reformation
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,416
Member is Online
|
Post by reformation on Jan 11, 2013 15:33:40 GMT -5
So do I, but I have seen no evidence to justify that hope on any level. If we couldn't (or wouldn't even try to) do it when we had the #1 program in the country, why now? When we had the #1 program in the country, McDonough wasn't all that much of an outlier - remember, it was still being used for big games into the early 80s. Even when it became just a practice facility for the men, its slide from "historic/quaint" to "laughable" has been an ongoing, three-decade process. In the meantime, there have been plenty of other, more pressing priorities, at the top of which has been raising the endowment to at least the same solar system as our peers (which is to say the schools we think are/should be our peers, the US News Top 25ers, rather than who our peers objectively are/were. When we moved out to Cap Center in '81, our institutional peers were the likes of Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Holy Cross, and Fordham. That is no longer the case). We skated by for the longest time with the business school scattered across the entire campus until confronted by the fact that the situation was intolerable and was blocking the business school from advancing in reputation and growing in size and scope. The Hariri Building became the top priority and the impact has been clear. We skated by for decades with sad science facilities in the top floors of White-Gravenor and the Reiss Science Building, until we could no longer put off any further the fact that Georgetown's sciences would be going nowhere without a modern facility. Regents Hall became the top priority, and now there is at least the hope of those programs rising to prominence. We're at that point now (many would say we reached it a decade ago or more) with athletics, and with basketball in particular, where we can no longer deny that our facilities are having an overwhelmingly negative effect on just about everything we do in this area. So now, finally, it is a top priority. I know its not your main point, but kids going to Gtwn in 1981 were not looking at among Seton Hall/Prov etc as alternatives as you allude-maybe Holy Cross, which Gtwn kids still probably look at. We had advanced well beyond that peer group for admissions at least by then. Admin sometimes paints this picture to excuse slow progress on fundraising.
|
|
Dhall
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by Dhall on Jan 11, 2013 15:34:37 GMT -5
Georgetown's credit rating is A3 from Moodys last time I checked (in past year). That is barely investment grade and does not really leave room to borrow more at low rates. Our peer schools are generally rated much better.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Jan 11, 2013 15:42:00 GMT -5
As vamosaplaya mentions, the moves toward becoming a more selective, nationally- and globally-focused university began in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, really accelerating under Tim Healy. IIRC (and I certainly wasn't there at the time), a number of decisions were made in the 80s to invest revenues in the immediate term on building the national profile of the university, increasing selectivity, as well as constructing new buildings such as the ICC, Village C, and the Leavey Center. That building spree, in addition to the commitment to need-based, full-need financial aid, meant that almost any money that was raised was spent immediately, rather than being put into an endowment.
One can certainly argue the downsides of that bet, saying that if GU had a bigger endowment now, the university would be in a better position to build and grow (one could make similar arguments about the various missed opportunities in land acquisition). Conversely, the coming decades may show that the bet pays off, that decades-old decisions to increase the size and selectivity of the undergraduate student body results in a much more sizeable and "well-endowed" group of alumni, leading to more big gifts to be made.
Only time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Jan 11, 2013 16:13:53 GMT -5
One upcoming status check will be the 2012 Endowment Rankings, put out by NACUBO in a couple of weeks. Last year, GU checked in at 63rd place, after being
2010: #61 2009: #67 2008: #71 (And prior to 2008, I think it was always 70s or higher... I seem to remember it was 83 around 2001).
If GU can regain positive momentum up the ranks, it will reflect well on both the fundraising and investment decisions of the recent year.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,909
|
Post by Filo on Jan 11, 2013 16:25:41 GMT -5
Admin sometimes paints this picture to excuse slow progress on fundraising. Really? Are we thinking of the same "admin" here? Either way, as someone else posted, amazing how a thread about positive like a significant donation can detoriate into the usual nonsense. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Shaw!
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jan 11, 2013 16:29:14 GMT -5
I heard that one of the conditions of the gift JT3 agreeing to scrap the Princeton offense and bench Mikael Hopkins.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 11, 2013 16:33:14 GMT -5
Someone asked about how the Athletics Department spent the money it has raised to date (or intends to spend it). A good chunk of it is annual donations (like annual Hoop Club donations) that are spent on annual operations. Other -- non-annual -- gifts are given for targeted purposes (like the recent updgrade of the soccer facility). So, it's not like the Department has a slush fund of new money to start work on the IAC or can rob Peter to pay Paul. Rather, they have to raise money for the IAC itself.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Jan 11, 2013 17:01:34 GMT -5
Someone asked about how the Athletics Department spent the money it has raised to date (or intends to spend it). A good chunk of it is annual donations (like annual Hoop Club donations) that are spent on annual operations. Other -- non-annual -- gifts are given for targeted purposes (like the recent updgrade of the soccer facility). So, it's not like the Department has a slush fund of new money to start work on the IAC or can rob Peter to pay Paul. Rather, they have to raise money for the IAC itself. I mean of course....and it's not like this money has all been collected, but our operating budget cannot possibly be 60 million dollars a year for athletics can it? Granted I'm looking at this with Blue and Grey Basketball/Ath dept in general glasses, but can we afford to wait for 5 years to raise all this money? I say no... I remember seeing we needed to raise half before the shovel got in the ground. How much of that 60 mil is slated to go to the IAC. What is the actual final cost?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jan 11, 2013 17:30:05 GMT -5
The Shaws apparently had a strong reaction to watching that Pitt game.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 11, 2013 17:30:17 GMT -5
I don't know all the answers; others may. But it's a ten-year campaign ending in 2016. Every dollar pledged or paid in that time frame counts. So that means that every Hoyas Unlimited dollar raised beginning with the 2007 fiscal year counts toward the campaign total. Including this year, that's six years worth of gifts and that's got to be around $20M of the total right there. That leaves $40M in other pledges or cash (including the Shaws recent gift). I don't know how much of that has been pledged to the IAC.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 11, 2013 17:48:40 GMT -5
Also, on a more morbid note, many of them are bequests that don't come in until the donors pass away (as was the case with the Toulmin gift, which university officials knew about for several years ahead of time). Looking at the numbers, GU did not have many alumni prior to the classes of 50s and 60s that would have been in a position to make these kinds of gifts, even if a robust development office had been in place. Whenever this topic comes up I always remember one of my finance professors remarking glibly that GU was essentially waiting for a few big fish to pass. So we might start seeing these gift in the future.
|
|
|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Jan 11, 2013 19:17:12 GMT -5
Somewhere in the mix the bleeding financial situation of the medical center during the 1980s and 1990s,, and a money-losing dental school (closed in the 1980s) and even some financing held hostage to a lawsuit over recognition of a gay student group - Marion Barry! Taking a stand! - also led to financial strictures during the otherwise roaring 1980s when many schools similar in academic profile to Georgetown were adding to their endowment.
It always drive me crazy to see the US News rankings, that award points to schools for having a big endowment - not sure they still do it but they did for years - it's like ranking a sports team on how big their payroll is, or valuing a business by how much money it spends rather than whether it makes a profit. Alll the other measurements purport to measure outputs, this one inputs. But it used to hurt GU in those rankings. Haven't checked recently.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jan 11, 2013 20:28:51 GMT -5
I believe they use that and the per cent of alumni donating ie participation to give some idea of the strength of the alumni support for the university. the more support the less on the backs of current students and faculty. Thus the focus on 1789 to lessen the tuition burden and keep need blind financial aid which allows a diverse population. go hoyas 1951 lets GET IT DONE NOW.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,604
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 12, 2013 13:12:00 GMT -5
Russky - agree with many of and appreciate your thoughts. Not sure what you mean about "peers" back in the early 1980s; you are referencing the US25 which makes me think you are referring to academic comparisons. St. John's, Providence, and Fordham were a clear notch below Georgetown in terms of academic selectivity by 1980; no way were in the same orbit; on campus I remember reading about Georgetown/Fordham comparisons from the late 1960s early 1970s. The school's academic profile exploded - and its selectivity tightened, as Father Healy's tenure wore on, through the 1970s. But by 1980 it had really arrived. It's endowment . ... . .a different story. And I also agree that this facilities arms race didn't exist back then. I know its not your main point, but kids going to Gtwn in 1981 were not looking at among Seton Hall/Prov etc as alternatives as you allude-maybe Holy Cross, which Gtwn kids still probably look at. We had advanced well beyond that peer group for admissions at least by then. Admin sometimes paints this picture to excuse slow progress on fundraising. To clarify: it is true that by, say, 1980, Georgetown had put some separation between itself and the schools like I mentioned like Seton Hall, PC, Fordham, etc. in terms of selectivity and academic profile. That gap was not as large as it is now, but that has as much to do with what those schools have done (or not done) as anything else. In terms of institutional resources, endowment, facilities, etc., however, we were much closer to those schools at that time than we were to the institutions we like to think of as our peers now. THB hits the nail on the head in describing the building spree of the 80s (which was accompanied by an equally important rapid addition and expansion of programs, particularly graduate offerings). We're still playing catch-up now in many ways, but there was a lot of gaining ground being done at that time, and it really has never stopped since then. That has consumed the vast lion's share of the money coming in, as well as the debt being taken on, and helps explain why an athletics project has not topped the priority list in all that time - until now.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jan 12, 2013 16:46:31 GMT -5
yup UNTIL NOW 1951 lets Get it DONE. go hoyas GO IAC ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jan 12, 2013 18:12:07 GMT -5
We're still playing catch-up now in many ways, but there was a lot of gaining ground being done at that time, and it really has never stopped since then. That has consumed the vast lion's share of the money coming in, as well as the debt being taken on, and helps explain why an athletics project has not topped the priority list in all that time - until now. I think a lot of people have forgotten what the campus looked like before the SWQ and MSF were built. Those areas were just parking lots. A ton of building went on in that period and since then the Hariri building and the Science center have been built. So in ten years (about) we had two state of the art academic buildings, three large dorms, jesuit housing and a cafeteria to feed the whole campus. Thats a lot of building. Yes, there have been problems with getting projects done and getting money raised. But the university has done a lot with very little, considering the strained credit limits and hostile neighbors. From my perspective as a normal recent graduate, the university is entering new phase where they can be more ambitious with expansion and they can act like a major international university in all aspects (not just in certain academic aspects). Im excited for the next ten years.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 12, 2013 19:45:44 GMT -5
Thank you to the Shaws! Great news and an incredibly generous gift. I was a year behind Hope and 3 years ahead of her sisters but somehow never knew how instrumental her family was in jumpstarting women's soccer. Very cool.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jan 12, 2013 22:58:22 GMT -5
Thanks again and boy they musta REALLY jump started womens soccer. GO HOYAS iac yup need it for ALL 29 sports. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 22:56:22 GMT -5
Sounds like the Shaw family from Mamaroneck NY. (why does everyone end up in Greenwich, Ct). Thanks for the large donation. Hopefully the IAC is built sooner rather than later. We need it.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jan 23, 2013 8:19:09 GMT -5
Have YOU donated SOMETHING to the IAC today? 1951 lets GET IT DONE.
|
|