and how we "measure up" to other publics around the nation.
http://colleges.startclass.com/stor...outbrain&utm_campaign=ao.cm.ob.dt.10507#Intro
http://colleges.startclass.com/stor...outbrain&utm_campaign=ao.cm.ob.dt.10507#Intro
OT; our endowmwent
- Thread starter Las Panteras
- Start date
And for that we can all thank the efforts of Chancellor Nordenberg.
Also, no, this cannot be used for athletics and is completely and totally unrelated to Pitt's athletic department.
The athletic department has a separate endowment.
The athletic department has a separate endowment.
The endowment funds earmarked for athletics would be included in this total, but this total is not reflective on the comparatively smallish number of endowment funds earmarked for athletics.
We don't have to thank that feckless and arrogant egghead for anything.
Why is this so far off re: research ranking? Maybe Pitt doesn't get much corporate research dollars rather more govt funds.
There are a couple of ways research money is figured. The NSF is who tracks this.
For the latest (FY14) numbers in total R&D expenditures (that is money spent on any R&D from any source, including fed, private foundation, corporate, local govt, even the school's own money), Pitt is currently 16th overall and 9th among publics (one of those publics is UCSF which does not have an undergrad component).
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd
In total federal obligations for research (this is money coming from the most prestigious source of funding, the federal government), Pitt is10th overall and 6th among publics (FY13, latest available numbers). Again, one of those publics ahead of Pitt is UCSF.
http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=fss
In NIH rankings (FY14, which are all highly competitive, peer reviewed federal awards for health and biosciences), Pitt ranks 6th overall and is 4th among publics (UCSF again one of those).
http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2015/Institution_2015.xls
The problem with the click bait content farm sites like the one that was linked in the original post is that they are sloppy and don't do their homework. Their endowment ranking are wrong too. Go to the real sources if you want to see Pitt's real standing.
Last edited:
res ipsa loquitor-Pitt stadium, Pedersen 1, Pedersen 2, Pedersen extension, Heywood, Graham, Mumbles, Dixon contract extension for life, Pitt not being an original invitee to the ACC, Pitt not being invited to the Big 10-all rests with egghead.
Last edited:
While all of your "reasons" are "debatable" to say the least, I am left with one other question for you, in two parts.
Do you completely discount all of the other accomplishes and advances made at the University of Pittsburgh during Nordenberg's tenure, and/or is it your stance that only what happens with regards to athletics is the sole criteria to judge a Chancellor's acumen and performance?
I agree. Actually, I think Nordenberg invested a fair chunk of Pitt's endowment in ENRON and lost a lot.
Enron, lol. Both Pitt and CMU lost some money from an unscrupulous investor. So I guess CMU is also lead by an egghead.
http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpa...nagers-arrested-in-fraud/stories/200902260282
I give him a " B+" on academics and an "F" on all things related to athletics. If there were a lower grande than "F", he'd merit that. I cannot and will not ever forgive him for what he did to Pitt FB and to every fan who supported Pitt FB.
He and his fellow ignoramuses never have facts or reality on their side. The ignore button is ticket to leaving the dipshits living in their own world of unicorns and mermaids.
Enron, lol. Both Pitt and CMU lost some money from an unscrupulous investor. So I guess CMU is also lead by an egghead.
http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpa...nagers-arrested-in-fraud/stories/200902260282
Pitt got most of that money back.
The return on endowment has exceeded the national average for universities almost every single year. And this has been done with a much smaller and lower paid investment team than many peers. Amy Marsh is an underpaid rockstar...recruited under Nordenberg in 1999 from Mellon Bank.
Public Endowments Ranked by 10yr Annualized Returns 2005 – 2014
– Endowment 10yr Returns (%) 2005 – 2014 10yr Std Dev (%) 10yr Sharpe Ratio AUM $bn 30 Jun 2014
– Yale Private Equity 15.4 NA NA NA
– Cambridge PE Index 13.7 NA NA NA
– Yale Endowment 11.0 15.30 0.66 23.90
1 U of Virginia/UVIMCO 10.8 13.21 0.72 6.95
2 U of Michigan 10.0 14.34 0.62 9.70
3 U of No. Carolina/ UNCMC 9.2 12.08 0.69 2.64
– Harvard U/HMC 8.9 15.50 0.59 36.40
4 Michigan State U 8.4 12.02 0.59 2.15
5 U of Pittsburgh 8.3 12.99 0.54 3.49
6 Pennsylvania State U 8.3 12.79 0.54 3.54
– NCSE>$1 bil 8.2 12.73 0.59 NA
7 U of Washington 8.0 13.60 0.50 2.83
– S&P 500 7.9 17.51 0.36 NA
8 U of Texas/ UTIMCO 7.9 9.84 0.66 25.70
– 60/40 Stock/Bond 7.9 10.50 0.60 NA
9 Purdue U 7.7 13.23 0.47 2.44
10 U Minnesota OIB & Fdn 7.5 NA NA 3.27
11 U of California System 7.4 11.77 0.49 13.14
12 U Wisconsin Fdn 7.4 NA NA 2.33
13 Indiana U 7.3 14.39 0.41 1.94
14 U of Nebraska Fdn 7.1 13.10 0.43 1.60
– NCSE Mean 7.1 NA NA NA
15 U of Illinois Fdn 6.8 12.98 0.41 1.46
– Bridgewater AWF 6.7 13.85 0.35 75.00
– Barclay’s Agg Bond 5.9 4.88 0.77 NA
16 Ohio State U 5.4 13.22 0.30 3.40
– HFR HF Fund of Funds 3.4 NA NA NA
source: http://www.allaboutalpha.com/blog/2015/04/30/32773/
Well let's see ...
You are a tough grader. I would go A on academics and B on athletics. You seem to forget state of Pitt Athletics when Nordenberg was hired in 1996.
But I'll play along.
Let's just say that athletics should make up 10% of his grade (and I would think it should be significantly less), then his final weighted GPA by your grading would put him at 2.925 which is a certain B.
Still, maybe you think athletics should be MORE of his grade ... Let's say 20%.
That would make his GPA a 2.6 which would be an overall B-.
So it would seem that even YOU agree that your supposed arrogant egghead is "above average."
Well done Del!! Thank you for helping to show that Nordenberg was a fine Chancellor!
You obviously do NOT understand how endowments are invested. Or by whom.
As if in 1996 (when Nordenberg became Chancellor) Pitt was some powerhouse in football OR basketball.
So what? He was there 15 years or so and showed no leadership with respect to athletics whatsoever. He hired an idiot as an AD, not once but twice. Tore down the FB stadium because of a failure to understand FB will always be king in college athletics. He masterminded at least a half dozen coaching searches that were mismanaged in the worst possible way and had his nose in the middle of all of them. He failed to see that the BE was a losing proposition and in so doing almost cost Pitt a spot in a P 5 Conference. He extended what was tantamount to a lifetime contract to his BB coach when he was in the middle of a down cycle and ironically, in so doing, probably fueled his departure this year. And then he topped off his incompetence by committing the worst act of cronyism and arrogance in the history of NCAA athletics by extending Pedersen's contract when he should have been fired earlier. The guy was a bum and your suggesting otherwise every other month won't change that!!!!! I will be there to counter your view every time you express it because there are many alumni who feel exactly like I do.As if in 1996 (when Nordenberg became Chancellor) Pitt was some powerhouse in football OR basketball.
Del - wel get your hatred of all things Nordenberg, but it distorts the reality of all he did for the University. In 1996, there were 7000 total applicants to the University. In 2015? Over 30,000. In 1995 total endowments were at $436 Million. In 2014? $3.8 BILLION. Get it - Billion? Maybe not.
No need to offer rebuttals to Del on this subject. His comments do all of the work for you for all here on the PantherLair to see loudly and clearly. It's regrettable that he and only one other can't see that.
Last edited:
I was hoping that you could perhaps offer an intelligent rebuttal instead of simply an insult. It's very disappointing and regrettable that you could not. Instead, your reply says volumes to your case.
Last edited:
I did-you ignored the post with the facts because your are so enamored with the ex-chancellor.
No, you simply ignore the facts proffered to suit your fancy, which is aggrandizing the accomplishments of a chancellor who should have been the head of a minor school like a Gannon, IUP, Merceyhurst or similar institution because he simply couldn't get his arms around and deal effectively with the whole area of big time intercollegiate athletics.He had neither the necessary vision nor leadership skills. Add to that he had remarkably bad instincts about people and their management skills.
The extent to which you prioritize college athletics is outright disturbing.
Athletics represents about 4-5% of the school's budget. The fact that jock-sniffers think THAT should rule the roost is more of a reflection of THEIR stupid priorities than the former Chancellor's ability. It's all about you, 24/7. Narrow-mindedness can be alleviated by eyeglasses..
That's old school thinking, which is precisely why Nordy failed. It's not a matter of athletics ruling the roost; it's a matter of running an aspect of the university which is a big business and which can generate money that benefits the entire university effectively. You don't get it; you're stuck in 1955. Times have changed. Use all the pejorative terms you want. Athletics aren't a minor part of university any longer, whether you or anyone else likes it or not!
You'd be a hoot reading a balance sheet. 5% line item....sweet. Schools that emphasize sports usually have problems.....look to the east a bit, or to the south 70 miles for proof. So we should increase our LOSSES to please a small % of alums??
Wake up and look around. it's the world we live in, disturbing or not. You're swimming upstream. College athletics are a big business; a permanent part of the college landscape. This isn't about picnic blankets around a field with wooden goal posts on a sunny Saturday afternoon. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in play. University presidents who succeed today will need to surround themselves with managers who can navigate this landscape not bumbling idiots who can't run a coaching search and who realize their own limitations is this sphere.
I've read more balance sheets than you have newspapers or message boards. It's 2016, not 1960. Managing a business effectively doesn't require unethical conduct. You keep making up lame excuses as to why academics and athletics can't successfully operate in parallel-they can and there are many examples. It's a big business and a deeply pervasive part of universities today, not a lemonade stand run for nickels and dimes, which is the way most Pitt admin.'s have run it including the last one, which is why Pitt lost money. Pitt's responsible for it's own incompetence; there's nothing inherent in the management collegiate athletics(except at Pitt)that says you have to treat it as a "nice to have" and therefore pay lip service to it. Pitt's squandered a significant asset and the last regime deserves to be vilified for doing so.
More schools than ever are de-emphasizing athletics, Del.
It's become an arms race that maybe 20 schools are capable of actually competing in.
TV deals, of course, have infused money into the landscape but these schools aren't dipping heavily into University funds to run athletics. Schools are cutting their football teams rather than going further into the red to fund a sport that their fans are unwilling to or incapable of supporting.
Perhaps if Pitt's fans gave the administration the means to spend more, they would. However, Pittsburgh fans are nothing if not entitled when it comes to their sports.
'Big business' with 'hundreds of millions of dollars in play'...And yet only 20 of 128 FBS athletic departments turn a profit (and if the numbers are that bad for FBS schools, I don't even want to imagine what they are like for non-FBS schools).
Here's an idea: maybe 'big business' athletics shouldn't be a permanent part of the college landscape.
Well lets compare the financial performance of an administration of a school that values sports programs.
How about one of the top rated NCAA football programs in the nation Alabama.
Endowment:
University of Alabama: $ 0.68 BILLION
University of Alabama: $0.995 BILLION (Combined UA,UAB and UAH)
University of Pittsburgh: $ 3.6 BILLION
Tank you Nordy for the fantastic job you have done at the University of Pittsburgh.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
How about one of the top rated NCAA football programs in the nation Alabama.
Endowment:
University of Alabama: $ 0.68 BILLION
University of Alabama: $0.995 BILLION (Combined UA,UAB and UAH)
University of Pittsburgh: $ 3.6 BILLION
Tank you Nordy for the fantastic job you have done at the University of Pittsburgh.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Last edited:
the most amazing thing is the fact that Delpanther can actually type on a computer after walking around with his knuckles dragging on the floor 24/7
anytime you want to compare academic credentials, I'd be happy to oblige- you would just be embarassed and I'd quite enjoy that.
