4 ms·

Only if they want to continue being funded to the same extent. Columbia receives more funding (% of budget and gross) than many public universities. An alterna

Only if they want to continue being funded to the same extent. Columbia receives more funding (% of budget and gross) than many public universities. An alternative for Columbia is to just reject federal funding and look to its endowment and forprofit services

jltsiren 2y ago
Columbia's endowment is ~$20 billion. A sustainable spending level would be 3-4% of that, assuming no further donations, or 4-5%, if donations continue as usual. In any case, it would be at most $1 billion/year, and that money is already spent on current activities. Last year, Columbia received over $1.3 billion as government grants and contracts. Even if they stopped everything that currently depends on the endowment and redirected the money to replace federal funding, it would not be enough.
- ethagknight 2y ago
  Sounds like they need to play along with the rules, then.
  - wredcoll 2y ago
    Yeah, who cares about the science and research they're doing when there's minorities to punish? Oops, I meant "anti-dei initiatives"
    - Tadpole9181 2y ago
      This one isn't DEI, it's the fact that the university is "allowing" students to protest the genocide in Gaza. The White House is using the antisemitism arm of governance to attack their political enemies.
      - tdeck 2y ago
        The dirty little secret is that a lot of the trustees and donors at these institutions are totally cool with the genocide in Gaza and are just looking for ways to suppress protest without getting their hands dirty. Whether it's ideological or merely a source of profit from the military industrial complex.
  - ethagknight 2y ago
    [flagged]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Why not spend the money? That is a 20 year runway. It isn't a law of nature that the endowment must always grow. It serves the institution, not the other way around. What is the point if not to spend it when it matters?
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    20 years is a short time for an institution that can reasonably expect to last centuries. Serving the institution means sustaining the endowment indefinitely, which isn't compatible with spending more than you can afford.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Depleting the endowment doesn't mean the institution disappears, and as I said, that would be decades into the future. Is there no institutional value or quality that is worth even reducing the size of the endowment? If so, then the institution is serving the endowment, not the other way around.
      - jltsiren 2y ago
        The key question is what you expect from the future. If you assume that the drop in federal funding is temporary and things will be back to normal in a year or two, it's reasonable to use endowment to soften the impact. But if you expect that the lower level of funding remains for the foreseeable future, depleting the endowment is the worst thing you could do. It the financial equivalent of wetting your pants in the cold. You leave the institution permanently weaker and less capable for some negligible short-term gains.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        Depleting an endowment to ride out a novel and likely-temporary (1.5 to 3.5 years) political situation that seeks to alter the university's fundamental behavior and values... seems like a good use? Especially since it likely wouldn't be 1:1 funding replacement, but facilitating more limited operations. Better to negotiate from a position of strength, when the other party is inclined to push any advantage as far as they can.

jltsiren 2y ago

Columbia's endowment is ~$20 billion. A sustainable spending level would be 3-4% of that, assuming no further donations, or 4-5%, if donations continue as usual. In any case, it would be at most $1 billion/year, and that money is already spent on current activities. Last year, Columbia received over $1.3 billion as government grants and contracts. Even if they stopped everything that currently depends on the endowment and redirected the money to replace federal funding, it would not be enough.

ethagknight 2y ago
Sounds like they need to play along with the rules, then.
- wredcoll 2y ago
  Yeah, who cares about the science and research they're doing when there's minorities to punish? Oops, I meant "anti-dei initiatives"
  - Tadpole9181 2y ago
    This one isn't DEI, it's the fact that the university is "allowing" students to protest the genocide in Gaza. The White House is using the antisemitism arm of governance to attack their political enemies.
    - tdeck 2y ago
      The dirty little secret is that a lot of the trustees and donors at these institutions are totally cool with the genocide in Gaza and are just looking for ways to suppress protest without getting their hands dirty. Whether it's ideological or merely a source of profit from the military industrial complex.
- ethagknight 2y ago
  [flagged]
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Why not spend the money? That is a 20 year runway. It isn't a law of nature that the endowment must always grow. It serves the institution, not the other way around. What is the point if not to spend it when it matters?
- jltsiren 2y ago
  20 years is a short time for an institution that can reasonably expect to last centuries. Serving the institution means sustaining the endowment indefinitely, which isn't compatible with spending more than you can afford.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Depleting the endowment doesn't mean the institution disappears, and as I said, that would be decades into the future. Is there no institutional value or quality that is worth even reducing the size of the endowment? If so, then the institution is serving the endowment, not the other way around.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      The key question is what you expect from the future. If you assume that the drop in federal funding is temporary and things will be back to normal in a year or two, it's reasonable to use endowment to soften the impact. But if you expect that the lower level of funding remains for the foreseeable future, depleting the endowment is the worst thing you could do. It the financial equivalent of wetting your pants in the cold. You leave the institution permanently weaker and less capable for some negligible short-term gains.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        Depleting an endowment to ride out a novel and likely-temporary (1.5 to 3.5 years) political situation that seeks to alter the university's fundamental behavior and values... seems like a good use? Especially since it likely wouldn't be 1:1 funding replacement, but facilitating more limited operations. Better to negotiate from a position of strength, when the other party is inclined to push any advantage as far as they can.