Mon 13 Oct 2008
I need to clarify our previous discussions of the return of the endowment for fiscal 2008, which ended on June 30. The actual return was -1.09%, not the -5% that I initially thought. Comments:
1) Without knowing the answer, I predicted that the endowment’s returns was -2.4%, just on the basis of the asset allocation. Off by less than 1.5%! If only there were an Intrade contract I could have bet on.
2) The Record article is poorly written. I don’t expect writer Sam Weinreich to understand endowments, but why can’t he be smart enough to call up someone (like me) who does and is willing to explain it to him? I don’t want to pick on Weinreich too much, yet this behavior is endemic to Record reporting on many topics. The key issue, as HWC pointed out, is the confusion between the actual dollars in the endowment and the investment return generated.
Actual dollars are affected by spending but they do not change the College’s overall wealth. If the College takes $50 million out of the endowment and buys a new building, then our wealth is unchanged. The building is still worth $50 million. But if the value of the investments in the endowment go down by $50 million, then that represents a loss in actual wealth.
3) The difference between -5% and -1% may not seem like much, but, in the context of an entire year and $1.9 billion dollars, it is worth noting.
4) If any of the students in Purple Bull want an advantage in their job or internship hunt, they ought to reach out to me to work on some Williams-related projects. This would teach them something that other applicants don’t know and give them something to talk about during interviews. It would be relatively easy to create a mock-up of the Williams endowment which updated daily, even intra-day. Why aren’t there students interested in these sorts of projects? Am I that scary?
5) From the Record:
This substantial withdrawal from the endowment was coupled with a $19 million or 1.09 percent decline from investing activities. Collette Chilton, chief investment officer, links this drop to the fund’s exposure to both U.S. and global equities. U.S. equity markets fell 13 percent according to the Russell 3000 in 2008, while non-U.S. equity markets dropped over 10 percent according to the MSCI EAFE index. However, these drops were mollified by positive returns in real assets. “The endowment return was helped in fiscal 2008 by investments in real assets, such as commodities, certain private equity investments and real estate.”
Hmm. Seems like the College uses Russell 3000 (MSCI EAFE) as its US (International) equity benchmark. Both are reasonable choices. I wonder what it uses for emerging markets? Commodities and real estate have both been crushed since June 30th, along with the equity markets. Could the Williams endowment be down 20%? Easily. Time to cut some costs!
But, first, how about some transparency? For each of the asset classes in the endowment, we need to know what the benchmark return was and what the Williams return was. The difference tells us, obviously, whether or not Williams is picking good managers. If the Record will ask for this data, I will gladly explain what it all means.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
If the college needs +4 to +5 % of the endowment per year for operations, and the amount is determined with operating costs and new initiatives undertaken by the president and the trustees in mind, how do they manage the process and set the rate during a time when endowment assets have lost about 33% of value? Good question.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
David–
I love these articles…the endowment is obviously central to the College’s operation, and you do a good job of explaining what’s going on with it.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I explained that last week. College in Williams’ category of finances don’t determine endowment spending by need. They have the luxury of determining endowment spending based on conservative long term projections of endowment return and inflation in the higher education sector.
Here’s Swarthmore’s explanation (PDF):
October 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
The key takeaway bullet point. Colleges like Swarthmore and Williams have only been spending 4% to 5% during the boom years of double digit investment return. They have already factored up years and down years into the equation. In effect, some of the big endowment growth over the last five years has been “banking” endowment for a rainy day (bear market correction). The theory is that these colleges can continue spending 4% to 5% indefinitely, through bull and bear markets.
The thing that will put the brakes on a new library, just as it caused Swarthmore to delay construction of the second half of a new dorm complex during the last market retreat (the New New Dorm twin that opened this year instead of being built with the New Dorm five years ago) is expectations of lower fundraising for capital projects in a bad market.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
David:
I don’t assume that the reports in college newspapers of any other college’s “investment return” are any more accurate than those in the Williams Record.
I have seen an authorative figure for Swarthmore’s endowment on June 30, 2008. It was included in the package of materials prepared for the Presidential search committee’s use. Swarthmore’s endowment declined just under 1% (0.98% to be exact). This means that the endowment “grew” 3+% or so from investment returns and endowment gifts before subtracting the 4+% endowment spending for the year. Roughly speaking.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
That building cost would not be included in the “endowment spending” we normally talk about. The 4% to 5% endowment spending is going to the operating budget. There may be capital expenditures (new buildings) above and beyond that.
Even that is a bit murky. Colleges finance their new buildings with tax free bond issues, thus paying for the buildings over 30 years or so out of the operating budgets.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Is anyone hearing anything about the status of the library project? What about big projects at other LACs?
I can definitely hear the clicks of the belts tightening at a lot of publics, but that’s another matter.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
It’s too early to hear anything.
The real squeeze will be seen at schools that were already spending 6% to 8% of endowment to balance their operating budgets, schools refered to as “out of equilibrium” because they were spending down endowment at unsustainable rates. They just got really, really out of equilibrium.
The big boys slammin’ down the loan free card puts them in even more of a world of hurt. They counted on attracting nearly full pay students with token merit aid discounts. The loan-free move is specfically designed to undercut the attractiveness of those merit aid deals. The people taking the loans were in the $60,000 to $180,000 annual income ranges.
We will see some bloodletting a couple of tiers down the food chain.
To give you an idea (from some numbers I was looking at recentely), Swarthmore spent $78,400 per studnent in 2007-08 (not inc financial aid). Williams spends essentially the same plus or minus depending on the year($75,200 in 07-08). Wesleyan spent $52,500 per student. Williams and Swarthmore can tighten their betls without having to cut into bone or muscle. Can Wesleyan? What about the schools that are only spending $40,000 per student and are already out of equilibrium?
What about when applications from white students (the base of full-pay customers) start declining fairly significantly after next year?
October 13th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
For example, Bates spent 48,000 per student last year with just under $6,000 of that from endowment spending.
Swarthmore spent $78,500 per student, $35,000 of it from endowment spending. Swarthmore could cut their endowment spending to zero and almost match Bates’ per student operating budget. Bates is in equilibrium, but many schools in that range are not. The bulge in the customer pool over the last few years has hidden some underlying problems.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Williams set a target of 400 million for its fund drive, which included the vast majority of the outlay for the library project. It was well over 400 and still going strong last we heard, I imagine they will end up closer to 500 million. So the money for the project is still there. Plus, I don’t think the school wants the campus in its strange, overcrowded state for any longer than possible. If anything gets delayed, I’d imagine it would be the athletic overhaul — Weston and the outdoor track facilities will be done in a year, and the school has abated the worst of the fitness center crowding problem with the new “estrogym” in Lasell, so really only the fieldhouse, hockey rink, and locker rooms are badly in need of renovation … I could see that being pushed back a year or so as I imagine it will be enormously expensive. But given the success of the fund drive, Williams may not even see a need to do that. Schools like Amherst, which I think is in the quiet phase of its next massive capital campaign, will face a tougher road …
October 13th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“So the money for the project is still there.”
Depending on where they parked it, of course. But, yes, I would think they’d finish the library. Right now, it’s a bit like having to double up with the in-laws.
And it sounded on the Coaches Corner session like Harry Sheehy was really confident about the Weston project, and getting it started right after the last home football game.
I, too, think that it will be the other athletic facilities that will have to wait, if anything, and that project doesn’t seem to have been very far into the planning (I’m thinking they weren’t expecting to start that project until the library was done, anyway). The athletic facilities are going to run smack into the sustainability pledge, too (Sheehy even mentions that in his interview), so that will be a major complication and the planning will probably take longer because of it. Good thing they took care of the fitness facility problem for the interim. Maybe the problems at Goodrich and the redo of the dance area, which in turn allowed for the redo of the gym dance space into the fitness area, were a real fortuity, much as it was too bad Goodrich was out of commission for so long.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Yeah, it definitely made sense to move that dance space … really opened up an incredible space for the badly needed fitness center upgrade. And in all events, all of the former office space in Goodrich was made wholly redundant by Paresky — other than the very cool performance space / coffee bar, there was really no longer a need for the additional student space in Goodrich. I will have to watch the Sheehy video, sounds interesting.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
HWC –
That “money per student” number is tossed around an awful lot. What exactly does it mean?
Does that mean the College’s operating costs total 2000 students x 75,000 tuition = 150,000,000?
I’m taking from your post that that does not include financial aid. What about new construction projects?
I just don’t feel like I’m being spent $75,000 on — I don’t eat $5,000 of (bought at wholesale and prepared at near minimum wage) food, my dorm room isn’t worth the $5,000 rent fee, College money spent on me for non-academic activities probably doesn’t total more than a few thousand dollars.
IF, my room were worth $5,000, my meals totaled $5,000, my extra-activity fees were $5,000 (this includes sports), that’s still $60,000 to go. Say the administration takes a quarter of that, $15,000, for (junk) like the Zilka Center and the rest of the Hopkins Hall salaries (for a total of $30,000,000 student funding of Hopkins Hall at 15k x 2,000 students). So that means my academics make up the balance of $45,000. Now, I have a hard time believing that my nine teachers (4,1,4) make $5,000 per student… If the average teacher teaches 60 students (fair? I don’t know), they should be making, then, $300,000 each.
Fuzzy math or is this just why I’m not a math major?
October 13th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
There are ~250 profs costing the college maybe $150k each for salary + benefits, and ~800 staff members costing maybe 50k each for salary + benefits. That comes to almost $40k/student/year just for faculty and staff labor costs. I can easily imagine that the costs of administrator salaries, food, academic supplies, facility maintenance and renovations (including the upkeep of everything from dorms and dining halls to properties like Mt. Hope), library acquisitions, athletics, admissions, etc. could eat up the remaining $35k even without considering new construction (which is of course massively significant).
October 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Correct. Total Operating Expense divided by total enrollment equals cost per student.
The numbers I gave (in the $75,000+ range) do not include financial aid. That is treated as a price discount reducing revenue, not an expense item (although a cost including financial aid is sometimes given ($87,000 at Williams last year).
The number includes the monthly “30-year mortgage payment” on buildings as a line item for debt service in the operating budget (the debt is actually tax-free bond issues). That means more or less just this year’s share of the cost for that building. There’s also a similar expense for depreciation.
I’ll give you two examples of where the money goes. One from Swarthmore, one from Williams. They report things in different buckets (Williams inc salaries in Depart budgets, Swarthmore reporting separately), so both lists give a useful look at how the pie is carved up. By and large, both schools are spending the same money on the same stuff, with only minor differences.
These numbers are all from FY2006/2007 and they are all on a per student basis:
Swarthmore 2007 Operating Expense (per student)
Faculty Compensation $19,220
Staff Compensation $23,893
Student Compensation $772
Amortization $88
Life income payments $1,472
Bookstore merchandise for resale $525
Dining services food $1,154
Equipment $3,096
Foreign study program expenses $1,620
Insurance $529
Interest $4,729
Library materials $1,403
Services, supplies and other $8,490
Income taxes $1,134
Real estate taxes $523
Travel $1,820
Telephone $53
Utilities $1,881
Loss on extinguishment of debt $1,389
Depreciation $4,637
Total $78,427
Note: Swarthmore pays all foreign study program costs for all students including a check for airfare to the foreign program. The students pay normal Swat tuition, room, and board minus financial aid. The expense item is the checks they write to foreign study programs and the cost of their own programs in France, Poland, Ghana, Ireland, and Argentina. Similarly, they operate their own bookstore, so there’s a expense item for buying books.
Williams 2007 Operating Expense (per student)
Undergraduate Instruction/Research $23,804
Student Room & Board $6,150
Facilities $5,652
Administration $4,518
Technology $3,484
Alumni Relations & Development $3,509
Student Services $3,833
Athletics $2,864
Libraries $2,790
Auxiliaries $1,963
Graduate Programs $1,190
Museum $1,148
Security $694
Health Services $649
Total: $62,248
Note: The Williams breakdown came from the Campaign newletter and does not match the full $75,000 per student from the actual financial report. I can’t explain the discrepancy, although I suspect that the figures above do not include interest payments and depreciation. I find the Williams financial reporting frustrating because “management discussion” is in a campaign document, not in the actual financial report, and doesn’t cross reference. Swarthmore’s management discussion appears right in the financial report and when they say “78,000 per student expense” or “per student endowment spending”, you can go do the math from the operating expense and it works out to the penny. The problem is that reporting rules don’t always match the traditional accounting buckets.
Be that as it may, I think the two lists above give you a starting point.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Thanks for the very in-depth answer… I need to read it again tomorrow and check it out a little more. But does anyone else feel Williams (and peer institutions) mis-represents the term “cost-per-student” when clearly $75,000 isn’t being spend ON each student?
October 14th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I don’t know whom else Williams is spending the money “on” if not students.
The only customers Williams has are the 2161 undergrad and graduate students. Every dime they spend is spent to produce the goods and services inherent in the total residential educational experience.
I can’t think of a single dime Williams spends that isn’t spent “on” you and your fellow students, either in direct expense or in making the overall community an attractive environment, e.g. benefits that make teaching there attractive, a college art museum that makes the community more vibrant, a neon sign so visitors can find the strip club…er…I mean the Williamstown Summer Theater.
I hear the argument that the money spent on Swarthmore’s arboretum campus shouldn’t “count”. But, it damn sure “counts” when students and faculty are walking around the place enjoying the beauty, right? It’s like saying you shouldn’t “count” the leather seats and power moonroof in the cost of a new car because the car would still drive without them. Yeah, but it wouldn’t be the same product.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I lost a post but I’ll try to recreate some of it.
The numbers are what the numbers are what they are (leaving aside that there’s a good bit of room for “spin” or “artfulness” in deciding the names of the bins and into which bin to throw any particular $1).
Still, I think I understand what ‘10 means: it is hard to understand how some of that money could be being spent for what the reports say it is and it undoubtedly does not feel as though $X is being spent for his/her or any of his/her peers’ benefit for Y. Take (student, I presume) health services as an example. The College is spending over $1.3 million/year on that, but what can it be going to when the services provided seem mostly low-key and routine (see a nurse or occasionally a part-time doctor), there is no night or overnight care, and everything but the most routine problems are outsourced by ambulance ride or referral (the cost of which, I believe, is being paid by the student or the insurance required by Mass. law)? Maybe throw in a few general prevention/education programs, but it’s hard for me for to see how any student would feel that he/she or any of his/her peers was getting anywhere near $696 of benefit (more like $0 for most of them, since Health Services won’t help them much if they really need help, which is likely to be overnight or in providing over time post-emergency treatment for a serious injury or illness — there’s no more recovering in the infirmary). In that particular case, a lot of money is undoubtedly being spent and it is intended for the benefit of the students (or partially for marketing — what parent would want a child to go to a rural college if there were no Health Services nominally offered? — or to protect the College from liability, but even those cynical descriptions of the expenditures would be “for the benefit of the College” and thus can be said to be for the benefit of the students and allocable per student). In another area, the costs of the graduate programs are certainly a cost of the College and thus “expended for the benefit of the students” but, as with many expenditures, it may not feel to the typical undergraduate that the costs are incurred for his or her benefit.
Those are different questions or considerations than what the allocable per student expenditure is, that expenditure being what it is.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Larry George@18, that is exactly what I mean. Between services underutilized by the general populations to spending on buildings which will be used by students for years to come (ie, are projects like Stetson Sawyer being paid for out of my $75k, though the actual benefit won’t be enjoyed by me but instead future students) to projects like fund raising (which, I’ll admit, in turn, helps me), there are a lot of projects that don’t DIRECTLY affect me as a student.
I’d love to write more but I’m running out now…
I don’t want to sound like an ungrateful brat, either, I’m just curious where the numbers come from and if this number is a genuine representation of how the College allocates money per student.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am
That’s how they allocate it. You may not like the allocations/feel you benefit from the dollars allocated, of course (and no one will feel they get their $X worth out of each item), but I have no reason to doubt that’s how they allocate it.
Remember, though, that, while you may not feel you get $A worth out of “your” $A for item B, you may well get much, much more than “your” roughly 1/2000th out of $X for item Y. Also, if buildings that will be placed in service after you leave are being partially allocated to you, remember that the buildings that you do use were allocated to prior students and you are only having the operating and upkeep costs allocated to you. (And think how those of us feel who had Sawyer allocated partially to us, put up with the construction, and now see it about to be demolished! I really do empathize.)
It’s good to think hard about money, expenditures, and expenses, but I hope it won’t sour your experience of Williams; if anything, I would hope it would spur every current student to work to get the most he or she can out of the four years. So many of us alumni, while we had wonderful experiences, wish we’d pushed ourselves more to get even more out of those oh-so-quickly-fleeting four years.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
It’s also worth noting that nit picking about this or that expenditure should take place in the context of the average Williams College student paying $27,500 for tuition, room, and board.
BTW, when trying to total up health care, don’t forget Pscyhological Counseling Services. I can’t remember the exact numbers, but they provide free counseling sessions to a sizeable percentage of students: 10% to 16% each year since 2002, with 30%+ of the student body seeking counselling at some point during their college years at Williams.
Should a residential college provide psych services? IMO, the increase in student-focused support like that is very apparent. Williams and other colleges offered a much more bare-bones product forty-years ago, when students were left to sink or swim and graduation rates were much lower.
BTW, keep in mind that Williams is allocating maintenance of buildings, depreciation of buildings, and so forth to each of these buckets.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Generally speaking, no. The permanent bond debt for new buildings is paid over thirty years or so by the customers using those buildings.
I suppose there must be some pre-construction overhead (planning, architectural costs, and so forth) that avoids being dumped into a capital budget and gets expensed. However, that would be offset for a current student by similar expenses for the planning of buildings you are enjoying such as Paresky or the new academic buildings.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
LG- When was Sawyer built? (I took a quick look at a webpage for the library but did not spot a date.)
How disruptive was the construction? I ask wondering what daily life on campus will be like over the next few years.
Sorry this doesn’t have to do with the endowment. I did appreciate the comments above.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
They put it in service in the fall of 1975. We thought the project was a huge inconvenience because of the noise at Stetson, which was THE Williams library at the time, and some constraints on access to Stetson. (There was some room to study at Bronfman but the books were mainly in Stetson and we didn’t have the online access to information that today’s students have, of course). The noise was also a problem, as I remember, for those living in Lehman and on the quad. It seemed like there was equipment and mud everywhere. Many people bemoaned the way the siting ruined the view lines in the center campus, and a few were upset about the loss of the old cobbled-together former frat building that had been on the site. Looking back, I suspect the main problem was that it was depressing to watch a building that had been hyped as so wonderful go up while making do with what had been so widely denounced as inadequate and without being able to enjoy the new facility (especially the monkey carrels and other things that were added in response to student requests and suggestions).
That’s the nature of campus construction and of being at a place for four years or less, of course. I do think it mattered more or that we were more sensitive to it then because it was a much smaller place and offered little of the vast array of amenities the College now offers. Note that Sawyer was one of the few upgrades in some time (excepting the construction of Mission Park to house the larger student body occasioned by co-education) - Chandler, the improved Science quad, major dorm upgrades on the Frosh Quad, the music center, the conversion of Goodrich into an intimate social space, and so much more was to come.
I think it will be much better this time. There will be some noise problems in parts of the new academic buildings and in several other buildings. Getting books from some of the collections will often involve a delay (as they will have to be requested and brought in from the offsite facility - not too terribly different from the way closed stack libraries, which were once the college/university norm, worked, but it may be especially difficult for students and faculty who want unique historical materials and won’t be able to range through the collections anymore). The new center of campus must feel crowded with the extra building there, waiting to be removed. Still, the addition of the science library and the two academic buildings will really help take the pressure off the various components of the library construction in all sorts of ways. It’s going to be inconvenient but not so bad. I think most of the pain has already been felt.
The worst time recently was when Baxter was demolished and Paresky experienced a long delay in coming on line, leaving the student body without a genuine large central social center, with Outing Club and other groups and functions scattered to the winds, without a central dining facility, and with highly inconvenient foot traffic patterns at the very center of the campus (and a terrible view of little but construction fences in what had been the very heart of the campus). The Paresky construction was also very difficult for many of those living in Sage, as they butted right up on it. (Similarly, the new academic center construction was quite difficult for those living in Lehman.)
Fortunately, there are so many great amenities on campus now that the focus doesn’t have to be on what the current students are “missing out on.” Also the staging planning for this project seems to be pretty good and there has been so much construction and change that I would imagine students would be rather used to it.
In all, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
FWIW, when thinking about payment for buildings that you may or may not actually get to use (whatever amount that might actually be in this allocation) remember that previous students covered the allocated cost of buildings and other facilities that you’re now using - that includes trails, fields, paths, gyms, theaters, academic buildings, libraries, dorms, dining halls, the observatory…I could go on. Basically, it’s a lot.
This discussion highlights that students (and us old-fart alums) should take advantage more of the services that are offered, as the cost is allocated anyway.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Williams College
Per Student Operating Expense
FY 2005-2006
Instruction-Total amount $32,380
Instruction-Salaries and wages $15,572
Instruction-Benefits $4,818
Instruction-Plant operation & maintenance $1,837
Instruction-Depreciation $3,455
Instruction-Interest $1,809
Instruction-All other $4,890
Research-Total amount $0
Research-Salaries and wages $0
Research-Benefits $0
Research-Plant operation & maintenance $0
Research-Depreciation $0
Research-Interest $0
Research-All other $0
Public service-Total amount $0
Public service-Salaries and wages $0
Public service-Benefits $0
Public service-Plant operation & maintenance $0
Public service-Depreciation $0
Public service-Interest $0
Public service-All other $0
Academic support-Total amount $6,585
Academic support-Salaries and wages $2,881
Academic support-Benefits $889
Academic support-Plant operation & maintenance $718
Academic support-Depreciation $385
Academic support-Interest $43
Academic support-All other $1,669
Student service-Total amount $10,042
Student service-Salaries and wages $3,945
Student service-Benefits $1,217
Student service-Plant operation & maintenance $1,389
Student service-Depreciation $910
Student service-Interest $130
Student service-All other $2,449
Institutional support-Total amount $13,558
Institutional support-Salaries and wages $3,845
Institutional support-Benefits $1,999
Institutional support-Plant operation & maintenance $1,166
Institutional support-Depreciation $772
Institutional support-Interest $81
Institutional support-All other $5,695
Auxiliary enterprises-Total amount $11,751
Auxiliary enterprises-Salaries and wages $2,926
Auxiliary enterprises-Benefits $920
Auxiliary enterprises-Plant operation & maintenance $552
Auxiliary enterprises-Depreciation $2,264
Auxiliary enterprises-Interest $722
Auxiliary enterprises-All other $4,368
Total expenses-Total amount $74,316
——————-
NOTES:
1) This data is from the IPEDS government reporting website, which allows custom database queries. It’s two years old.
2) It matches the 2006 Williams Financial Report to the (rounded) dollar after I deleted a mysterous “other” expense from the financial report and a different “other” expense from this IPEDS report (that didn’t appear for any other college. I think both of these may have been one-time charges.
3) “Research” and Public Service are included in Williams “Instruction” bucket. I left the placeholders in case I post some comparative numbers where other schools break it out.
4) You can see that plant maintenance, depreciation, and interest expense have been allocated to the other groups. Total “Plant Operations/Maintenance” before allocation was $5662 per student.
5) What I know about the categories:
Instruction includes faculty salary, departments expenses, etc.
Academic Support probably includes other department staff, libraries, lab expenses, etc.
Student Services probably includes health, psych, security, and probably athletics, although the coaches may appear under instruction.
Institutional support includes the admimistration, the Dean’s office, Morty’s office, alumni relations.
Auxilliary Enterprises includes primarily the business of running the dorms and dining halls, but probably includes the College art museum, renting the theater to the Summer Theater Fesitival, summer athletic camps, and so forth.
Williams College
Per Student Operating Expense
FY 2005-2006
Instruction-Total amount $32,380
Instruction-Salaries and wages $15,572
Instruction-Benefits $4,818
Instruction-Plant operation & maintenance $1,837
Instruction-Depreciation $3,455
Instruction-Interest $1,809
Instruction-All other $4,890
Research-Total amount $0
Research-Salaries and wages $0
Research-Benefits $0
Research-Plant operation & maintenance $0
Research-Depreciation $0
Research-Interest $0
Research-All other $0
Public service-Total amount $0
Public service-Salaries and wages $0
Public service-Benefits $0
Public service-Plant operation & maintenance $0
Public service-Depreciation $0
Public service-Interest $0
Public service-All other $0
Academic support-Total amount $6,585
Academic support-Salaries and wages $2,881
Academic support-Benefits $889
Academic support-Plant operation & maintenance $718
Academic support-Depreciation $385
Academic support-Interest $43
Academic support-All other $1,669
Student service-Total amount $10,042
Student service-Salaries and wages $3,945
Student service-Benefits $1,217
Student service-Plant operation & maintenance $1,389
Student service-Depreciation $910
Student service-Interest $130
Student service-All other $2,449
Institutional support-Total amount $13,558
Institutional support-Salaries and wages $3,845
Institutional support-Benefits $1,999
Institutional support-Plant operation & maintenance $1,166
Institutional support-Depreciation $772
Institutional support-Interest $81
Institutional support-All other $5,695
Auxiliary enterprises-Total amount $11,751
Auxiliary enterprises-Salaries and wages $2,926
Auxiliary enterprises-Benefits $920
Auxiliary enterprises-Plant operation & maintenance $552
Auxiliary enterprises-Depreciation $2,264
Auxiliary enterprises-Interest $722
Auxiliary enterprises-All other $4,368
Total expenses-Total amount $74,316
——————-
NOTES:
1) This data is from the IPEDS government reporting website, which allows custom database queries. It’s two years old.
2) It matches the 2006 Williams Financial Report to the (rounded) dollar after I deleted a mysterous “other” expense from the financial report and a different “other” expense from this IPEDS report (that didn’t appear for any other college. I think both of these may have been one-time charges.
3) “Research” and Public Service are included in Williams “Instruction” bucket. I left the placeholders in case I post some comparative numbers where other schools break it out.
4) You can see that plant maintenance, depreciation, and interest expense have been allocated to the other groups. Total “Plant Operations/Maintenance” before allocation was $5662 per student.
5) What I know about the categories:
Instruction includes faculty salary, departments expenses, etc.
Academic Support probably includes other department staff, libraries, lab expenses, etc.
Student Services probably includes health, psych, security, and probably athletics, although the coaches may appear under instruction.
Institutional support includes the admimistration, the Dean’s office, Morty’s office, alumni relations.
Auxilliary Enterprises includes primarily the business of running the dorms and dining halls, but probably includes the College art museum, renting the theater to the Summer Theater Fesitival, summer athletic camps, and so forth.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
LG: Thanks for the history of campus construction. It would be great to either see a time-lapsed map or a series of maps documenting the changes. (Your description got me to pull out the current campus map.) Changes in the physical structure of the campus must clash with feelings of nostalgia.
HWC: Such impressive tables. I even got to read them twice. Seriously, I’ve appreciated all your tables & graphs. Why do you have these databases?
October 14th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The IPEDS databases are public. Available to one and all on the world wide web. Colleges are required to submit virtually all of their data: enrollment, diversity, financial, degrees, athletics, yadda yadda.
The problem is figuring out how to use the darn things. I wanted to see the financial info because I remembered they divided things up in to a lot of categories.
People try to use them for comparsions, but the financial information is pretty much useless. For example, Williams lumps their research and public service into “instruction” cost. Swarthmore breaks them out into separate categories to the tune of about $3,000 per student per year.
So, even with all those categories, there’s little consistency.