June 30 marked the last day of the University's 2009 Annual Giving campaign, and it looks like the University came up short in its effort to raise $56 million.
While the numbers on the U.'s giving website lag a few days behind actual results, the site shows the "AG Campaign Status" at $43,558,969 for a fundraising drive that ended two days ago. It also shows that 57.4 percent of alumni have contributed, shy of the participation goal of 61 percent.
Last year, AG raked in $54.1 million through contributions from 59.2 percent of alumni. The difference comes almost entirely from contributions from undergraduate alumni. Last year, that group contributed $43.6 million, but this year's total is just $32.7 million.
The 2007 campaign brought in $49 million with 58.5 percent alumni participation, while the 2006 drive raised $40.4 million from 58.2 percent of alumni.
The Prince reported back in March that officials were concerned this year's goal would not be met because of the economic recession.
Stay tuned to the Prince homepage for a story on final numbers when they're released by the Development Office later this month.
Posts
3 comments:
IF ONLY WE DONATED OUR CONCERT TO AG AND MADE THE SHORTFALL SEEM SLIGHTLY LESS SIGNIFICANT!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY, GOD, WHY?
maybe this reflects a general dissatisfaction of the princeton education/experience. too bad the administration will never admit this. it is time for the tighlman/malkiel reign of terror and sexism to end.
@ the second anonymous:
I worked for TigerCall for a long time, so I have a fairly good understanding of why average alumni do or don't give to Annual Giving. While it would be a lie to state that the alumni body unanimously disapproves of the administration or loved their Princeton experience, it is a fact that Princeton has a VERY high alumni giving rate.
As a Tiger Caller, I've met my fair share of people who have refused to give money for administrative reasons, though, mainly it's because they don't like Peter Singer. Slightly less often, they complain about West or Tighlman. The people who don't like West aren't very well informed on his actual academic work (the same goes, but to a significantly lesser degree, for Singer), and the main complaint against Shirley is that she's a woman who didn't go to Princeton. In 4 years I don't think I ever heard anyone name Malkiel as a reason they weren't going to give.
This drop in contributions can't be attributed to dissatisfaction with longstanding administrative policies or a sudden dissatisfaction over the experience. In my experience, the people who give consistently are likely to keep doing so, and the people who haven't given in the past are not likely to start. Since nothing has ostensibly changed in the administration, it's unlikely to prompt a sudden drop. Other than major administrative changes or new and particularly unpopular appointments, alumni who have been giving to Princeton only tend to stop for two reasons:
1) - I have no money.
or
2) - My kid didn't get into Princeton.
Both of these have always been very popular reasons not to give to Princeton AG, and with the economic crisis and the decision to eliminate Early Decision, I imagine both are up and are the main reason alumni participation going down. Of course, the problem isn't just that fewer alumni are giving, but that more alumni are giving less. And it's no secret why that would be.
Say it with me:
The economy is in the toilet.
Post a Comment