I wonder how future alumni will look upon the football program though. I'd like to see some data on whether or not alumni contributions to athletics (more specifically the football program) declines over the decades or fluctuates with team performance. I actually have a hunch that it's the former (i.e. despite the success of the early Tedford years alumni from that time period don't really care).

OaktownBear;842715420 said:

---

Your decide-phobic description certainly seems to describe an AD hiring process which dragged on and ultimately put the interim guy in place.

I have always felt that the job of the chancellor is to maintain and improve Cal's academic standing and athletics is so far down the list of items I judge a chancellor on as to be irrelevant. That being said, I certainly have hopes of what a new chancellor who is awesome at academics administration would also happen to do with athletics. Quite frankly, on that score, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have Heyman than Dirks. You knew where you stood with Heyman. I'd characterize this administration's attitude toward sports as "let's not suck just enough so that the bonehead alums will think we are actually trying and stay engaged but the faculty won't get pissed off" As far as I'm concerned, go all out or go home. Aiming for 7 win seasons is BS. I'd rather go back to the football team being a nice intermission between Cal band performances than be half assed but still have to suffer the trappings of an administration trying to squeeze every penny out of football that they can. Of course, I'd actually prefer that Cal treat football like every other endeavor and try to be the best, but that was certainly not where this administration's head was at.

---

You've captured much of how I view Dirks' short-lived tenure as Chancellor. I'd only add that Williams is the embodiment of Dirks as Athletic Director without a filter. Williams has said and done things that I will not and cannot support. To wit, when discussing the football team Williams allowed as how the alums would rather have a 3-9 team with 95% graduation rate than a Rose Bowl team. The head of the Intercollegiate Athletic Department should never make a statement like that. Ever. Even if the sentiment is true. If asked, the Athletic Director should always say that Cal's athletes strive to succeed in the classroom and in their chosen sport; to promote a culture of excellence both athletically and academically as representatives worthy of the finest public university. Period. End of statement.

When discussing the Men's Basketball program Williams revealed that Cuonzo Martin had been working for two years on the basis of his offer sheet, and not a signed contract. He offered the lame excuse that he was only the interim AD so he could not finalize Martin's contract. In hindsight, Williams was probably indicating that he didn't have the power to finalize the contract because Dirks reserved it for himself. In taking that stance, Williams has showed that he is unsuited for the job of AD - the Athletic Director is supposed to lead or at least act as his boss' proxy to get the job done. It's the Athletic Director's job to be out in front of all issues for which the IAD has primary responsibility and project the stance of an executive. Even if the AD position must defer all decisions to the Chancellor, the AD must develop the issues so that action can be taken to resolve those issues.

I can only hope that the next Chancellor selects a new AD; someone who understands that the Athletic Director must have a vision to lead the Intercollegiate Athletic Department forward, including a football program that strives to win the Pac-12 Championship and attain a Rose Bowl berth or better each and every year.

510Bear;842715316 said:

---

At a university where faculty wield disproportionately high power, that's about what you'd expect. Though at some universities where faculty drive the bus, they also realize they need a chancellor who can complement their skills (read: good administrator/fundraiser/schmoozer) even if it's someone they may have a hard time controlling.

Other times, they'll make the easy and cowardly choice and pick someone who's very "academic" - either one of them or someone of a similar background - in the hopes that person will do what's good for them and them alone, and be easy to control.

We'll see which route our faculty go this time around.

---

Dirks of course is both a scholar and was a Vice President at Columbia, so presumably both. I suspect though his administrative experience at Columbia didn't prepare him for the wide range of issues he confronted at Cal. His instincts on the sexual harassment, the conflicts of interest and potential misuse of funds, the fence, etc were those not of a seasoned wise leader but a naive one

wifeisafurd;842715432 said:

---

I suggest you look at who is on the Cal Foundation Board of Trustees for alums who really matter and what they are saying, rather than some dickhead yelping at the end of an alumni event. To put it in perspective, an important football conference game can draw 40,000 plus alums to campus, many of whom are the school's largest donors, versus a seminar, a couple hundred small donors.

Personal perspective is most faculty really could care less about football, campus politics or culture wars, they just want to have a successful career and engage in meaningful research. There are plenty of small, loud constituencies on campus to pacify, and one can only hope the next Chancellor can do so. Maybe Furd and SC have a better idea by typically hiring school Presidents with prior experience on campus and therefore have the background to navigate Cal's peculiar issues.

---

There are over 120 alumni on the Board. I can find no record of what any of them are saying. I contribute to the Cal foundation every year, Cal is included in my trust. I do not recall any recent publications quoting the board members on the role or future of athletics. Perhaps I am one of the alumni who does not really matter, so they don't find it necessary to tell me. Whether the alumni in the room agreed or disagreed with the speaker, no one called him a dickhead.

Number 031343;842715475 said:

---

There are over 120 alumni on the Board. I can find no record of what any of them are saying. I contribute to the Cal foundation every year, Cal is included in my trust. I do not recall any recent publications quoting the board members on the role or future of athletics. Perhaps I am one of the alumni who does not really matter, so they don't find it necessary to tell me. Whether the alumni in the room agreed or disagreed with the speaker, no one called him a dickhead.

---

I'm not really in a position to discuss what is said privately. Let's try this another way. Almost every trustee has ESP seats, the former Chair is one Mike Williams, the present Chair is on the Advisory Board to I/A and will I could go on. Does that help you with the mindset of alums who matter? Who exactly is this one guy that claims to speak for donors-alums in public?

Wilner on Dirks: "[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial]The best that can be said about Dirks in regard to Cal athletics is that he wasn’t bad for Cal athletics."
[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/08/18/chancellor-nicholas-dirks-resigns-means-cal-athletics/

okaydo;842715595 said:

---

Wilner on Dirks: "[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial]The best that can be said about Dirks in regard to Cal athletics is that he wasn't bad for Cal athletics."
[/FONT][/COLOR]
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/08/18/chancellor-nicholas-dirks-resigns-means-cal-athletics/

---

This is going to get ugly, but I actually think from a sports perspective, Wilner is somewhat on topic. He doesn't understand the financing, which is typical for journalists, but I do think his point on the inability to keep top flight financial administrators like Jon Wilton s/b well taken, and that UC and Cal from an administrative and governance standpoint seem dysfunctional.

wifeisafurd;842715583 said:

---

I'm not really in a position to discuss what is said privately. Let's try this another way. Almost every trustee has ESP seats, the former Chair is one Mike Williams, the present Chair is on the Advisory Board to I/A and will I could go on. Does that help you with the mindset of alums who matter? Who exactly is this one guy that claims to speak for donors-alums in public?

---

I'm going to come at this another way and admittedly change the topic. I know, WIAF, that you were reacting to a comment reportedly made by an alum that you do not think represents the current vision. However, your posts bring up a larger issue to me. Why don't all alums matter to Cal?

I get it. A guy who donates $10M matters more than a guy who donates $100. But this is a prevailing message from Cal. The opinion of rich alums matter. The opinion of less than rich alums don't. But please send your meager sum that we don't appreciate. It is a common refrain even here - your opinion doesn't matter if you don't donate a ton of money.

I'm going to compare this Obama's 2008 campaign and the fundraising he pioneered. He raised a ton of money from small email donations. He also made a ton of money through big donors. Yes, big donors were given, shall we say, a more personal touch. But the campaign went out of their way to communicate a ton with small donors. To make them at least feel part of the team. To express a vision of the campaign and ask them to support that vision through further contributions. To make them feel a part of something and like the campaign was trying listen to its supporters. It may have all been bullshyte, but they did it. Pretty much all of the campaigns do it now.

The phrase "alums who matter" should never be uttered. And then there is the next thing. You are not in a position to discuss things said privately. I get that. It isn't your place to do that. Why do you have to? Why isn't Cal proactively discussing its vision openly, in public, in a detailed manner? I think that was the poster's point in his second post. Where do I find any statement of Cal's vision? Why do I have to rely on WIAF to whisper on a message board that he has talked behind the scenes to alums that matter, and well he can't say what was said, but just, well in a general sense, football is important.

There is no respect from Cal that maybe they could increase small donors in a meaningful way by actually letting us know what they are doing. A statement of 1. This is where we are; 2. This is where we want to go; 3. This is our plan to get there; 4. This is how you can help.

I have no idea if they have a grasp of 1. I have no idea what #2 is. I doubt they have #3 and if they do, they certainly won't share it. So I'm hesitant to consider #4. Cal has failed miserably in revenue sports. Is it because they don't care? Actively don't want to succeed? Want desperately to succeed but haven't had the right plan? We all want to give our money where we feel it will make a difference. They just take for granted the people who will always give and don't make any case for the people who liked to know where their support is going. Cal is a charity that asks for money to feed starving children and then never feeds any starving children and never feels like it might be in their interest to share how they might be more effective.

OTB - just have faith that the big donors know what to do to make Cal great again. They don't want to share that info because our enemies might take credit for the idea.

The conversation went something like this:

Quote:

---

This is so simple, so surgical, it would be an unbelievable thing. Now, I’ve been around saying this, you would think somebody from the administration would at least would call me and say, ‘Hey, could you tell us what it is?’ It happens to be a great idea. But at the right time, I guess I’ll give it.

---

#AllAlumsMatter

OaktownBear;842715605 said:

---

I'm going to come at this another way and admittedly change the topic. I know, WIAF, that you were reacting to a comment reportedly made by an alum that you do not think represents the current vision. However, your posts bring up a larger issue to me. Why don't all alums matter to Cal?

I get it. A guy who donates $10M matters more than a guy who donates $100. But this is a prevailing message from Cal. The opinion of rich alums matter. The opinion of less than rich alums don't. But please send your meager sum that we don't appreciate. It is a common refrain even here - your opinion doesn't matter if you don't donate a ton of money.

I'm going to compare this Obama's 2008 campaign and the fundraising he pioneered. He raised a ton of money from small email donations. He also made a ton of money through big donors. Yes, big donors were given, shall we say, a more personal touch. But the campaign went out of their way to communicate a ton with small donors. To make them at least feel part of the team. To express a vision of the campaign and ask them to support that vision through further contributions. To make them feel a part of something and like the campaign was trying listen to its supporters. It may have all been bullshyte, but they did it. Pretty much all of the campaigns do it now.

The phrase "alums who matter" should never be uttered. And then there is the next thing. You are not in a position to discuss things said privately. I get that. It isn't your place to do that. Why do you have to? Why isn't Cal proactively discussing its vision openly, in public, in a detailed manner? I think that was the poster's point in his second post. Where do I find any statement of Cal's vision? Why do I have to rely on WIAF to whisper on a message board that he has talked behind the scenes to alums that matter, and well he can't say what was said, but just, well in a general sense, football is important.

There is no respect from Cal that maybe they could increase small donors in a meaningful way by actually letting us know what they are doing. A statement of 1. This is where we are; 2. This is where we want to go; 3. This is our plan to get there; 4. This is how you can help.

I have no idea if they have a grasp of 1. I have no idea what #2 is. I doubt they have #3 and if they do, they certainly won't share it. So I'm hesitant to consider #4. Cal has failed miserably in revenue sports. Is it because they don't care? Actively don't want to succeed? Want desperately to succeed but haven't had the right plan? We all want to give our money where we feel it will make a difference. They just take for granted the people who will always give and don't make any case for the people who liked to know where their support is going. Cal is a charity that asks for money to feed starving children and then never feeds any starving children and never feels like it might be in their interest to share how they might be more effective.

---

I don't take issue with a lot of this. Cal has one of the worst donor alumni rates of any school in the nation, and they just pushed out the Chancellor who had increased fundraising at the highest rate. Cal does decently in terms of over all amounts donated and endowment, which means it doesn't have a lot of small donations, and which means big donors have to matter, even if said in a politically incorrect lexicon. That said, Cal falls way behind other schools that we deal with (Furd, UCLA and USC) in terms of outreach other than Cal I/A, which has finally gotten its act together under Williams.


You raise some very good questions about fundraising and transparency. Furd, for example, is exceedingly transparent and in your face about their goals, and what they will spend the money on. Add to this the Stanford President has, in essence, written several articles about sports and changes in athletics (he is quoted so much in these articles he might as well been the author) that appeared in the Alumni Newsletter and have been posted and discussed here. Compare that with Cal where the Chancellor has to hide his allegiances to athletics from different groups and invent a dual name for the school: Cal and Berkeley.

I'm not the one to respond to your last two paragraphs. Cal has to make a case for itself to alums like you if it is to prosper in a reality where state funding is limited. This may not be a satisfying response to your thoughtful comments or questions, but its the best I can do.

TouchedTheAxeIn82;842715608 said:

---

#AllAlumsMatter

---

They would if:

1) they donated (or at least donated better than at a rate essentially worse than almost any large university) so Cal was not so reliant on large donors
2) the selection process for Chancellor had significant alumni input
3) the school was not controlled by its faculty and bureaucracy (particularly the UC bureaucracy), with very little (no?) input from alums
4) Cal was more transparent so alums could make reasonable determinations


Want a school where alums matter - go to SC.

wifeisafurd;842715627 said:

---

I don't take issue with a lot of this. Cal has one of the worst donor alumni rates of any school in the nation, and they just pushed out the Chancellor who had increased fundraising at the highest rate. Cal does decently in terms of over all amounts donated and endowment, which means it doesn't have a lot of small donations, and which means big donors have to matter, even if said in a politically incorrect lexicon. That said, Cal falls way behind other schools that we deal with (Furd, UCLA and USC) in terms of outreach other than Cal I/A, which has finally gotten its act together under Williams.


You raise some very good questions about fundraising and transparency. Furd, for example, is exceedingly transparent and in your face about their goals, and what they will spend the money on. Add to this the Stanford President has, in essence, written several articles about sports and changes in athletics (he is quoted so much in these articles he might as well been the author) that appeared in the Alumni Newsletter and have been posted and discussed here. Compare that with Cal where the Chancellor has to hide his allegiances to athletics from different groups and invent a dual name for the school: Cal and Berkeley.

I'm not the one to respond to your last two paragraphs. Cal has to make a case for itself to alums like you if it is to prosper in a reality where state funding is limited. This may not be a satisfying response to your thoughtful comments or questions, but its the best I can do.

---

Thank you for your response and I certainly didn't expect you to be able to answer for Cal's administration.

I have become increasingly disappointed with Cal's administration's unwillingness to speak to the public and how quick it is to circle the wagons and shut everyone out, whether it is academic policy, athletic policy, sexual harassment cases, etc. I think it is to their detriment. Barsky would not exist if they had an effective response. So many of their issues should be able to be explained if they would just communicate. Case in point. Why the hell didn't they just explain the Fabiano Hale case? They gave a bullshyte response and a "we're doing an investigation so we can't say anything" followed by a "we've done an investigation and we won't say anything". And then the public is left with "insider" accounts and they are subject to things like the sfgate piece. I'll be honest, I'm sympathetic and my belief is they are either covering up something or they are arrogantly disregarding public opinion because it seems like it would have been very easy to just give an explanation. (I'm not trying to relitigate the facts of that situation, especially since I don't have any - I'm talking about their insistence on secrecy).

Honestly, it bothers me when people go off so much on the faculty. IMO, the faculty and the students are the ONLY things that make Cal great and they do it in spite of an administrative culture that is an obstacle to success. I certainly don't agree with every two bit issue some professor raises, but in a battle between faculty and administration, let's just say I know who is delivering an education and who isn't. In my opinion a lot of the issue with the faculty is that they justifiably do not trust the administration to support their needs.

WIAF:

Mostly I agree with all you've said (minor correction: Mike Williams was never Foundation Chairman; he was Chair-elect when he was appointed AD).

While you are correct that 40K alums show up at football games (and probably 8K at basketball), it isn't clear that those events increase the likelihood that they will donate to the academic side of Cal. Many fund raising professionals have tried to do the research on the role of athletics in fundraising and except for places like Alabama or LSU, the link has never been proven although most of us believe it to be real. (btw, I know quite a few foundation board members who are not ESP holders, although most that I know are).

The problem with the argument that Cal doesn't focus enough on small donors is math. If we could increase the number of $100/year donors by 100,000, it would still be the equivalent of only 1 $10 million gift. Yes, we need to increase the giving rate; yes, the rate is abysmal, but the focus still needs to be on major donors (unfortunately).

I'm also not sure that I agree that IA has gotten its act together under Mike Williams. Unfortunately, the IA administrative budget continues to expand at a logarithmic rate (begun under Barbour, accelerated under Williams), and the department shows no signs of getting it under control. I doubt Mike survives the change in chancellor.

OaktownBear;842715638 said:

---

Honestly, it bothers me when people go off so much on the faculty. IMO, the faculty and the students are the ONLY things that make Cal great and they do it in spite of an administrative culture that is an obstacle to success. I certainly don't agree with every two bit issue some professor raises, but in a battle between faculty and administration, let's just say I know who is delivering an education and who isn't. In my opinion a lot of the issue with the faculty is that they justifiably do not trust the administration to support their needs.

---

That's a fair comment and I certainly think our administration is far from blame-free and has had plenty to answer for over the years. I'm afraid we're in one of those "downward spiral" situations where each side - faculty and administration - become increasingly stubborn because of the other side's flaws.

Interesting thread

UrsaMajor;842715644 said:

---

WIAF:

Mostly I agree with all you've said (minor correction: Mike Williams was never Foundation Chairman; he was Chair-elect when he was appointed AD).

While you are correct that 40K alums show up at football games (and probably 8K at basketball), it isn't clear that those events increase the likelihood that they will donate to the academic side of Cal. Many fund raising professionals have tried to do the research on the role of athletics in fundraising and except for places like Alabama or LSU, the link has never been proven although most of us believe it to be real. (btw, I know quite a few foundation board members who are not ESP holders, although most that I know are).

The problem with the argument that Cal doesn't focus enough on small donors is math. If we could increase the number of $100/year donors by 100,000, it would still be the equivalent of only 1 $10 million gift. Yes, we need to increase the giving rate; yes, the rate is abysmal, but the focus still needs to be on major donors (unfortunately).

I'm also not sure that I agree that IA has gotten its act together under Mike Williams. Unfortunately, the IA administrative budget continues to expand at a logarithmic rate (begun under Barbour, accelerated under Williams), and the department shows no signs of getting it under control. I doubt Mike survives the change in chancellor.

---

This is not an either/or proposition, Ursa. $100 donors are not expecting to be schmoozed. They are not expecting personally tailored communication. Look at what the political campaigns do.

Why am I not getting an email this week purportedly from a Cal Olympic medalist saying how great his/her experience at Cal was and don't I want to click here to donate $20 to the athletic department? Why no email from Jared Goff? Why no emails when a professor wins a prestigious award? Why don't I get emails saying Stanford just built a "X" and do we want Stanford students to have better facilities that Cal students? Cal is always building something, why don't I get an email asking to help fund specific projects that might actually inspire me. Why no email saying "look donation rate from alums is an important metric measured by those that judge us. Give us $10 just so we can count you as a donor". You don't have to remove a resource from schmoozing $10M donors (in fact they wouldn't be good at this). These campaigns are not difficult to run and easily pay for themselves. What the political campaigns have shown is that increase donors a ton when people just have to click a couple of times to donate.

What I do get from Cal a couple times a year is 4 dated, amateur hour letter appeals with little information except saying "wasn't Cal great. don't you want to give?" One for me. One for my wife. And two for the couple that lived in my house until 10 years ago when they died and I bought the house from their kids. (and Cal mail is the only mail I still get for them)

wifeisafurd;842715583 said:

---

I'm not really in a position to discuss what is said privately. Let's try this another way. Almost every trustee has ESP seats, the former Chair is one Mike Williams, the present Chair is on the Advisory Board to I/A and will I could go on. Does that help you with the mindset of alums who matter? Who exactly is this one guy that claims to speak for donors-alums in public?

---

I did not indicate in my post that the speaker was an alumni or that he claimed to represent donor-alums. You are welcome to go back and read my original post, after you have had a chance to cool off a bit. The speaker was an academically distinguished emeritus professor invited by the class of 1968, along with members of the administration and a student representative. It is not necessary to send out a hit squad to off the emeritus prof. He is extremely supportive of Cal. He is also extremely concerned about future funding sources. I don't buy the simple notion that all of Cal's faculty are anti-athletic, though their conception of competition may differ from those on this board.

Two thirds of this particular two hour event was spent discussing grade inflation and how students adapt to it. One third was spent asking the alumni present for ideas on how improve Cal's funding future. It was not nearly enough time to solicit much, the 10 AM, Saturday morning crowd was simply not prepared for the question, though all respected the attempt to address it.

Look, my fellow alum, you come on like a tough guy, "...look small fry, the big wallets are driving this bus, it's their opinions that count, get it?...". Yeah, Tony, I get it.
Maybe that's an unfair characterization, maybe it's not. But OTB makes a good point. All the alumni I have spoken with express their consternation at not knowing what Cal's big picture is. Explain it to them, it's not as though they won't get it.

OaktownBear;842715668 said:

---

This is not an either/or proposition, Ursa. $100 donors are not expecting to be schmoozed. They are not expecting personally tailored communication. Look at what the political campaigns do.

Why am I not getting an email this week purportedly from a Cal Olympic medalist saying how great his/her experience at Cal was and don't I want to click here to donate $20 to the athletic department? Why no email from Jared Goff? Why no emails when a professor wins a prestigious award? Why don't I get emails saying Stanford just built a "X" and do we want Stanford students to have better facilities that Cal students? Cal is always building something, why don't I get an email asking to help fund specific projects that might actually inspire me. Why no email saying "look donation rate from alums is an important metric measured by those that judge us. Give us $10 just so we can count you as a donor". You don't have to remove a resource from schmoozing $10M donors (in fact they wouldn't be good at this). These campaigns are not difficult to run and easily pay for themselves. What the political campaigns have shown is that increase donors a ton when people just have to click a couple of times to donate.

What I do get from Cal a couple times a year is 4 dated, amateur hour letter appeals with little information except saying "wasn't Cal great. don't you want to give?" One for me. One for my wife. And two for the couple that lived in my house until 10 years ago when they died and I bought the house from their kids. (and Cal mail is the only mail I still get for them)

---

Honest question.....is there any way we can become like our peer schools (in terms of alumni outreach effort - not outcomes, but effort) when we grow up? What's the biggest thing that stops us from adapting to the 21st-century academic world and doing so? Why does furd, UCLA, and USC get an A/A- in this department while we get a D-?

I used to work in fundraising for the university for a few months and during that time period I came into contact with hundreds of alumni that don't normally donate to solicit donations. From my admittedly anecdotal experience, the largest reasons are the following:

- They are California residents and they already feel like they contribute by paying taxes because they believe Berkeley is supposed to be a public university
- When they were college-age Berkeley was relatively cheap so they don't understand why students can't afford it or why the university needs to spend more
- They're ideologically opposed to what is currently happening at Berkeley
- The most obvious one, they hated being at Cal or they feel like a Berkeley degree did nothing for them professionally

I actually believe that I encountered the first two more than the latter two. There seemed to be a cognitive dissonance that because things were that way then, they can be the same now. I wouldn't actually be surprised if there are a sizable portion of alumni that agree with the Jerry Brown mentality of "we don't need this" and I think specifically being a public university has a direct correlation with that. But those are just my two cents.

510Bear;842715671 said:

---

Honest question.....is there any way we can become like our peer schools (in terms of alumni outreach effort - not outcomes, but effort) when we grow up? What's the biggest thing that stops us from adapting to the 21st-century academic world and doing so? Why does furd, UCLA, and USC get an A/A- in this department while we get a D-?

---

When I was a kid, I don't know why, but my favorite winter Olympic sport was the bobsled. The problem was that not only was the US outmanned because countries like Germany, Switzerland and Austria were so good, they had no funding so while those countries had state of the art sleds, the US always had some 50 year old thing that looked like Calvin and Hobbes built it, so even if we had the best team, they would still finish like 5 minutes behind the pace. I remember one year the American team was so happy because they pooled all their money and bought a sled that the Germans were going to throw away so they were in the ballpark of using current tech. They actually didn't do that badly with it.

Cal is perennially the old US bobsled team. They will always be thrilled when they move up to only 30 years behind the times.

packawana;842715683 said:

---

I used to work in fundraising for the university for a few months and during that time period I came into contact with hundreds of alumni that don't normally donate to solicit donations. From my admittedly anecdotal experience, the largest reasons are the following:

- They are California residents and they already feel like they contribute by paying taxes because they believe Berkeley is supposed to be a public university
- When they were college-age Berkeley was relatively cheap so they don't understand why students can't afford it or why the university needs to spend more
- They're ideologically opposed to what is currently happening at Berkeley
- The most obvious one, they hated being at Cal or they feel like a Berkeley degree did nothing for them professionally

I actually believe that I encountered the first two more than the latter two. There seemed to be a cognitive dissonance that because things were that way then, they can be the same now. I wouldn't actually be surprised if there are a sizable portion of alumni that agree with the Jerry Brown mentality of "we don't need this" and I think specifically being a public university has a direct correlation with that. But those are just my two cents.

---

My responses moving up the list

4 - pfft. whatever
3 - your choice
2 - Have you been living under a rock? Do you see the cost of higher education and have you paid attention to the cuts the state has made in funding?
1 - Um. You aren't contributing that much to UC through taxes. See #2.

On 1, though, I feel there is a point and the problem is that it isn't UC's fault. If UC raises more money, the state thinks they don't need as much money so they reduce funding. The state has abandoned the UC system. Mostly because they figure people will pay for their kids education anyway. Essentially the state's refusal to reasonably fund higher education is a defacto giant tax increase on the middle class.

OaktownBear;842715692 said:

---

My responses moving up the list

4 - pfft. whatever
3 - your choice
2 - Have you been living under a rock? Do you see the cost of higher education and have you paid attention to the cuts the state has made in funding?
1 - Um. You aren't contributing that much to UC through taxes. See #2.

On 1, though, I feel there is a point and the problem is that it isn't UC's fault. If UC raises more money, the state thinks they don't need as much money so they reduce funding. The state has abandoned the UC system. Mostly because they figure people will pay for their kids education anyway. Essentially the state's refusal to reasonably fund higher education is a defacto giant tax increase on the middle class.

---

+1
At both alumni functions I attended this year the point about how little the state contributed was made very clearly. I find it interesting that my graduate degree alma mater, Princeton, communicates with me monthly, and is absolutely happy with anything I can give them.

I've always viewed this discussion through the lens of YA, and as some people on here know, this has been my biggest gripe with Cal fundraising, poor outreach with young alumni. Today's small fish are tomorrow's sharks. There's still a lot of work to do on that front, absolutely, but one area that has improved monumentally has been identifying and reaching out to young founders/investors/leaders. For 3 years I've been going on rants about how so and so hadn't been brought in the fold yet. Well, they've done just about a full 180 on that front. Unsurprisingly, it coincides with the rise in our overall startup eco system, and general entrepreneurial community. And it's only getting better.

In this area, only the tree can surpass us. USC is pretty far behind in this area, and UCLA is not really on the map. I don't know how we'll solve our problems at present, but I'm fairly certain I know who will help fund the future.

socaliganbear;842715699 said:

---

I've always viewed this discussion through the lens of YA, and as some people on here know, this has been my biggest gripe with Cal fundraising, poor outreach with young alumni. Today's small fish are tomorrow's sharks. There's still a lot of work to do on that front, absolutely, but one area that has improved monumentally has been identifying and reaching out to young founders/investors/leaders. For 3 years I've been going on rants about how so and so hadn't been brought in the fold yet. Well, they've done just about a full 180 on that front. Unsurprisingly, it coincides with the rise in our overall startup eco system, and general entrepreneurial community. And it's only getting better.

In this area, only the tree can surpass us. USC is pretty far behind in this area, and UCLA is not really on the map. I don't know how we'll solve our problems at present, but I'm fairly certain I know who will help fund the future.

---

That's great but Cal needs to improve outreach to all alums, not just the next entrepreneurial giants. They're horrible at it. It's shocking to me that I meet so many alums out here that have zero connection to their alma mater, emotional or otherwise.

This is anecdotal, but we must be the worst elite university that I can think of when it comes to engendering great pride in and devotion to our university amongst our alumni.

NYCGOBEARS;842715704 said:

---

This is anecdotal, but we must be the worst elite university that I can think of when it comes to engendering great pride in and devotion to our university amongst our alumni.

---

We're not the worst. My grad school alma mater, UCLA, is actually much worse than Cal.

hanky1;842715705 said:

---

We're not the worst. My grad school alma mater, UCLA, is actually much worse than Cal.

---

I've not experienced that from UCLA alums.

NYCGOBEARS;842715708 said:

---

I've not experienced that from UCLA alums.

---

Hm yeah you're right. I misread/spedread your post.

What I was referring to was alumni donor engagement....UCLA is much worse than Cal.

Number 031343;842715697 said:

---

+1
At both alumni functions I attended this year the point about how little the state contributed was made very clearly. I find it interesting that my graduate degree alma mater, Princeton, communicates with me monthly, and is absolutely happy with anything I can give them.

---

If you're going to an alumni function you're more likely to donate than not. The contributions we need are from those that aren't going to alumni functions.

packawana;842715713 said:

---

If you're going to an alumni function you're more likely to donate than not. The contributions we need are from those that aren't going to alumni functions.

---

Exactly.

packawana;842715713 said:

---

If you're going to an alumni function you're more likely to donate than not. The contributions we need are from those that aren't going to alumni functions.

---

The most effective appeals are from people you know and who did something for you . I contribute to History and departments within the college of natural resources because they educated me and my family.

Number 031343;842715670 said:

---

I did not indicate in my post that the speaker was an alumni or that he claimed to represent donor-alums. You are welcome to go back and read my original post, after you have had a chance to cool off a bit. The speaker was an academically distinguished emeritus professor invited by the class of 1968, along with members of the administration and a student representative. It is not necessary to send out a hit squad to off the emeritus prof. He is extremely supportive of Cal. He is also extremely concerned about future funding sources. I don't buy the simple notion that all of Cal's faculty are anti-athletic, though their conception of competition may differ from those on this board.

Two thirds of this particular two hour event was spent discussing grade inflation and how students adapt to it. One third was spent asking the alumni present for ideas on how improve Cal's funding future. It was not nearly enough time to solicit much, the 10 AM, Saturday morning crowd was simply not prepared for the question, though all respected the attempt to address it.

Look, my fellow alum, you come on like a tough guy, "...look small fry, the big wallets are driving this bus, it's their opinions that count, get it?...". Yeah, Tony, I get it.
Maybe that's an unfair characterization, maybe it's not. But OTB makes a good point. All the alumni I have spoken with express their consternation at not knowing what Cal's big picture is. Explain it to them, it's not as though they won't get it.

---

So a non-Cal alum is the voice of alums. Wonderful.

UrsaMajor;842715644 said:

---

WIAF:

While you are correct that 40K alums show up at football games (and probably 8K at basketball), it isn't clear that those events increase the likelihood that they will donate to the academic side of Cal. Many fund raising professionals have tried to do the research on the role of athletics in fundraising and except for places like Alabama or LSU, the link has never been proven although most of us believe it to be real. (btw, I know quite a few foundation board members who are not ESP holders, although most that I know are).

---

Sorry for the long response.

There is a lot of confusion about numbers. So let me start with what the Cal athletic department contributes annually:

1) Several million dollars for "administrative overhead".
2) Funding of 650 to 700 students.

Cal I/A also receives a $5 million annual subsidy from Chancellor funds. Cal has run operating deficits and surpluses the last couple years, and candidly, I have heard due to new NCAA rules on food and stipends, now is running a widening deficit, though I don't know what the amounts are or will be. I do know however, that if the 1 and 2 above go away, and any subsidy or deficit goes away also (btw, the academic side much larger deficits which UC pays for), Cal will have to substantially cut the number of students and faculty. Jon Wilton said that when Sandy was racking-up record deficits and it applies equally today, and Chancellor Dirks will tell you that.

With that out of the way let's get the argument about the relationship between fundraising and D1 sports. I know studies say athletic success brings in more money and studies that say otherwise. I'm not sure how you can actually quantify this without some form of allocation accounting, which really doesn't exist except in the for profit world. For example, in my former law firm, the originating partner received a certain share of client revenues from a client he brought in that someone else worked on. So if Cal athletics brings in a donor and that donor then donates to say the economics department, Cal athletics receive some sort of credit in the for profit world, and we could tell what in fact sports contributes under that system of accounts. However, that is not at all how it works in the real world of fund accounting, because athletics and different academic functions are in different operating funds (if anyone doesn't get this, Google "fund accounting"). Thus, there is no way to tell how much Cal academics delivers for Cal sports or vice-versa, and that is true for probably every college, and anyone who says otherwise is basically selling an agenda. Interestingly, I have had the last two Chancellors say that in most years, Cal sport's donors contribute more to Cal academics than to Cal sports. One major exception was when Cal decided to cut teams to save $9 million annually only to discover that sports donors pulled more than $9 million in contributions from academics. The decision then was reversed.

So if you ask most Chancellors or Presidents why they don't eliminate D1 sports (and in fact at school like Stanford lavishly subsidize sports out of their general academic fund), they typically talk about un-measurable benefits. When you have athletic success the number of applicants generally increases a lot. Your branding gets huge bumps. Your school is more popular. More people buy and wear your school clothing. You get a more diverse student body, there are activities for student to attend thus enriching the college experience, and other arguments related to campus environment. Most students not only want a college education -- they want the college experience.

Why is this important now? Demographics. There is and will continue to be heightened competition given enrollment strains. In fall 2012, the number of students attending four-year colleges starting declining. Absent strong demand from non-US students the trend will continue due to birth rates and prior college growth. (On an antidotal note, even just team participation can attract students, for example, we know a student who turned down Harvard and other Ivies in order to walk on the soccer team. This also happens regularly with rugby players).

Sports strengthens the relationship between a university and its local community. This is the way to get corporate sponsors and importantly research grants. Those that have been on the travel planes to football game know what I mean. Big bucks to the schools.

But what the college President will tell you mostly is that football games, in particular, provide physical access to more and larger donors who normally won't go to campus, will not follow their alma mater otherwise and can not otherwise be efficiently communicated with in person. This is invaluable to the university that know how to take advantage. And its why schools like Furd, with much larger endowments, will put in over $20 plus million annually into their sports programs.

Finally, for some schools that get it and have the right alumni mix, its about camaraderie. USC groups get together in mass to watch games on Saturday through out the country, and that bonding pays off in loyalty and donations, albeit of it often in smaller sizes. But they have a great donation rate.

One last comment. None of this comes without risks. If you don't have good governance, your school gets embarrassed, for example. But other than the Ivies, essentially every large college university has major sports programs, and the people that run universities are not dumb people.

wifeisafurd;842715757 said:

---

So a non-Cal alum is the voice of alums. Wonderful.

---

That's your assumption. You are way too full of yourself. In any case, I am done with you.

Thanks for the response, WIAF. I fully agree with all you say. I've never been one to say athletics "isn't worth it"; I just want to caution against those who cavalierly claim it's a major fundraising factor. The true test would be to drop athletics for say 10 years, then reinstate it at full level and see what happens. Obviously, that test cannot be done, so we're left with various methods of extrapolation. Even your allocation method is an approximation, because there is no way to know how likely the donor would have been to come forth without athletics.

As for the comment (not yours) about doing both--going for small donations as well as the 8 figure ones--I couldn't agree more. And it is true that Cal is appalling at stewardship and at developing "brand loyalty." My son who graduated from Brown got his first solicitation phone call the day after graduation--they suggested that since he wasn't working perhaps $10 or $20 was possible. We are what you would call "large donors," and frankly if I weren't so committed to Cal, we'd have stopped contributing years ago given how shoddily donors are often treated here. It's improving, and Julie Hooper is making a big difference, but development has a long way to go.

One last (snarky) comment: your last line about "people that run universities are not dumb people" unfortunately doesn't apply to a number of recent Cal administrators...