Fundraising methods differ among schools

Unlike the Wharton School, Penn's other schools cannot boast the completion of a seven-year fundraising campaign that brought in over $445 million.

However, administrators contend that fundraising for the School of Arts and Sciences, the Engineering School and the Nursing School remains in a healthy state, given differences in population size, alumni pool and fundraising strategies.

The College's fundraising shows an upward trend over the past decade, from $17 million in new pledges at the end of fiscal year 1992 to $40.1 million at the end of this fiscal year. And this year, the Engineering School successfully met its fundraising goal of $10 million.

The most recent available figures show that Wharton leads the four schools in terms of dollars raised.

At the end of fiscal year 2003, which concluded on June 30, the College had raised $40.1 million, the Engineering School had raised $12.2 million, the Nursing School had raised $5.8 million and Wharton had raised $53.1 million in gifts and pledges.

However, some administrators point out that people should not be quick to judge each school's fundraising abilities by comparing these numbers.

"They're four very different operations... [with] very different purposes," Jean-Marie Kneeley, vice dean for external affairs for the College, said of the four schools.

Bob Baer, director of market research and analysis in the University's Development and Alumni Relations Office, said that the Wharton campaign was unusual because at Penn, "undergraduate [schools] are typically too small or too diffuse to do a campaign on their own."

"Engineering and Nursing only make up 12 percent of alumni," he added.

According to Baer, it is more common for a school to dedicate its efforts towards "fundraising for a particular purpose... [like] to match a particular donor's fundraising."

During its campaign, Wharton successfully encouraged 98 percent of its MBA 2003 graduates to donate, as well as 86 percent of Wharton faculty.

Baer said that it is difficult to compare similar student participation rates in the other three schools, because "tabulation is in terms of where [donors] give to, not necessarily what school they're from."

George Hain, executive director of development and alumni relations for the Engineering School, said that the school does not actively solicit donations from its faculty, except for those with alumni ties to Penn.

"Those [faculty] who are Penn alumni tend to be good about giving," he said.

"Faculty already do so much for the school that it's difficult to ask them to give money if they didn't go here," Hain added.

Kneeley also said that the College does not generally target faculty as potential donors.

"We haven't made a concerted effort to raise money from faculty," she said.

Also, unlike Wharton during its campaign, the Engineering Development Office does not ask for class gifts while students are still at Penn, but focuses more on encouraging alumni to donate.

Hain said that the fundraising completed by the Engineering School this year met his office's target, but that the total constitutes "a slight decline" from previous years.

According to Hain, this is due to economic difficulties for Engineering alumni.

"Most of our Engineering graduates -- if they own a company -- historically they've been our best donors," he said. "The stock in those companies is down quite a bit in price."

Hain said that he is not concerned with the lesser amount of money that the Engineering School raises, when compared to some of Penn's other schools.

"We just do what we can with our smaller prospect pool," he said.

Kneeley said that the difference between the College's fundraising total and Wharton's can be partially explained by the difference in salaries of College graduates, who are more likely to purse "careers in academia," and Wharton graduates, "people who have gotten MBAs and gone on to careers in business."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.