed to “conduct the necessary data analysis and discussions to end the pause and move forward with an improved workload model,” said Meredith L. Jeffers, Liz Goodnick, Elizabeth Ribble, and Sheila Rucki. The four wrote in a statement earlier this week that a reduced teaching load “would provide faculty the opportunity to engage more deeply with their student-centered pedagogy and invest more time and energy in student interactions beyond the classroom, including activities related to recruitment and improving student retention.”

Megan Zahneis

Source link

February 10, 2023
Tuition Revenue Has Fallen at 61% of Colleges During the Pandemic

Net-tuition revenue — the money that institutions earn through enrollment minus any discounts and allowances provided to students — is the lifeblood of many universities.

It’s the largest source of revenue for private four-year colleges, and it accounts for just over $1 of every $5 of revenue for public four-year institutions, about the same, on average, as their combined earnings from state grants, contracts, and appropriations.

But over the first part of the Covid-19 pandemic, 61 percent of campuses saw that source of revenue fall. A likely factor in the dip was colleges’ struggle to bring back students two years into the pandemic, according to a Chronicle analysis of finance data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which examined how net-tuition revenue fluctuated from 2019 to 2021.

While the majority of colleges did see a decline in their net-tuition revenue, some types of institutions fared worse than others. More than seven out of 10 community colleges saw that source of revenue drop from 2019 to 2021, while four-year institutions fared slightly better: 60 percent of public colleges and 58 percent of private colleges experienced drops in their net-tuition revenue.

A larger share of highly residential colleges saw a decline in their net-tuition revenue compared with nonresidential and primarily residential institutions; nearly two out of three highly residential campuses reported tuition-revenue drops, while 48 percent of nonresidential institutions and 62 percent of primarily residential campuses experienced declines.

Institutions that were more selective in their admissions weren’t spared. The majority — 55 percent — of institutions defined as more selective by the Carnegie classifications saw a negative change in revenue from tuition, which was not much better than the 59 percent of inclusive institutions reporting net-tuition revenue declines. Sixty-two percent of selective institutions experienced drops.

While net-tuition revenue typically accounts for a substantial share of a college’s income, investment returns became the leading source of revenue for private nonprofit institutions in 2021 (a trend that seems unlikely to repeat itself in 2022).

Notes:

The two charts in this story and the description of four-year colleges’ finances are based on an analysis of over 3,400 degree-granting institutions in the United States that are eligible to participate in Title IV financial-aid programs. The table and other information presented at the institution level are based on a smaller subset of 2,400 colleges with enrollments over 500 students and tuition revenue greater than $500,000. Enrollment and financial figures used throughout this analysis are from the falls of 2019 and 2021, and from the 2021 fiscal year.

Values are compared over time using a college’s Ipeds unit identification number. Institutions can merge, consolidate, or split using the same unit ID, which may account for some large variations from year to year.

Definitions of institutional selectivity and residential type follow the Carnegie classification’s Undergraduate Profile and Size and Setting listings.

Jacquelyn Elias

Source link

February 9, 2023
A College Hopes Its Home-Buying Program Will Attract Employees

Colleges are facing challenges recruiting and retaining top talent in a pandemic-fueled employees’ market. But Virginia State University this month introduced a new strategy to set it apart from other institutions: It’s offering to help faculty and staff members buy a house.

The historically Black institution will use discretionary funds to match up to $10,000 toward employees’ down payment or closing costs on a home. The program, called the Home Assistance Payment Initiative, is open to current and incoming employees, who can use the money to purchase any home, townhouse, or condominium in the village of Ettrick, where the university is located, or the neighboring city of Petersburg, Virginia.

The idea of colleges helping employees pay for homes isn’t completely novel: The University of California system, for example, has a faculty recruitment allowance program, the amount of which is determined by the provost and executive vice president for academic affairs. And the Virginia State effort is the latest that caters to staff members as well as faculty, joining institutions like the Johns Hopkins University and the Universities of Chicago and Pennsylvania, though VSU’s program stands out for its dual emphasis on bolstering the local economy and enticing employees.

Colleges have adopted a range of strategies — like tweaking job listings and salary expectations, expediting the hiring process, and adding remote-work and flexible-scheduling perks — to stem recruitment and retention woes the past few years. In a “candidate’s market” that’s allowed prospective employees to be picky about their place of work, institutions have found themselves competing with one another and with the private sector for top talent. In a 2022 Chronicle survey, conducted with support from Huron Consulting Group, 84 percent of college leaders said hiring for administrative and staff jobs had been more difficult in the last year. Meanwhile, more than half of staff members who responded to a 2022 survey from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources said they’d consider leaving their job within a year.

Some institutions have in recent years taken steps to attract residents to their communities. Purdue University and West Virginia University have lured workers to their college towns, aiming to encourage economic revitalization. But those programs have targeted people outside higher education whose jobs were remote. Purdue, for instance, is offering some applicants a $5,000 stipend, plus housing discounts and access to campus facilities, to join a “remote-working community”; participants can choose to live anywhere in the greater Lafayette, Ind., area. And West Virginia’s program, geared toward outdoor enthusiasts, offers remote workers $12,000 and a year’s worth of free outdoor activities like skiing and rafting.

Our mindset is if people work in the community where they live and they shop, that would help the economy of those communities.

Virginia State hasn’t experienced particular problems with attrition, said Donald E. Palm, the university’s executive vice president and provost. Rather, the home-assistance program is intended as a “more proactive versus reactive” approach to a competitive job market. Including it in a recruitment package for new employees, Palm said, “does a lot to communicate to future faculty and staff members that we are investing in them.” He hopes it will help set Virginia State apart in in-demand faculty disciplines like computer science and business.

The program may also help draw employees to Ettrick, whose population is about 7,200, and to Petersburg, both of which sit south of Richmond. While Virginia State is the only four-year institution in Chesterfield County, many of its employees don’t live nearby, said Gwen Williams Dandridge, the assistant vice president for communications.

“At 5:00 every day, the majority of the employees of Virginia State hit Interstate 95 and head to other parts of Chesterfield, Richmond, other areas as well,” Williams Dandridge said. “Our mindset is if people work in the community where they live and they shop, that would help the economy of those communities.”

Virginia State leaders hope that faculty and staff members, many of whom rent property in the area, will be enticed by the prospect of home ownership, which could encourage longevity in their employment. Palm said the program’s announcement has already made a noticeable difference in morale. While administrators aren’t sure how many people will take advantage, employees and local realtors have already reached out for more specifics on the program, Williams Dandridge said.

There’s no set cap for how much money the university will put toward the program or when it will end, Williams Dandridge said, adding that the university’s president, Makola M. Abdullah, will make those decisions depending on demand. Participating employees will need to commit to staying at Virginia State for at least a year after buying their home — which must be their primary residence — and use a lender approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Megan Zahneis

Source link

January 30, 2023
Why One Wealthy College Says It Needs to Cut Costs

Bates College occupies a fairly rarefied perch in higher education. Around half the freshmen who attend the small private college in Maine pay the full $78,000 price tag for tuition and room and board. It boasts a 14-percent acceptance rate, has increased its application volume by 41 percent over the past decade, and maintains an endowment valued at over $400 million.

And so it raised eyebrows last week when Bates announced that it would be cutting its programmatic, non-personnel spending by 5 percent this year. Typically, institutional announcements about the need to cut costs tend to be accompanied by dire warnings about the financial road ahead. But this doesn’t seem to be the case at Bates, where Geoffrey S. Swift, the vice president for finance and administration, described the college’s financial fundamentals as healthy. “It may seem contradictory to hear that the college is financially strong, while also communicating increasing economic stress,” he acknowledged.

“But the economic environment is changing, and we need to prepare ourselves to adapt to new circumstances,” Swift went on to write.

What are those changing circumstances, and what does Bates’s assessment of the economic environment suggest about the road ahead for higher ed? Here are some takeaways:

Yes, Bates is financially strong.

A lot of private institutions in the Northeast are facing increasing competition for students. But enrollment at Bates, which is entirely undergraduate, has remained stable throughout the pandemic, at about 1,800 students. And, while the average discount rate at private colleges soared to 49 percent for undergraduates in 2021-22, at Bates it’s between 25 and 30 percent. Last August, the college concluded a five-year, $345-million fundraising campaign. Those gifts and pledges, paired with historic investment returns from the college’s endowment, yielded an additional $3.1-million allocation from that pool of funds. All told, Bates anticipated drawing $20 million in 2022-23 from its endowment to help cover its $130-million operating budget.

But the effects of inflation are real.

Since the 2020 fiscal year, Bates’s operating costs have grown by $15 million, largely propelled by rising instructional costs as well as spending on student services and auxiliary enterprises. Swift also said the institution had budgeted an additional $1 million for employee health care and another $1 million for utilities.

“We are experiencing pressure on health care, utilities, food, travel, and other core costs that are growing faster than our ability to increase revenues,” Swift wrote.

Starting in 2021, the costs of goods and services nationwide started to rise at rates reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s. And for the entirety of 2022, the year-over-year inflation rate never fell below 7 percent, eventually topping 9 percent last June.

Bates is hardly alone in confronting inflationary pressures. In Iowa, regents overseeing the state’s three public universities voted to raise tuition by 4.25 percent, citing inflation as a cause. Trustees at Pennsylvania State University took a similar approach, approving a 5-percent tuition-rate increase. And Robert A. Brown, president of Boston University, had this to say when he announced that tuition would go up by 4.25 percent for the coming academic year: “We are caught in an inflationary vise.”

The cost of paying staff has increased as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages and salaries for higher ed’s work force rose nearly 4 percent between the third quarters of 2021 and 2022, though for workers, the buying power of their pay actually fell by 4 percent during the same period.

In recent years, tuition hasn’t risen as fast as inflation has.

While inflation has soared, tuition costs across the country barely budged, a continuation of a decade’s long trend. Between August 2021 and August 2022, out-of-pocket college-tuition costs for households climbed by 2.79 percent during that 12-month span, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis.

This has been true at Bates, too. The single fee (tuition, room and board) has grown at about 3 percent per year. The college is aware that rising costs in the economy have also proved challenging to current and prospective students, said Mary Pols, a spokeswoman for the college. That’s all the more reason, she said, that Bates needed to keep increases to its single fee as reasonable as possible.

Administrators and faculty at Bates have a lot to navigate.

How exactly such spending cuts are to be implemented remains a cause for concern for some Bates faculty members, like Keiko Konoeda, a lecturer in Japanese. Konoeda said she would like the college’s work force to be more involved in the decision-making process that led Bates to reassess its budget projections. In October 2021, a group of employees at Bates sought authorization from the National Labor Relations Board to form a union with the Maine Service Employees Association. Konoeda, a supporter of this pro-unionization effort, said she believed a unionized Bates labor force would afford the college’s employees greater input on financial matters at the institution.

“Our unionization drive isn’t only about asking for pay or better compensation, but it is coming out of the overall lack of communication or our involvement in decision-making.”

Bates has argued that the formation of a union would change the relationship between the college and its employees from “one where you negotiate the terms of your employment individually with your manager to a process where an outside party represents your interests as part of a group.”

Beyond the specific questions regarding unionization and labor, institutions that find themselves in situations like that of Bates tend to find savings through the regular cycle of attrition of its workers. Another strategy: reducing institutional financial-aid packages, said Phillip B. Levine, an economist at Wellesley College who has studied post-secondary-education pricing. This way, the sticker price at an institution remains stagnant, but the cost to students or their families rises. But there’s a tradeoff — lower tuition discounting can reduce college-attendance rates overall.

“If you charge people more than they can afford, they can’t go,” Levine said.

Dan Bauman

Source link

January 15, 2023
‘It’s a Mess’: Grades Are Due Soon, and U. of California Professors Are Struggling

Professors nationwide are currently immersed in an end-of-term ritual: grading. At the University of California, however, fall grades have been thrown into disarray as a strike involving teaching assistants reached its one-month mark.

Many professors say they are forgoing the submission of final grades, either out of solidarity with striking workers, or because they simply can’t grade hundreds of assignments without the help of readers and TAs — even with grading deadlines extended through the holidays.

Several faculty members told The Chronicle that communication from administrators — on a campus- and system-wide level — has been vague and unrealistic, with messages repeatedly stressing the obligation to maintain “continuity of instruction.“

“It’s a mess,” said Paul V.A. Fine, a professor in the integrative biology department at UC-Berkeley. “I’m surprised that the administration hasn’t been taken more to task by this, because I feel like they’re letting us all down.”

Instruction he received from his department for administering finals and grades, Fine said, was essentially reduced to a general directive: “Follow your conscience.”

UC officials say they’re trying to mitigate the impacts of the strike. Berkeley lecturers are being offered additional pay for picking up extra grading work at the end of the term, according to a university spokesperson.

At Berkeley, grading has been extended to December 31; other UC campuses are taking a similar approach. But Fine is frustrated. “Even if you extend the grade deadline, [then] what? You’re supposed to just do that instead of enjoying a holiday break? Forget that. That’s ridiculous,” he said.

Despite the strike, Fine continued teaching his undergraduate course on the ecosystems of California. Typically a graduate student works alongside him as an instructor and is responsible for half of the course’s grading. The course’s enrollment is small enough — 22 students — that he could complete grading by the deadline. But he said he won’t turn in grades until the strike is over, in solidarity with the graduate students.

“Although I am doing my job because I care a lot about my undergraduates’ education, I’m not going to do extra work,” Fine said.

Adding to the turmoil are questions about next term, which starts in a couple of weeks. Some classes don’t have teaching assistants assigned to them yet. On Wednesday, the UC-Davis Academic Senate sent out guidance suggesting that professors could do some of their winter-term teaching asynchronously and continue with modified instruction for up to two weeks after the strike ends.

‘At a Breaking Point’

The strike, which began November 14, initially involved four bargaining units made up of 48,000 UC graduate students, postdocs, and researchers.

Last week, postdocs and researchers overwhelmingly approved new contracts with the university system that secured wage increases, transit benefits, and paid family leave. They ended their strike on Monday. University officials and the union representing the remaining academic workers have agreed to continue negotiations through a third-party mediator.

“We remain committed to securing a fair and reasonable contract with the union that honors the hard work of our valued graduate student employees,” Letitia Silas, executive director of systemwide labor relations, said in a statement. “With the help of a neutral mediator, we hope to secure that agreement quickly.”

In the meantime, UC campuses have been scrambling to find solutions to the chaos — including paying lecturers to grade assignments.

The union that represents lecturers across the UC system, UC-AFT, released a cease-and-desist letter alleging that Berkeley’s offer interferes with lecturers’ right to refuse to pick up struck work under California law. The letter states that the union is aware of similar plans on “several other campuses.”

When asked if UC-Irvine was extending similar offers to their faculty, a university spokesperson said that deans and department chairs “have been advised to consider a range of approaches to support continuity of instruction,” which may include tapping lecturers to help. The Chronicle did not receive responses from the other UC campuses on Wednesday.

They have to figure out a way to solve this strike in a way that doesn’t harm students and also doesn’t try to exploit other vulnerable workers.

Unlike tenured professors, lecturers have a no-strike clause in their contracts. While some faculty members opted out of teaching their courses in solidarity after the strike began, lecturers had to continue.

Joanna Reed, a continuing lecturer in the sociology department at Berkeley, kept teaching, though she said lecture attendance “absolutely plunged” after the strike started. But she has told her students to expect a delay in getting their grades. (Reed is married to Fine.)

Reed would usually have eight readers to do the vast majority of grading for her two undergraduate lecture classes, for which the combined enrollment is over 300. It would be physically impossible, she said, to grade hundreds of assignments before the end of the month.

Still, she’s pushing ahead with the work she’d usually do at the end of the semester: preparing rubrics and answer keys, dealing with plagiarism issues, and getting the gradebook cleaned up. She’ll submit final grades after the strike ends and the graduate students can resume their work.

As Reed sees it, refusing to grade final assignments, which is considered struck work, is a way she can show solidarity with graduate students while continuing to fulfill her contractual obligations as a lecturer.

A lecturer at UCLA, who asked to remain anonymous because he fears speaking out could put his job at risk, said he feels pressure — both from the university and from students — to submit final grades.

But the lecturer, who teaches two courses with 300 students total, said it’ll be impossible for him to release accurate grades at the end of the semester. The lecturer has hundreds of essays from the semester ungraded — work that is partly done by the lecturer’s team of TAs. That’s not including the finals the classes completed last week. It doesn’t help, he said, that guidance from the administration on finals and grading arrived in the last week of classes after he had already put together plans for his final.

Although the deadline to turn in grades has been extended to January 2, he doesn’t plan to release grades.

“Those of us who don’t have job security, like me, are just at a breaking point,” he said.

Uncertainty Abounds

Many faculty members say they are torn between wanting to respect the picket line and feeling an obligation to their undergraduate students.

Catherine Liu, a professor of film and media studies at UC-Irvine, said she won’t file final grades with the registrar until the strike is resolved. But she plans to evaluate her students’ work and share grades with them directly. At 39 students, her class is small, and she doesn’t depend on a TA to help with grading. At UC-Irvine, the deadline to submit grades was extended to January 19.

Debates about obligation are complicated by questions about how withholding grades may impact undergraduates — including student athletes, veterans, students on financial aid, and graduating students seeking jobs. Some campuses have stressed that these students will not be affected if grades are not submitted. On other campuses, the possible implications remain unclear to faculty, and some are making arrangements for students in vulnerable situations.

At Berkeley, Reed said, some graduate students in her department have said they will work with professors to make sure students with a documented need receive grades. But Reed said the burden shouldn’t fall on instructors to protect students.

“The university created this situation with their unfair labor practices. So in my mind, it’s their problem to solve,” Reed said. “They have to figure out a way to solve this strike in a way that doesn’t harm students and also doesn’t try to exploit other vulnerable workers.”

And if the graduate-student strike continues into 2023, professors will have to figure out what to do about the next term.

This is a question that we’re all asking ourselves this week: What do we do in January?

With uncertainty about whether TAs will be on the job in January, UC-Davis instructors will be allowed to switch lab hours and discussion sections, normally taught by TAs, to asynchronous instruction, according to the Academic Senate’s guidance. Instructors must maintain the same amount of instructional time with students in a course.

The university “will allow these course adjustments to remain in place for up to two weeks after the end of the strike, at which point courses must return to their normal instructional modes,” the guidance states.

“I have a feeling that this is going to make a lot of faculty pretty unhappy,” said Stacy Fahrenthold, an associate professor of history at UC-Davis. “The implicit language in this policy is that faculty will be responsible for taking on not only the grading but also the instructional duties of their TAs if they remain on strike.”

Fahrenthold, who is scheduled to teach two undergraduate courses with a combined enrollment of 150 in the winter term, said she won’t be opting into the asynchronous option. “I see it as an attempt to break the strike or remediate its impacts,” she said. As for what next quarter will look like for her courses, she said that’s an open question.

“There’s about 450 faculty who are actively on sympathy strike,” she said. “And I think this is a question that we’re all asking ourselves this week: What do we do in January?”

Carolyn Kuimelis and Grace Mayer

Source link

December 14, 2022
In Wisconsin, a Merger Can’t Save a Community College

In 2017 the University of Wisconsin system merged the operations of each of its 13 community colleges with one of seven of its public universities. The move was meant to shore up the finances of the two-year colleges, which, like a growing number of institutions in some parts of the country, were facing persistent enrollment declines and shrinking support from the state appropriations.

But that effort was not enough to save one of the community colleges. The system’s president announced Tuesday that its campus in Richland Center, Wis., would end instruction for all degree programs. The programs will instead be offered about 60 miles away at the University of Wisconsin at Platteville — the institution the college merged with five years ago — or at another community-college campus.

The system remains committed to its branch campuses and providing “as broad of access as possible,” Jay Rothman, president of the system, wrote in a letter to Tammy Evetovich, interim chancellor at the Platteville campus. “There comes a time when financial pressure and low enrollment makes in-person, degree level academic instruction no longer tenable,” Rothman continued.

The campus won’t necessarily close, Rothman wrote, but may offer only adult education or other nondegree courses. The university must devise a plan to shift the instruction as well as determine what will happen to employees at the small college. Richland Center’s directory page lists 13 faculty members, and a dozen other staff members and administrators.

Even if the degree programs continue at the university, the distance from Richland Center could create a big barrier for current or future students from the area, said Nicholas W. Hillman, professor of educational leadership and policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Online instruction in many programs might also be available, Hillman said, but access to broadband internet is not assured in the state’s rural areas, and some programs that require hands-on experience are just better suited to in-person instruction.

A spokesperson for the Richland Center campus directed questions to the communications officer at Platteville. The spokesperson for Platteville did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the university system provided the president’s letter but declined to make anyone available for comment.

Enrollment at Richland Center has plummeted from 567 students in 2014 to just over a tenth of that number this fall, according to system data. Few colleges have lost students at that rate, but the problems facing the small Wisconsin campus are widespread in the sector.

Community-college enrollment had been on a slow decline, nationally, since 2011, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, and it worsened during the pandemic. In the spring semester of 2022, enrollment was nearly 8 percent less than in the spring of 2021, according to federal data. It had fallen 10 percent the year before.

In addition, a decline in the birth rate after the 2008 recession is expected to hit college enrollment in the middle of the decade, leading to even sharper enrollment losses at many institutions, especially in the Upper Midwest and Northeast. The situation is particularly acute in rural areas, as the population migrates to more urban areas, making it difficult for states to afford a full suite of college majors for a shrinking population.

As a result, campus mergers or consolidations are becoming more common. Among the latest are Vermont, where the state merged the administration of three state colleges, and Pennsylvania, where the state system of higher education is consolidating six of its 14 universities into just two entities.

But the ending of instruction at Richland Center shows the limitations of such efforts, Hillman said. While enrollment declines are a problem, Wisconsin also has not done a good job of coordinating the academic offerings between the state’s 16 technical colleges, 14 universities, and 13 community colleges.

“These are problems that will keep happening,” Hillman said, “without a statewide plan or coordination across agencies.”

Eric Kelderman

Source link

November 23, 2022
Prominent Higher-Ed Consultant Committed Financial Fraud, Lawsuit Says

Brett A. Sokolow, one of the nation’s most visible higher-education consultants and the president of the Association of Title IX Administrators, is being sued by a former executive at his consulting firm over allegations of tax fraud, breach of contract, and retaliation.

Sokolow is the founder and chair of the board at TNG, a risk-management firm that manages eight other affiliates focused on education law and policy, including the Association of Title IX Administrators. TNG is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (TNG was formerly known as the Ncherm Group and before that as the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management.)

Colleges hire TNG consultants to conduct policy reviews and training, and to serve as external investigators and expert witnesses — particularly in the realm of Title IX and sexual-assault allegations. The Association of Title IX Administrators, known as Atixa, casts itself as the membership association for college administrators who work in sexual-assault prevention and response, and provides the training that many Title IX officials go through.

The plaintiff in the new lawsuit, Martha E.M. Kopacz, was TNG’s chief executive officer until last month. The lawsuit states that TNG fired Kopacz in September, after she had reported and objected to several instances of wrongdoing. Under Pennsylvania law, the complaint maintains, Kopacz qualifies as a whistle-blower because she reported financial wrongdoing and TNG receives public funding.

Kopacz alleges that Sokolow commited “ghost billing fraud.” According to her complaint, TNG charged clients Sokolow’s consulting rate of $700 an hour for expert-witness work when other consultants, whose hourly rates ranged from $250 to $350, were the ones working on the cases. Kopacz states that she “objected to this fraud and even threatened to resign” unless the practice was discontinued.

The lawsuit alleges that Sokolow recorded $3 million of income as a business loan to avoid paying taxes. Kopacz states in the complaint that she reported this to Sokolow but that he refused to properly categorize the $3 million and “would not listen.”

Kopacz also alleges that Sokolow used company money to pay for personal expenses, including hundreds of thousands of dollars for “improvements for the Berwyn house,” described in the complaint as a personal property owned by Sokolow “or some entity he controlled.”

The complaint further asserts that Sokolow labeled a range of other personal expenses as business expenses, including a country-club membership, DoorDash meals for his family, and cars for himself and his wife. Kopacz states in the lawsuit that she tried to “put an end to the taking of fraudulent expenses” but that she was unsuccessful.

In April 2022, the lawsuit states, Sokolow wrote a $40,000 check from TNG to help pay for a Lamborghini for his personal use.

In an email to The Chronicle, Sokolow wrote that TNG could provide only limited comments on active litigation. “The allegations in this suit are without merit,” the email said. “TNG denies them categorically and looks forward to the truth coming out in the proceedings.” The statement also said that Kopacz was terminated “for cause” last month and that TNG is now “run by a management committee chaired by Brett A. Sokolow.”

Kopacz is seeking monetary damages as well as back pay, front pay, lawyer fees, litigation costs, and a declaration that the actions of Sokolow and TNG violated Pennsylvania’s whistle-blower law.

Kopacz and her lawyer declined to comment.

Over the past two decades, Sokolow has built a career advising colleges on how to respond to sexual misconduct and other campus-safety and risk issues. He is widely quoted as a higher-ed expert by news organizations, including The Chronicle.

In 2017, Sokolow told The Chronicle that, on average, colleges paid about $35,000 per year for TNG’s Title IX services. The Association of Title IX Administrators, managed by TNG, has about 9,900 active members. The organization offers 31 training and certification courses, and its yearly membership fees are $600 for individuals and $2,500 for institutions.

Amid his success and exponential growth in popularity as a consultant, Sokolow has also been criticized for potentially unethical practices, including directly reaching out to a sexual-assault victim instead of contacting her lawyer, and playing multiple conflicting roles in the case. In a 2014 BuzzFeed News story, a student said she had watched Sokolow “profit from sexual violence.” Sokolow has never been disciplined for unethical conduct, according to New Jersey and Pennsylvania bar records.

Some campus officials have defended Sokolow and other Title IX consultants, saying they have been important partners in reforming institutional policies and ensuring compliance with Title IX.

Marcela Rodrigues-Sherley

Source link

October 25, 2022
Major Private Gifts to Higher Education

This list covers gifts since 1967. Last updated on October 20, 2022. Supplements to earlier gifts are counted separately. Value of gifts is based on information from institutions or donors at the time the gifts were promised, and is not subsequently adjusted for inflation. In cases of stock, property, art, and other noncash donations, actual value may have increased or decreased since the gifts were pledged or received. Value of gifts to non-U.S. institutions, if not announced in U.S. dollars, is rendered in U.S. dollars according to the exchange rate prevailing when the gift was announced.

$101 MILLION AND ABOVE

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $1.8 billion for student financial aid; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018

Stanford University: from John and Ann Doerr, $1.1 billion to establish School of Sustainability; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Gates Millennium Scholars program: from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $1 billion over 20 years; cash; 1999*

Open Society University Network: from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, $1 billion to establish the network; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Vedanta University (India): from the Anil Agarwal Foundation, $1 billion endowment to establish the university; cash; 2006*

California Institute of Technology: from Stewart and Lynda Resnick, $750 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

The Broad Institute: from Ted Stanley, $650 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

California Institute of Technology: from Gordon and Betty Moore and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, $600 million, consisting of $300 million over 5 years and $300 million over 10 years; cash and stock; 2001*

Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian: from Florence and Herbert Irving, $600 million; bequest; 2017*

Western Michigan University: from an anonymous donor, $550 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Harvard University: from Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, $500 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Oregon Health & Science University: from Penny and Phil Knight, $500 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015

Schuler Access Initiative: from the Schuler Education Foundation, $500 million over 10 years to benefit 20 liberal-arts colleges; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

University of California at San Francisco: from the Helen Diller Foundation, $500 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Oregon: from Penny and Phil Knight, $500 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of Oregon: from Penny and Phil Knight, $500 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Northwestern University: from Patrick G. and Shirley W. Ryan, $480 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering: from the F.W. Olin Foundation, $460 million to establish the college; cash; 1997

National Taiwan University: from Terry Gou, $454.5 million, to establish a cancer-care clinic and to conduct cancer research; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Oregon: from Connie and Steve Ballmer, more than $425 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Ben Gurion University of the Negev (Israel): from the estate of Howard and Lottie Marcus to the university’s American fund-raising arm, $400 million; bequest; 2016

The Broad Institute: from Eli and Edythe L. Broad, $400 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

Columbia University: from John W. Kluge, $400 million; bequest; 2007*

Harvard University: from John A. Paulson, $400 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015

Stanford University: from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, $400 million; cash; 2001*

Stanford University: from Philip H. Knight, $400 million; cash; 2016*

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: from an anonymous donor, $360 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2001†

Cornell University: from the Atlantic Philanthropies, $350 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Harvard University: from the Morningside Foundation (family foundation of the late T.H. Chan), $350 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $350 million for the Bloomberg Distinguished Scholars program; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Patrick J. and Lore Harp McGovern, estimated at $350 million over 20 years; cash; 2000*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Stephen A. Schwarzman, $350 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

National University: from T. Denny Sanford, $350 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $300 million for the Bloomberg American Health Initiative; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Missouri University of Science and Technology: Fred and June Kummer, $300 million to create the Kummer Institute Foundation, which will benefit the university; securities; 2020

Princeton University: from William H. Scheide, collection of rare books and manuscripts valued at $300 million; 2015

University of Arkansas at Fayetteville: from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation, $300 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2002

University of Chicago: from the Booth Family Trust, $300 million; cash, income from stock, and stock; 2008

Emory University: from the Lettie Pate Evans, Joseph B. Whitehead, and Robert W. Woodruff Foundations, $295 million; stock; 1996

University of Washington: from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $279 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Carnegie Mellon University: from William S. Dietrich II, $265 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Emory University: from the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, $261.5 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

Jacobs University Bremen (Germany): from the Jacobs Foundation, $254 million (200 million euros); nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

University of California at Berkeley: from an anonymous donor, $252 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

New York University: from Sir Harold Acton, a 57-acre Italian estate, a collection of Renaissance art, and at least $25 million in cash with a value estimated by the university of at least $250 million and perhaps as much as $500 million; 1994

Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons: from Diana and P. Roy Vagelos, $250 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Sanford I. and Joan Weill, $250 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007†

University of Colorado system: from William T. Coleman III and Claudia Coleman, $250 million; stock; 2001*

Yale University: from Charles B. Johnson, $250 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Texas at Austin: from John A. (Jack) Jackson, $232 million; bequest; 2002

University of Pennsylvania: from Raymond G. and Ruth Perelman, $225 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Maryland at College Park: from the A. James and Alice B. Clark Foundation, $219 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Kansas State University Foundation, Oklahoma State University Foundation, and University of Oklahoma Foundation: from Dolese Bros. Company, $210 million, divided evenly among the three recipients; stock; 2013

University of Cambridge (England): from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $210 million to create Gates Cambridge Scholarship program; nature of gift not disclosed; 2000

University of Washington: from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $210 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Ave Maria University: from Thomas S. Monaghan, $200 million to establish the university; cash and real estate; 2002

Baylor University: from an anonymous donor, estimated $200 million; pledged bequest; 2010*

Catawba College: from an anonymous donor, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021

Claremont McKenna College: from Robert A. Day, $200 million; cash and securities; 2007†

Columbia University: from Dawn M. Greene and the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

Columbia University: from Mortimer B. Zuckerman, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

Harvard University: from the Blavatnik Family Foundation, $200 million for medical school; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Mayo Clinic School of Medicine: from Jay Alix, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

New York University: from the Leon Levy Foundation, $200 million to create an institute on the ancient world; cash; 2006*

University of California at Irvine: from Susan and Henry Samueli, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of California at Los Angeles: from the Lincy Foundation, $200 million; transfer of all assets; 2011*

University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine: from David Geffen, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2002†

University of California at Santa Barbara: from Charles T. Munger, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Stephen M. Ross, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013†

University of Southern California: from David and Dana Dornsife, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Southern California: from Lawrence J. Ellison, $200 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of Oxford (England): from Stephen A. Schwarzman, $188 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of California at San Francisco: from the Weill Family Foundation and Joan and Sanford I. Weill, $185 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Vanderbilt University: from the Ingram Charitable Fund, $178 million; stock; 1998

Fund for Wisconsin Scholars: from Tashia and John Morgridge, $175 million, to create the college-scholarship program for Wisconsin students; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007†

University of Southern California: from George Lucas’s Lucasfilm Foundation, $175 million, to establish a new film school; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

Oklahoma State University: from T. Boone Pickens, $165 million; cash; 2006

Yale University: from Edward P. Bass, $160 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

McGill University (Canada): from John and Marcy McCall MacBain, $151.1 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Stanford University: from John Arrillaga, $151 million; cash; 2013

Cornell University: from H. Fisk Johnson and the S.C. Johnson company, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Harvard University: from Kenneth Griffin, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Johns Hopkins University: from Sidney Kimmel, $150 million; cash and bequest; 2001*

Johns Hopkins University: from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

New York University: from Julius Silver, $150 million; bequest; 2002

State University of New York at Stony Brook: from the Simons Foundation, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of California at San Diego: from T. Denny Sanford, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of California at San Francisco: from an anonymous donor, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: from Larry and Beth Gies, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Southern California: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: from the Khalifa Bin Zayed al-Nahyan Foundation, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Utah: from the the Huntsman Foundation (Karen Huntsman and family), $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Wofford College: from Jerome J. Richardson, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Yale University: from Stephen A. Schwarzman, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Yale University: from David Geffen, $150 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Polytechnic Institute of New York University: from Donald and Mildred Topp Othmer, $144.2 million; cash; 1998

Claremont McKenna College: from George R. Roberts, $140 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from anonymous donor, $140 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Wake Forest University, Queens University of Charlotte, and Wingate University: from Porter Byrum, $140 million (half to Wake Forest, a quarter each to Queens and Wingate); bequest; 2017

Lesley University: from trusts created by Frank C. Doble, $136 million; cash; 2008

Tufts University: from trusts created by Frank C. Doble, $136 million; cash; 2008

Cornell University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology: from Irwin Mark Jacobs and Joan Klein Jacobs, $133 million for Cornell-Technion campus in New York City; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Harvard University: from Hansjörg Wyss, $131 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of Cambridge (England): from the David and Claudia Harding Foundation, $131 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

DePauw University: from Ruth Clark and Philip Forbes Holton, $128 million; stock; 1997

University of Miami: from an anonymous donor, $126 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Harvard University: from Hansjörg Wyss, $125 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008

Harvard University: from Hansjörg Wyss, $125 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Louisiana State University: from Claude B. (Doc) Pennington, $125 million; stock and gas-and-oil royalties; 1981

University of Chicago: from the Kenneth C. Griffin Charitable Fund, $125 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Nebraska: from Mildred Topp Othmer, $125 million; cash; 1998

University of Pennsylvania: from Leonard A. Lauder, $125 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Pittsburgh: from William S. Dietrich II, $125 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Utah: from Jon M. Huntsman, $125 million; cash; 2000

University of Wisconsin at Madison: John and Tashia Morgridge, $125 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

LaGrange College and Mercer University: from Remer H. and Emily Fisher Crum, $123 million; real estate; 2000*

Northwestern University: from Kimberly K. Querrey and the Louis Simpson Trust, $121 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Arkansas at Fayetteville: from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation, $120 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Rhodes Trust: from John H. and Marcy McCall MacBain, $120 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus: from the Anschutz Foundation, $120 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

University of Pennsylvania: from Walter H. Annenberg, $120 million; cash; 1993

University of Southern California: from Walter H. Annenberg, $120 million; cash; 1993

University of Virginia: from the Quantitative Foundation (Jaffray and Merrill Woodriff), $120 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Samuel Tak Lee, $118 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Nanyang Technological University (Singapore): from the Lee Foundation, $117 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Hawaii-Manoa: from Jay Shidler, $117 million; land, with promise of future earnings from long-term ground leases, and cash; 2017

University of Oxford (England): from Leonard Blavatnik, $117 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of Oxford (Britain): from Michael Moritz and Harriet Heyman, $116 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

Boston University: from Rajen Kilachand, $115 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

California Institute of Technology: from Tanqiao Chen and Chrissy Luo, $115 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Furman University: from the estate of John D. Hollingsworth Jr., $115 million; real estate and other assets; 2001

University of Cambridge (England): from the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, $114.1 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017

University of California at Berkeley: from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, $113 million; cash; 2007*

University of Southern California: from Alfred E. Mann, $112.5 million; stock and cash; 1998

California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo: from William and Linda Frost, $110 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Thomas Jefferson University: from the Sidney Kimmel Foundation, $110 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of California at San Diego: from Irwin M. and Joan Jacobs, $110 million; cash and bequest; 2003*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Charles T. Munger, $110 million; securities; 2013*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Richard and Susan Rogel, $110 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

University of Southern California: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $110 million; cash; 1999*

University of Southern California: from John and Julie Mork, $110 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Emory University: from Robert W. Woodruff, $105 million; stock; 1979

Indiana University at Bloomington: from the Lilly Endowment, $105 million; cash; 2000

New York University: from Jan T. Vilcek, $105 million; future royalties on drug, cash, and trust; 2005*

Ohio University: from the Osteopathic Heritage Foundations, $105 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Stanford University: from Philip H. Knight, $105 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

University of Washington: from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $105 million; cash; 2007*

Virginia Commonwealth University: from R. Todd Stravitz and his family’s Barbara Brunckhorst Foundation, $104 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Oxford (England): from the Reuben Foundation, $102 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

University of California at San Francisco: from Catellus Development Corporation, $101.3 million; land; 1999

Montana State University: from Mark and Robyn Jones, $101 million for nursing school; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Northwestern University: from Roberta Buffett Elliott, $101 million; cash; 2015

Princeton University: from Peter B. Lewis, $101 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2005†

Colby College: from Peter H. and Paula Crane Lunder, art collection with value of at least $100 million; 2007

Colby College: from Peter H. and Paula Crane Lunder, art collection with value of at least $100 million; 2017*

$100 MILLION

Amherst College: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; cash; 2009*

Amherst College: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; cash; 2018*

Arizona State University: from Ira A. and Mary Lou Fulton, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2005†

Bard College: from the Open Society Foundations, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Baylor College of Medicine: from Dan L. Duncan, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

Baylor College of Medicine: from the Robert and Janice McNair Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

Baylor University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Boston University: from Edward Avedisian, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

The Broad Institute: from Eli and Edythe L. Broad, $100 million to establish the biomedical-research institute; nature of gift not disclosed; 2003*

The Broad Institute: from Eli and Edythe L. Broad, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2005*

The Broad Institute: from Eli and Edythe L. Broad, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

The Broad Institute: from the Stanley Medical Research Institute, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

Brown University: from Sidney E. Frank, $100 million; trust; 2004

Brown University: from the Warren Alpert Foundation, $100 million; cash; 2007*

Brown University: from Robert J. and Nancy D. Carney, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

California Institute of Technology: from Gordon and Betty Moore, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University: from Alfred and Norma Lerner, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2002*

Columbia University: from Henry R. Kravis, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

Columbia University: from Ronald O. Perelman, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Cornell Tech: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Cornell University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Renée and Robert Belfer (names disclosed in 2011), $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007†

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Sanford I. and Joan Weill, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1998†

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Sanford I. and Joan Weill, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2002†

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Sanford I. and Joan Weill and the Weill Family Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013†

Dartmouth College: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Florida State University: from Jan Moran and the Jim Moran Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Georgetown University: from Frank H. McCourt Jr., $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Georgetown University: from Frank H. McCourt Jr., $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Harvard University: from David M. Rockefeller, $100 million; bequest; 2008*

Harvard University: from an anonymous donor and spouse, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Harvard University: from David E. and Stacey L. Goel, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Massachusetts General Hospital: from the Phillip T. and Susan M. Ragon Institute Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2009*

John Motley Morehead Foundation: from the Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation, $100 million for scholarships at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; securities; 2007

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $100 million; cash; 2001

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $100 million; cash; 2006

Kenyon College: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Loyola University Chicago: from John and Kathy Schreiber, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Kenan E. Sahin, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from David H. Koch, $100 million; cash; 2007*

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from from Gerald and Ronald Chan through their Morningside Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

National University: from T. Denny Sanford, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

New York University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million for the NYU Langone Medical Center; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

New York University: from Fiona and Stanley F. Druckenmiller for the NYU Langone Medical Center, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2009*

New York University: from Kenneth G. Langone, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999

New York University: from Kenneth G. Langone for the NYU Langone Medical Center, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

New York University: from Chandrika and Ranjan Tandon, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Northeastern University: from the Roux Family Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Northwestern University: from J.B. and M.K. Pritzker, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Ohio State University: from Leslie Wexner and the Limited Brands Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Ohio University: from Dolores H. and Fritz J. Russ, $100 million; bequest; 2008*

Oklahoma State University: from T. Boone Pickens, $100 million; cash; 2008

Oklahoma State University: from T. Boone Pickens, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

Oregon Health & Science University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Oregon Health & Science University: from Philip H. and Penny Knight, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

Princeton University: from Gordon Y.S. Wu, $100 million; cash and securities; 1995

Princeton University: from Gerhard R. Andlinger, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

Regent University: from the Christian Broadcasting Network, $100 million; interest-bearing note convertible to stock; 1992

Rockefeller University: from David Rockefeller Sr., $100 million; bequest; 2005*

Rockefeller University: from Henry R. and Marie-Josée Kravis, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Rowan University: from Henry M. and Betty L. Rowan, $100 million; stock and cash; 1992

Samford University: from Marvin Mann, $100 million; bequest; 2022

Santa Clara University: from Susan and John A. Sobrato, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Scripps Research Institute: from L. Samuel and Aline W. Skaggs, $100 million; cash; 1996

Stanford University, Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital: from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, $100 million; cash; 2001

Stanford University: from John Arrillaga, $100 million; cash; 2006

Stanford University: from Robert and Dorothy King, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Technion-Israel Institute of Technology: from Alfred E. Mann, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2004*

Technion-Israel Institute of Technology: from Alfred E. Mann, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Tsinghua University (China): from Stephen A. Schwarzman, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Tufts University: from Pierre and Pam Omidyar, $100 million; stock; 2005

United World College System: from Shelby Davis, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

University of California at Davis: from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, $100 million over 11 years, to establish a nursing school; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of California at Los Angeles: from Meyer and Renee Luskin, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of California at Los Angeles: from David Geffen, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

University of California at Los Angeles: from David Geffen, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of California at Los Angeles: from Marion Anderson, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of California at Los Angeles: from Henry and Susan Samueli, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of California at San Diego: from T. Denny Sanford, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013

University of California at San Diego: from Evelyn and Ernest Rady and the Rady Family Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of California at San Diego: from T. Denny Sanford, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of California at San Francisco: from Marc and Lynne Benioff, $100 million over 10 years, to establish a children’s hospital; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of California at San Francisco: from Charles F. Feeney, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Chicago: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007†

University of Chicago: from Thomas L. Pearson and Pearson Family Members Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Chicago: from Craig and Janet Duchossois and the Duchossois Family Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Florida: from the Herbert and Nicole Wertheim Family Foundation, $100 million for Scripps Institute for the Biomedical Innovation and Technology; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Illinois: from Thomas M. Siebel, $100 million; bequest; 2007*

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: from the Grainger Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Miami: from family of the late Leonard M. Miller, $100 million; mostly cash; 2004*

University of Miami: from Phillip and Patricia Frost, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Stephen M. Ross, $100 million; cash and bequest; 2004*

University of Mississippi School of Education, Barksdale Reading Institute: from James L. and Sally Barksdale, $100 million; stock; 2000*

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: from Fred Eshelman, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of North Dakota: from Ralph and Betty Engelstad, $100 million; cash, stock, and other assets; 1998

University of Notre Dame: from Kenneth Ricci, $100 million; bequest; 2017*

University of Oregon: from Philip H. and Penny Knight, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Pennsylvania: from the Abramson Family Foundation, $100 million; cash; 1997

University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School for Communication: from the Annenberg Foundation, $100 million; cash; 2002

University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication: from the Annenberg Foundation, $100 million; cash; 2002

University of Texas at Austin: from the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

University of the Pacific: from Robert C. and Jeannette Powell, $100 million; bequest; 2007

University of Virginia: from Frank Batten Sr., $100 million; cash; 2007*

University of Virginia: from David and Jane Walentas, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of Wisconsin at Madison: from John and Tashia Morgridge, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Washington and Lee University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million; cash and stock; 2007*

Washington University in St. Louis: from the Danforth Foundation, $100 million; stock; 1986

Washington University in St. Louis: from the Danforth Foundation, $100 million; stock; 1997

Western Michigan University: from Ronda Stryker and William Johnston, $100 million; cash; 2011*

Yale University: from an anonymous donor, $100 million for the School of Music; nature of gift not disclosed; 2005†

Yale University: from the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, $100 million for the School of Management; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Yeshiva University: Ronald P. Stanton, $100 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006

$99.9 MILLION to $50.1 MILLION

University of Alabama at Birmingham: from Marnix E. Heersink, $95 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Iowa State University: from Frank Ferguson, $93 million; equity stake in company to be sold; 2017*

Northwestern University: from Louis A. Simpson and Kimberly K. Querrey, $92 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Calgary (Canada): from Geoffrey Cumming, about $92 million (100 million Canadian dollars); nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Ohio University: from Dolores and Fritz Russ, estimated at $91.8 million; bequest; 2008*

Stanford University: from James H. Clark, $90 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999

University of Fribourg (Switzerland): from the Adolphe Merkle Foundation, $90 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Utah: from Jon M. Huntsman, $90 million; cash; 1995

Yale University: from the estate of Paul Mellon, $90 million; cash, 155 artworks and historical and personal objects; 1999

University of Miami: from Allan and Patti Herbert, $89 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Pennsylvania State University at University Park: from Terrence and Kim Pegula, $88 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of Arizona College of Law: from James E. Rogers, $87.5 million; cash and other assets; 1998

Georgetown University: from Virginia and Harry J. Toulmin, $87 million; bequest; 2010

Emory University School of Theology: from the estates of W.I.H. and Lula Pitts, $83.3 millon; trust; 1999

Young Harris College: from the estates of W.I.H. and Lula Pitts and Margaret Adger Pitts, $82 million; trust; 1999

Cornell University: from David R. and Patricia Atkinson, $80 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

Duke University: from the Duke Endowment, $80 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

George Washington University: from the Milken Institute, the Sumner M. Redstone Charitable Foundation, and the Milken Family Foundation, $80 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Iowa State University: from an anonymous donor, $80 million; stock; 1999

West Texas A&M University: from Paul Engler and the Paul F. and Virginia J. Engler Foundation, $80 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Western State Colorado University: from Paul M. Rady, $80 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Stanford University: from William R. Hewlett and David Packard, $77 million; cash and securities; 1994

Florida International University: from Mitchell Wolfson, a museum and its collection; with a value estimated by the university of $75.5 million; 1997

Gordon College: from an anonymous donor; $75.5 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Boston College: from Joyce L. and E. Paul Robsham, $75 million; bequest; 2021

Claremont McKenna College: from Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Foundation, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008†

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Sandra and Edward Meyer and the Sandra and Edward Meyer Foundation, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Duke University: from the Duke Endowment, $75 million; cash; 2005†

Georgetown University: from the estate of Robert L. McDevitt, $75 million; bequest; 2008

Hollins University: from an anonymous donor, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Johns Hopkins University: from William H. Miller, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Kenyon College: from an anonymous donor, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Marist College: from the estate of Raymond A. Rich, approximately $75 million; mansion, surrounding property, and cash; 2009

Mount Sinai School of Medicine: from the Frederick and Sharon Klingenstein Fund, $75 million; cash and securities; 1999*

Northwestern University Medical School: from the Joseph and Bessie Feinberg Foundation, $75 million; cash; 2002

Rockefeller University: from David Rockefeller, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Stanford University: from Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of California at San Diego: from Taner Halicioglu, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Chicago: from Amy and Richard Wallman, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Chicago: from James and Paula Crown and their family, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

University of Florida: from Al Warrington IV and Judy Warrington, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Notre Dame: from John W. (Jay) Jordan, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Toronto (Canada): from the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Westmont College: from an anonymous donor, $75 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006

University of Oregon: from Lorry I. Lokey, $74.5 million; cash; 2007*

Duke University: from Peter M. and Ruth Virginia Lilly Nicholas, $72 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2004*

California Institute of Technology: from Rea and Lela Axline, $71 million; cash; 1999

Harvard University: from John L. and Frances Lehman Loeb, $70.5 million; cash; 1995

California Institute of Technology: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $70 million; cash; 1985

Indiana University system: from Gene Cox, $70 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2005*

Liberty University: from Arthur and Angela Williams, $70 million; cash; 1997

Oral Roberts University: from Mart Green, $70 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

Stanford University: from David and Lucile Packard, $70 million; stock and cash; 1986

Thomas Jefferson University: from Sidney and Caroline Kimmel, $70 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of Cincinnati Medical Center: from the estate of William A. French, $70 million; trust; 1999

University of Washington: from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $70 million; cash; 2003

University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire: from John and Carolyn Sonnentag, $70 milllion; cash and land; 2021*

University of Hawaii: from Jay H. Shidler, $69 million; cash, securities, and commercial-property ownership interests and lease fees; 2014*

University of Virginia: from Frank M. Sands Sr., $68 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Carnegie Mellon University: from the David A. Tepper Charitable Foundation, $67 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Medical College of Georgia Foundation: from the estate and foundation of J. Harold Harrison, $66 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Vermont College of Medicine: from Robert and Helen Larner, $66 million; bequest commitment; 2016*

California Institute of Technology: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $65.3 million; cash; 1991

Purdue University: from an anonymous bequest, $65 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of California at Santa Barbara: from Charlie Munger, $65 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Virginia: from the estate of David A. Harrison III and Mary Harrison, $64 million; cash; 2002

Oklahoma State University: from T. Boone Pickens, $63 million; cash; 2008

University of Iowa: from the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust, $63 million; cash; 2002*

University of Virginia: from Frank Batten Sr., $62 million; stock; 1999

Hofstra University and Northwell Health: from Donald and Barbara Hrbek Zucker, $61 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Bard College: from the Open Society Foundation, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Binghamton University (State University of New York): from an anonymous donor, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

California Institute of Technology: from Allen V.C. Davis, $60 million; bequest; 2017

California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo: from an anonymous donor, $60 million; bequest; 2007

Clemson University: from Wilbur O. (Billy) and Ann Powers, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

College of Charleston: from Guy E. Beatty Jr., $60 million; estate trust; 2008*

Columbia University: from John W. Kluge, $60 million; cash, stock, and bonds; 1993

Georgetown University Medical Center: from the estate of Harry A. Toulmin Jr., $60 million; charitable trust; 1997*

Gordon College (Mass.): from Dale E. and Sarah Ann Fowler, $60 million; bequest; 2007*

Harvard University Medical School: from Isabelle and Leonard Goldenson, $60 million; planned gifts of an undisclosed nature; 1994†

Illinois Institute of Technology: from Robert W. Galvin, $60 million; cash; 1996

Illinois Institute of Technology: from Robert A. Pritzker, $60 million; cash; 1996

Indiana University at Bloomington: from Fred Luddy, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Kansas State University: from the Jack Vanier family, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Northeastern University: from Richard D’Amore and Alan McKim, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

Stanford University: from the estate of Richard W. (Ric) Weiland, $60 million; bequest; 2008

State University of New York at Stony Brook: from the Simons Foundation, $60 million; cash; 2008*

Thunderbird School of Global Management: from Samuel S. and Rita Garvin, $60 million; liquid assets; 2004*

University of California at Berkeley: from the Simons Foundation, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

University of Dubuque: from Edward and Shirley Babka, $60 million; bequest; 2017*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from the Zell Family Foundation, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Mississippi: from the Joseph C. Bancroft Charitable and Educational Fund, $60 million; trust; 1997

University of Saint Thomas (Minn.): from Lee and Penny Anderson, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007†

University of Southern California: from Jane Anne Nohl, $60 million; bequest; 2007

University of Southern California: from Suzanne Dworak-Peck, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016

University of Texas at Austin: from the Mulva Family Foundation, $60 million; cash; 2014*

Washington University in St. Louis: from the Danforth Foundation, $60 million; cash and stock; 1977

Washington University in St. Louis: from John F. McDonnell and the JSM Charitable Trust, $60 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of Cambridge (England): from Ros and Steve Edwards, $58.7 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $58.5 million; cash; 2001

Asbury Theological Seminary: from Ralph Waldo Beeson, $58 million; stock and bonds; 1990

Gates Millennium Scholars program: from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, $58 million; cash; 2006

University of Kansas: from Madison (Al) and Lila Self, $58 million; bequest; 2014

University of California at Irvine: from the estate of Audrey Steele Burnand, $57.75 million; bequest; 2022

Oklahoma State University: from Amy and Malone Mitchell III, $57.2 million; stock; 2008*

Auburn University: from John and Rosemary Brown, $57 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from A. Alfred Taubman, $56 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Barnard College: from Diana T. and P. Roy Vagelos, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Berry College: from J. Bulow Campbell, $55 million; charitable trust; 1995

Carnegie Mellon University: from David A. and Marlene Tepper, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2004*

Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law: from Dale E. and Sarah Ann Fowler, $55 million; real estate; 2013*

Columbia Theological Seminary: from J. Bulow Campbell, $55 million; charitable trust; 1995

Curtis Institute of Music: from Nina von Maltzahn, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Gonzaga University: from Myrtle Woldson, $55 million; bequest; 2015

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $55 million; cash; 1995

Oklahoma State University: from T. Boone Pickens, $55 million; trust and planned bequest; 2003*

Princeton University: from Peter B. Lewis, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1999†

Stanford University: from John Arrillaga, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

University of Miami: from Stuart Miller and family, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Pennsylvania: from Mindy and Jon Gray, $55 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Texas at Austin: from Ernest and Sarah Butler, $55 million; cash and planned bequest; 2008*

Washington University in St. Louis: from the Danforth Foundation, $55 million; stock; 1986

Samford University: from Ralph Waldo Beeson, $54.8 million; stock and bonds; 1990

Carnegie Mellon University: from an anonymous donor, $54 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1997

Colorado State University at Fort Collins: from Walter Scott Jr., $53.3 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Indiana University at Bloomington: from the Lilly Endowment, $53 million; cash; 2004

University of Arkansas system: from Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust, $53 million and lease to ranch; 2004*

University of Cambridge (England): from Ray Dolby, $52.6 million; bequest; 2015

University of Virginia: from Ward Buchanan, $52.6 million; bequest; 2002

Purdue University: from William E. Bindley, $52.5 million; cash and bequest; 2002*

Australian National University: from Graham and Louise Tuckwell, $52.1 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Dartmouth College: from an anonymous donor, $52.1 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School: from the estate of Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat, $52 million; bequest; 2007

Texas A&M University: from Dwight Look, $52 million; land; 1992

University of Southern California: from Andrew J. and Erna Viterbi, $52 million; cash; 2004

Pepperdine University: from Blanche Ebert Seaver, $51.7 million; cash and stock; 1996

University of Houston: from John and Rebecca Moores, $51.4 million; stock; 1991

Marquette University: from Raymond A. and Kathryn A. Eckstein, $51 million; personal and private family foundation resources; 2007*

Stanford University: from Dudley Chambers, $51 million; bequest; 2006

Union College (N.Y.): from Rich and Mary Templeton, $51 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

$50 MILLION

American Technion Society: from Andrew Viterbi, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Amherst College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Arizona State University: from William Polk Carey, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2003†

Arizona State University: from Ira A. Fulton, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2003

Bard College: from Leon Levy, $50 million; cash; 2001

Bates College: from Michael and Alison Grott Bonney, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Boston University: from Allen and Kelli Questrom, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Brandeis University: from Rosaline and Marcia Cohn, $50 million; bequest; 2017*

Brown University: from Walter H. Annenberg, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 1993

Brown University: from Samuel M. and Ann S. Mencoff, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018

California Institute of Technology: from the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, $50 million; cash and stock; 1986

California Institute of Technology: from Ronald and Maxine Linde, at least $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Carleton College: from Wally and Barbara Weitz and family, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Carnegie Mellon University: from Cindy and Tod Johnson, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Claremont McKenna College: from George R. Roberts, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory: from the Simons Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014

College for Creative Studies: from Josephine Ford, $50 million; bequest; 2006

College of Idaho: from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation, $50 million; cash; 2007

College of William & Mary: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Columbia University Medical Center: from P. Roy and Diana Vagelos, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

Columbia University School of Public Health: from the William H. Gates Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1999

Cornell University: from Sanford I. and Joan Weill, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007†

Cornell University: from Einhorn Family Charitable Trust (David and Cheryl Strauss Einhorn), $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Cornell University: from Peter and Nancy Meinig and family, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Cornell University: from Robert F. Smith’s Fund II Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Cornell University: Peter and Stephanie Nolan, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Cornell University Medical College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; charitable trust; 1983

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from Maurice R. and Corinne Greenberg, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2002†

Cornell University Weill Medical College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2003

Creighton University: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2004*

Dartmouth College: from an anonymous family, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2009*

Drake University: from Dwight D. Opperman, $50 million; cash and charitable remainder trust; 1997*

Drexel University: from Thomas R. Kline, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Duke University: from the Duke Endowment, $50 million; cash; 2008†

Duke University: from Bruce and Martha Karsh, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Duquesne University: from Thomas R. Kline, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Emory University: from the O. Wayne Rollins Foundation and Grace Crum Rollins, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

George Mason University: from the estate of Allison M. and Dorothy Rouse, $50 million; bequest; 2019

Georgetown University: from Peter and Susan Cooper, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Harvard University: from the Tata Group (India), $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

Harvard University: from the Blavatnik Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel): from the Edmond J. Safra Philanthropic Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2009

Indiana University Medical Center: from Melvin and Bren Simon, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006†

Iowa State University: from Debbie and Jerry Ivy, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Johns Hopkins University: from the Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund, $50 million; cash; 1992

Johns Hopkins University: from William Polk Carey, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

Johns Hopkins University: from Michael R. Bloomberg, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Johns Hopkins University: from Sidney Kimmel, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Johns Hopkins University: from William H. Miller III, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences: from the W.M. Keck Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1997

Le Moyne College: from the estate of Robert and Catherine McDevitt, $50 million; bequest; 2008

Loyola University Chicago: from the Cuneo Foundation, $50 million; a mansion, furnishings, artwork, land, and cash; 2009

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from the Jeffry M. and Barbara Picower Foundation, $50 million; cash; 2001

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: from Legatum, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

Middlebury College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2004*

Montana State University: from Norm Asbjornson, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

Montana State University at Bozeman: from the Gianforte Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

New York University: from Constance and Martin Silver, $50 million; cash and bequest; 2007*

New York University: from the Hassenfeld family, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

North Carolina State University: from the Park Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013

Northeastern University: from Amin Khoury, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Northwestern University: from Jeff and Laurie Ubben, $50 million; estate pledge; 2019*

Nova Southeastern University: from Kiran and Pallavi Patel, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Oglethorpe University: from Q. William Hammack Jr. and Diane Hammack, $50 million; bequest; 2017*

Oklahoma State University: from the Ferguson Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Oregon State University: from Gary R. Carlson, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Oregon State University: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

Pepperdine University: from Tina and Rick J. Caruso, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Prairie View A&M University: from MacKenzie Scott, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Rice University: from Ann and John Doerr (Benificus Foundation), $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Rochester Institute of Technology: from Austin McChord, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

St. John’s College (Md. and N.M.): from the Winiarski Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Saint Joseph’s University (Pa.): from James J. and Frances Maguire, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

Saint Louis University: from Jeanne and Rex Sinquefield, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

Smith College: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2020*

Southern Methodist University: from Carolyn L. and David B. Miller, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

Southern Methodist University: from the Garry Weber Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

Stanford University: from Helen and Peter Bing, $50 million, for a new concert hall; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006

Stanford University: from William R. Hewlett, $50 million; cash and stock; 1986

Stanford University: from Steven and Roberta Denning, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016

Swarthmore College: from Eugene Lang, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso: from Paul L. Foster, $50 million; stock; 2007

Tufts University: from the Cummings Foundation, $50 million; cash; 2004*

Tulane University: from the Weatherhead Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2009*

Tulane University: from the Weatherhead Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

United Negro College Fund: from Walter H. Annenberg, $50 million; cash; 1990

University of Arizona College of Law: from James E. Rogers, $50 million; cash; 1998*

University of Arizona Foundation: from Agnese Nelms Haury, $50 million; bequest; 2014

University of Arkansas: from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation, $50 million; cash; 1998

University of California at Davis: from Lynda and Stewart Resnick, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of California at Los Angeles: from Paul I. Terasaki, $50 million; bequest; 2010*

University of California at Los Angeles: from Jonathan and Karen Fielding, $50 million; stock; 2012*

University of California at Los Angeles: from Norman and Irma Switzer, $50 million; bequest; 2014

University of California at San Diego: from Andrew Viterbi, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

University of California at San Francisco: from the Atlantic Philanthropies, $50 million; cash; 2007*

University of California at San Francisco: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of California at San Francisco: from William K. Bowes Jr. Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of California at Santa Barbara: from Jeff and Judy Henley, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2012*

University of Chicago: from Harriet Heyman and Michael Moritz, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of Chicago: from Arley D. Cathey, $50 million; bequest; 2021

University of Florida: from the Herbert and Nicole Wertheim Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Hawaii-Manoa: from Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Houston: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of Houston: from Tilman J. Fertitta and his family, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2022*

University of Kansas: from David Booth, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Massachusetts system: from Robert J. and Donna Manning, $50 million; cash; 2021*

University of Michigan: from the Samuel and Jean Frankel Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Helen Zell, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Richard Rogel, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Ronald and Eileen Weiser, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor: from Stephen Ross, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Nebraska at Lincoln: from Robert B. Daugherty Charitable Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: from Dennis and Joan Gillings, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: from John L. and Marree Townsend, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Notre Dame: from Joan B. Kroc, $50 million; bequest; 2003

University of Notre Dame: from Donald and Marilyn Keough, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Notre Dame: from Harry and Linda Fath, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

University of Oklahoma: from Clara Weitzenhoffer, $50 million and art; bequest; 2000

University of Oklahoma at Tulsa: from the George Kaiser Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008

University of Oregon: from Steve and Connie Ballmer, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Oregon: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2017*

University of Oxford (England): from Michael Moritz and Harriet Heyman, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

University of Pennsylvania: from Jerome and Anne Fisher, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

University of Pennsylvania: from Marc J. and Carolyn Rowan, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2018*

University of Pennsylvania: from P. Roy and Diana T. Vagelos, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2019*

University of Richmond: from E. Claiborne Robins, $50 million; stock; 1969

University of Saint Thomas (Minn.): from Richard M. and Sandra Schulze, $50 million; cash and stock; 2000

University of Saint Thomas (Minn.): from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2008*

University of San Diego: from Joan B. Kroc, $50 million; bequest; 2003

University of Southern California: from the Annenberg Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of Southern California: from Ming Hsieh, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

University of Southern California: from the Price Family Charitable Fund, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

University of Southern California: from Gary K. Michelson, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Southern California: from Mark A. and Mary Stevens, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

University of Tennessee at Knoxville: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; gift and bequest; 2006*

University of Tennessee at Knoxville: from James and Natalie Haslam and family, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2014*

University of Texas at Austin: from B.J. (Red) McCombs, $50 million, to be paid over eight years; cash; 2000*

University of Texas at Austin: from the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, $50 million, to be paid over 10 years; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Texas at Austin: from the Moody Foundation, $50 million, to establish the Moody College of Communication; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School: from the Livestrong Foundation, $50 million; cash; 2014

University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School: from the James and Miriam Mulva and the Mulva Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: from the T. Boone Pickens Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; cash; 2003*

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas: from Harold C. and Annette Simmons, $50 million; cash; 2005*

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas: from the T. Boone Pickens Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2007*

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas: from Harold C. and Annette Simmons, $50 million; cash; 2008*

University of Texas system: from the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, $50 million, partly contingent on matching grants; cash and other assets; 2006*

University of Virginia: from the estate of David A. Harrison III and Mary Harrison, in excess of $50 million; bequest; 2002*

University of Virginia: from Martha and Bruce Karsh, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

University of Virginia: from Tessa Ader, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2021*

University of Wisconsin Foundation: from Albert and Nancy Nicholas, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Villanova University: from the Davis Family Foundation, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel): from Nancy and Stephen Grand, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2013*

Wellesley College: from two anonymous alumnae, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2015*

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation: from John and Tashia Morgridge, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2006*

Yale University: from Paul Mellon, $50 million; artworks and historical documents; 1992

Yale University: from John W. and Susan G. Jackson, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2009*

Yale University: from Edward P. (Ned) Evans, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2010*

Yale University: from by John Malone, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2011*

Yale University: from an anonymous donor, $50 million; nature of gift not disclosed; 2016*

Notes:

* Full amount of gift not yet received.

† Institution would not disclose payment status of gift.

Source: Chronicle reporting

Source link

October 20, 2022