Just been looking at harvard, cambridge etc, and noticed their huge endowments, $34billion for harvard, £4.1billion for cambridge, £306million for york, £90 million for UCL but only £47million for imperial. Why on earth is imperial so poor???
Endowments aren't an accurate reflection of university incomes/expenses. By all accounts, Imperial has the highest research grants income of any unversity in the UK. Plus, Cambridge and Harvard are hardly fair comparisons, the former having been around for 800 years (a little thing known as compound interest helps a bit in this area too!) and Harvard has been for 300 years, not to mention that in America, giving money back to your university when you leave and become successful is almost expected. There's a much bigger culture of donations to alma maters than is the case in the UK.
What is perhaps surprising is that the US universities have only created these enormous endowments over the last 20 years, with substantial growth occurring in the last eight years. Twenty years ago, Harvard was the only university with an endowment of over $1 billion, whereas now there are thirty-nine.
Infact, looking at that report, Imperial isnt even in top 10 in the UK, even Surrey (founded 1891, not long before Imperial) has a larger endowment, while only having around 3 thousand more students and £24mill larger endowment.
All I'm asking is, what led to Imperial having such a small endowment, it doesnt seem to be number of students or year founded.
I do understand MonteCristos point however about endowments not being that important and the research grant being very high or even highest (when number of students are taken into account).
1) I think that £47m figure is from a very old report (or rather, the data was collected quite a while ago). 2) The Centenary fundraising drive has seen the college fund increase dramatically 3) Imperial has quite a lot of assets not included in the "endowment" figures which it is able to borrow against to raise more money. These include property around South Kensington and indeed the country as a whole.
This always intrigue me --- why this dramatic expansion in student number? Surely this would dilute the quality of undergraduate intake?
This is BS. If that was so, the best university in the world would have something like 100 students...
I find it funny how some people think that the quality of a graduate is solely reliant on their quality when they entered university. Noone seems to be taking into account that going to university can really improve someones motivation etc.
- The place was over-subscribed so they expanded. Physics would like to expand again, as they are turning away good students - Medical school mergers and the one with Wye also increased numbers
The total number of undergraduates is now capped at present levels to ensure that resources are not diluted - College thinks ~6.5k UGs and ~4.5k PGs is about the sweet spot.
But what is the problem of being over-subscribed? Imperial may turn away good students, but it certainly does not turn away good students at the scale and rate of Oxbridge/Ivies. Furthermore, by turning away more student, the place would be preceived to be more selective and exclusive?
Also, is it better to increase the % of PG compared to UGs? Many top US research intensive universities like Caltech and MIT have a much larger PG population than the UG one (esp. for Caltech).