USNWR 2007 ranking - USM Forum -- Message Board

info · Status: Offline

USNWR 2007 ranking

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

How are they counting endowment? I thought we'd raised far more than that. Wasn't the capital campaign for $100 million supposed to go largely to endowment?

And yes, I think this question has come up before, but perhaps someone can clarify it again.

JL

qwerty · Status: Offline

What fundraising has SFT done in his tenure at USM? Not much. If there was a $100 million goal, I think he's come up short. The questions we should be asking is how much as the endowment declined since SFT took over.

Here's how we stack up. The Chronicle lists endowments for 746 institution. If we were to be included on this list (we're not) we would be sandwiched between #743 and #744, right between Grace College and Theological Seminary ($2,968,000) and Laredo Community College ($1,771,000). Now, that's w'url class!

Incredulous · Status: Offline

info wrote:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2441_brief.php

America's Best Colleges 2007

University of Southern Mississippi
At a glance....

...Endowment:
$2,412,556...

...U.S. News ranking: National Universities, fourth tier...

The administration took us to tier four and kept us there for three years. That says something for consistency.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

Jameela Lares wrote:

How are they counting endowment? I thought we'd raised far more than that. Wasn't the capital campaign for $100 million supposed to go largely to endowment? And yes, I think this question has come up before, but perhaps someone can clarify it again. JL

Jameela, are you thinking about the $100 million they claimed we reached this past year for "research"? I believe much of that is one-time-money, such as federal earmarks for things like the Trent Lott Center and the "Research Park". I think SFT did very little to build endowments.

Magnolia · Status: Offline

Perhaps Jameela is thinking about the capital campaign that was initiated during the Fleming era and was announced as successful shortly into the Thames administration. I believe this campaign was originally intended to be for private fundraising, which, as we know has not been a Thames priority.

Private fundraising does more than raise money for endowments. It raises support for the university in that those who contribute feel that they have a stake in the institution's future. This has been one of the great tragedies of the Thames administration: that we have lost so much ground in developing support among our alumni and community.

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

On multiple occasions, when speaking publicly, Shelby has stated that public universities have three sources of revenue: state appropriations, tuition, and grant funding. He has used concern over cuts in the first to argue the need to increase the second and third. These arguments have formed the basis of many of his flawed policies and have served to disguise one of his most serious administrative weaknesses. He simply does not understand or appreciate development and he clearly has failed in this essential role as president.

info · Status: Offline

[Comparison figures, USNWR 2007 rankings]

UM

Endowment:
$397,900,000

U.S. News ranking: National Universities, third tier

MSU

Endowment:
$19,074,600

U.S. News ranking: National Universities, third tier

JSU

Endowment:
N/A

U.S. News ranking: National Universities, fourth tier

MUW

Endowment:
$3,397,725

U.S. News ranking: Universities–Master's (South), 31

ASU

Endowment:
$209,871

U.S. News ranking: Universities–Master's (South), third tier

DSU

Endowment:
$9,639

U.S. News ranking: Universities–Master's (South), third tier

MVSU

Endowment:
$1,624,668

U.S. News ranking: Comprehensive Colleges–Bachelor's (South), third tier

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

Magnolia wrote:

Perhaps Jameela is thinking about the capital campaign that was initiated during the Fleming era and was announced as successful shortly into the Thames administration.

I was indeed. Why didn't more of that go into the endowment, from either administration?

JL

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

If memory serves, John Gonzales donated $800K by himself to endow history scholarships. Is that being counted, or do only undesignated gifts to the university go under that rubric?

In any case, what a poor showing!

qwerty · Status: Offline

John G's give was about $1 million. The History department also solicited and received a large bequest from the estate of James G Baird a couple of years ago. So, it looks like over half the endowment comes from the efforts on one Liberal Arts department.

asdf · Status: Offline

qwerty wrote:
What fundraising has SFT done in his tenure at USM? Not much. If there was a $100 million goal, I think he's come up short....

Not to pick on anybody, but what a great example of the loss of institutional memory. A $100 capital campaign should stick out in people's memory, especially one that was supposed to be successful. Instead, it took several posts before someone remembered what JL what talking about.

Polyonymous, I could not agree with you more. You would have thought at some point SFT has heard how modern university presidents are mainly fundraisers while the provost/VPAA runs the university (for good or bad, but that is a different topic). But he is a micromanager, and there was no way he would let someone else do the day-to-day business. Btw, didn't we used to have a VP for fund raising (I forget the title)?

Additionally, I too would like to know where the $2.4 mil number comes from. I assume that is the amount the foundation actually has in the bank and that funds individual colleges or departments raise that are not managed by the foundation do not count (that should tell you something if internal units do not trust the foundation). Of all of the problems with usmpride and DePree, I really appreciated him going after the financial records of the foundation.

Interested onlooker · Status: Offline

Curt Redden had a vice-presidential title. I think it was VP for Development, but I'm not sure. He resigned immediately upon Fleming's departure. Wasn't his office space given to Lisa (Mader at the time)?

There are good people who worked in the Foundation office and left because they found the situation so miserable there and in the college they worked for.

Magnolia · Status: Offline

asdf wrote:

Not to pick on anybody, but what a great example of the loss of institutional memory. A $100 capital campaign should stick out in people's memory, especially one that was supposed to be successful. Instead, it took several posts before someone remembered what JL what talking about.

The $100 million campaign that SFT inherited from the Fleming admin was swept under the rug pretty soon after Thames came into office. It's like he tried to erase anything that happened between 1997 and 2001. I've been told that he has removed Fleming's portrait from the dome. Does anyone know if that's true?

Oh yes, the $100 million campaign was briefly brought out again a year or so into SFT's reign as a PR piece as if it were all his doing. Who knows what bits of intellectual property, patents, pork and whatnot were dumped into the coffers just to get a nice round figure for the books and the newspapers.

Robert Campbell · Status: Offline

I figured USM would remain in the fourth tier.

Was the goal ever really reached on that $100 mil capital campaign? I know Thames said it was, but his credibility on such matters is questionable, and his scorn and derision for private fund raising are well known. Such a measly endowment has to make you wonder.

Clemson has nudged up a little in the rankings this year.

Meanwhile, the CU Foundation has told our president that if he is serious about increasing private donations, he needs to spend more of his time on the road making the pitch to donors. The good news is that CUF's marketing research shows that potential donors like him.

Robert Campbell

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

Robert Campbell wrote:

marketing research

What an interesting concept!

info · Status: Offline

Robert Campbell wrote:

Was the goal ever really reached on that $100 mil capital campaign?l

[Here's what it says in the administration's Work in Progress, pp. 17-18 (19-20 of PDF)]

FOUNDATION/
PLANNED GIVING

• Results of the $100 Million Campaign for Southern Miss
were announced on Homecoming Day 2004. Begun in
July 1997, the seven-year campaign surpassed its goal of
$100 million, netting more than $107.7 million in cash,
pledges, planned gifts and in-kind donations through all
three university fiduciaries — the USM Foundation,
Athletic Foundation and Research Foundation.

• Campaign gift totals were reported at face value in the
following categories: $35.5 million in cash; $44 million in
pledges; $21.8 million in planned gifts; and $6 million in
in-kind donations.

• Campaign results reported at face value are as follows: $28.7 million for scholarships; $16
million for faculty and staff development; $1.2 million for libraries and technology; $14.2
million for the Gulf Coast campus; $38.7 million for athletics; and $8.7 million for areas
other than the original campaign priorities.

• In addition to the $107,772,415.72 raised, intellectual properties valued at $44 million
were donated to the Research Foundation through 2002. Intellectual property gifts for
2003-04 were not included because the valuations have not been provided to date.

• Drs. Jack and Patti Pulliam Phillips donated $1.1 million to the Southern Miss
Workplace Learning and Performance Center on the Gulf Park campus.

• Gulf Coast pizza entrepreneur Glenn Mueller and family members committed $50,000
toward naming a classroom in the new business building planned to house the
university’s College of Business.

(FEATURED GIFTS FOR THE LAST THREE FISCAL YEARS)

2001-02
• Fay B. Kaigler — Children’s Book Festival
• Luckyday Foundation gives its largest gift — $2.3 million.
• Drs. William and Hannelore Giles give $1 million to fund Presidential Scholarships.
• Mary and Joseph Tatum Jr. establish a library endowment.

2002-03
• DuBard School for Language Disorders
• Jimmy and Natasha Payne give a $1 million life insurance policy.
• Kenneth and Regina Williams give a $1 million life insurance policy.
• The Asbury Foundation funds a professorship and scholarship with a $1.9 million gift.
• Richard C. Vreeland donates $500,000.

2003-04
• Elmer E. and Susie B. McCoy establish the Excellence in Education Scholarship.
• Barr’s $500,000 land gift given
• The $100 million comprehensive campaign surpasses its goal by more than $7 million.

Jameela Lares · Status: Offline

Again I ask, "Why does USNWR only list our endowment at 2,412,556?" Where, for instance, did the $35+ million go that was listed above as cash donations?

I suspect that by counting money going into all three "Foundations," those doing the announcement changed the original goal of the capital campaign out of all recognition.

JL

Incredulous · Status: Offline

Jameela Lares wrote:

Again I ask, "Why does USNWR only list our endowment at 2,412,556?" Where, for instance, did the $35+ million go that was listed above as cash donations?

I suspect that by counting money going into all three "Foundations," those doing the announcement changed the original goal of the capital campaign out of all recognition.

JL

I think the confusion revolves around the meaning of endowment. Collecting a bunch of money may or may not translate into endowment. Money given to be spent for a specific purpose disappears and does not become part of the endowment. Money given to be held to make money for some purpose is part of the endowment as I understand it. Thus, if you give $10 million for a building, it goes to pay for the building and does not become part of the endowment. Perhaps someone who understands such things can enlighten us.

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

my alma mater just completed a $1+billion capital campaign. last i saw about 25% went into the endowment. an endowed anything requires that the money be designated for something and that the money not be spent immediately--the money is to be invested. thus an endowed chair in "X" means that money has to be given but held until the returns on the investment are sufficient to fund the endowed chair.

Interested onlooker · Status: Offline

There was concern voiced by fund raisers (both in the Foundation and in at least one of the colleges)-- even before SFT-- that most of the money being raised was not to be an endowment.

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

Polyonymous wrote:

On multiple occasions, when speaking publicly, Shelby has stated that public universities have three sources of revenue: state appropriations, tuition, and grant funding. He has used concern over cuts in the first to argue the need to increase the second and third. These arguments have formed the basis of many of his flawed policies and have served to disguise one of his most serious administrative weaknesses. He simply does not understand or appreciate development and he clearly has failed in this essential role as president.

As recently as yesterday at the new faculty orientation, after being introduced by Jay Grimes as the provost's boss and good friend, Shelby reiterated the same mantra of three funding sources, once again leaving out philanthropy. I suppose with nine months remaining, it is not worth bemoaning his inability to learn.

Curt Yeomans · Status: Offline

Magnolia wrote:

asdf wrote:

The $100 million campaign that SFT inherited from the Fleming admin was swept under the rug pretty soon after Thames came into office. It's like he tried to erase anything that happened between 1997 and 2001. I've been told that he has removed Fleming's portrait from the dome. Does anyone know if that's true?

I don't know wether the portrait thing was ever done (I seem to recall seeing it in there in 2005), but I cann tell you that Horace Fleming's presidency didn't exist in the mind's of the office staff for President Thames.

I had left the university in 2001 to take a break, when I came back, Thames was in office. Well within the first week I was back, I had to visit with President Thames and walked into his office and without thinking, "I'm here to see President Fleming, I had an appointment" rolled off my tongue.The Secretary gave me a puzzled look and asked if I was talking about President Thames. I appologized for the mixup and said yes I was, to which I was told, rather coldly, "Well just a word of advice, don't ever say President Fleming's name in this office ever again."

So I would have to agree with your assessment that Thames wants to erase anything that happened from 1997-2001.

Rod Sterling · Status: Offline

Curt Yeomans wrote:

So I would have to agree with your assessment that Thames wants to erase anything that happened from 1997-2001.

The wall on the first floor of the Lucas Administration Building has pictures of all the previous presidents...the one of Fleming has been removed. So I guess I have to agree that President Paint doesn't like Fleming.

ram · Status: Offline

Rod Sterling wrote:

The wall on the first floor of the Lucas Administration Building has pictures of all the previous presidents...the one of Fleming has been removed. ...

What an interesting precedent.

Interested onlooker · Status: Offline

Rod Serling--Love your avatar. I.O.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

The wall on the first floor of the Lucas Administration Building has pictures of all the previous presidents...the one of Fleming has been removed. So I guess I have to agree that President Paint doesn't like Fleming.

I never actually noticed -- was there really a portrait of Fleming? Does anyne recall at what point it was removed? That certainly strikes me as not only discourteous but also unprofessional.

Not to mention that it reeks of rewriting history.

However I'd like to verify that before I say anything embarrassing in public.