Can Public B-schools compete with Private ones?

Top 15 (per USnews) endowments as listed on BW. I am surprised that Kellogg is above Wharton (only behind HBS and Stanford), and a lot higher than Chicago and Columbia. Ross and Darden have a great endowments for public school, surprisingly well above Duke, and not far behind Columbia and GSB.

Harvard = 2.8b
Stanford = 982m
Wharton = 691m
Sloan = 657m
Kellogg = 728m
Chicago = 449m
Tuck = 261m
Haas = 208m
Columbia = 415m
Stern = didn't see it
Ross = 390m
Duke = 214m
Darden = 360m
Cornell = 185m
Yale = 576m

haha, you beat me to the punch river, was just going to compile that.

Interesting how Haas has almost as much as private schools like Duke, Cornell, and Tuck. Now that they're going to charge more for tuition in the next 2-3 years, it might grow quite a bit.

Any info on UCLA's endowment? $60M seems a bit low from wikipedia sources.

I like UCLA a lot (did my undergrad there) and I'd love to see them get stronger. I think UCLA is known to be a little stingy with scholarships, probably because of the small endowment. If they raise tuition to par with private schools, they could take the additional cash from students paying full price to fund scholarships that could then be used to attract candidates headed to other schools. I can remember back when I was an undergrad, I believe Anderson was generally considered stronger than Haas. Maybe I was a little biased because of location, but I think that historical rankings bear this out.

Of course, things have changed a lot since then. All the internet companies around the Bay Area that are prime destinations for MBA students weren't even on the map 10 years ago (give or take). Haas has naturally benefited from these developments, and I think they have a chance to challenge for a spot among the ultra-elites. The first step would be to expand their class size, which would result in more cash for immediate needs, and should lead to even more cash down the road from a bigger pool of alumni; of course this takes time, but I think the school is popular enough in the Bay Area, California, and basically in general, to attract more students.

It takes a long time for rankings to change and you definitely don't want to get caught in downward momentum.

you are correct, Anderson has been slightly higher ranked back in the 90s than Haas, and Haas did finally leap over Anderson in recent years (maybe as recent as the last 4-5 years) based on BW and USN rankings.

I think Haas is doing exactly what you're saying to build their brand name and climb up the rankings. Their new "account managers" in NYC are being pretty successful in getting banking/financial companies to recruit at Haas. They are planning on expanding the class size (probably to at least Stanford/UCLA levels of 350 students) in the next 5 or so years once the new building is done, and the new tuition hike will benefit both Haas and UCLA.

I heard UCLA gives out scholarships for 25% of their students, ranging from some money to full ride. I hope they can give out more in the future, as the school has a very impressive curriculum and a very application focused teaching method. Based on what they offer in terms of business education and application, they should easily be in the top 10 year after year. Too bad they're not as good with brand name management and aggressive recruiting of top candidates.

I am also interested in this development as I am applying to Haas and Anderson and would love to go to one of those, however many people seem to look down on the public schools and how they're not as well organized and tight-knit, how alums don't care, etc.

I can offer two examples from my own experience. I don't think you can generalize all public schools as having alums that don't care. Darden is known to have one of the tightest alumni communities around, second only to Tuck in the rate of giving. It's probably why Darden's endowment is pretty big relative to its size (went from 240 students to 300 students about 3-4 years ago I think). I can attest from personal experience that the Darden alumni network is strong and supportive. At the reception last year in San Francisco, Darden had about 30 alums show up to greet about 40-50 perspective students. It really made a huge impression on me, and the tight nature of the group has held true throughout this year.

I had the opposite experience with Anderson (bear in mind I did my undergrad at UCLA and I like the school a lot). Anderson had a reception last year in San Francisco. There were 100+ (maybe 150) perspective students in the attendance, and all they could muster were 3 very recent alums - and two of them were married. We're talking about San Francisco, where there certainly must be hundreds and hundreds of Anderson grads. The whole presentation and reception was awkward; it really made me feel like relations with alumni are poor and that they didn't care. Perhaps they just assume they will get plenty of applications from the Bay Area no matter how poor the reception is; and that might be true because they still got my application even thought I was really disappointed. I didn't have a clue about the differences in endowments last year, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if UCLA had an extremely low rate of alumni giving. Alumni relations is really something they should work on because money in the coffers is something that could really affect the long-term position of a school.

yes I am in particular referring to Haas and Anderson. Haas doesn't seem to be that bad, but I have heard again and again that Anderson has this problem. Some people even recommend going to USC instead of considering UCLA at all, even though UCLA is a superior school in almost all aspects, just because of the stronger SC alum network.

I haven't gotten in anywhere yet, and probably won't get in UCLA anyway....but still its disturbing and I hope UCLA doesn't fall into mediocrity.

Can Anderson alums chime in in regards to why??

Haas' alums are pretty tight knit and helpful, as their culture is somewhat similar to Tuck and Darden. I think the school is also working very hard on alumni relations and increasing the alumni giving rate to above 50% in a few years.

As for Anderson, yeah, that's the same problem I saw/heard. All their reception events are generally very disorganized, not professionally done, and their alum relations don't seem to be too good. I think that's what's hurting them in the rankings, since the school and the curriculum itself are outstanding. It's something that I definitely want to address if I do end up going to Anderson: improving their alum relations and "brand" image at receptions.

I can also attest to a poor Anderson info session in NYC. The adcom staff wasn't much helpful...in fact he mentioned that it would be best if we only had Q & A and no introductions....not sure that is the objective of an info session where most folks want to get an idea about a program and its core strengths.

On the other hand, Haas adcom was much more enthusiastic. But Michigan was the best....really charged up about the school.

I have heard great things from Anderson alums but somehow find that the school isn't marketing its strengths adequately.

duke's small endowment probably has a lot to do with its age: fuqua was founded in 1970. That's not many alums to draw on.

i didn't know fuqua was that young.....interesting how Duke can consistently beat Yale even tho they are around the same age, with Yale having a much stronger brand name and more resources.

based on rankings I saw in the 90s, Duke was consistently in the top 10. So they're small endowment didn't hurt them much. I wonder what made other schools overtake Duke in recent years.

i know that duke expanded their class size a lot a few years ago, and I think that coincided with a period of fewer applicants. Their admittance rates and yield both went down a lot.