Found this while reading through the Yahoo.com news service. It's from the AP wire: "A University of Illinois alumnus announced he will make a $100 million donation to his alma mater, the largest gift in the university's history. Thomas M. Siebel, the founder and former chairman of Siebel Systems Inc., pledged to give the gift to the Urbana-Champaign campus upon his death."
Siebel has previously given to the UofI; in 1999, he donated $32 million, which went to building the Thomas M. Siebel Center for Computer Science. He's also been a graduation speaker, in 2006. Here's the Wikipedia entry on him; on his former company (sold to Oracle in 2005); and the website of one of his personal interest projects, the somewhat controversial Montana Meth Project.
I wanted to post (for the first time) on something that I have a strong connection to in the area, the UofI; and point out some good news for the area and the University...
HG
This is definitely huge news. Before this gift, the largest single gift to UIUC was Beckman's $40 million for the Beckman Institute. That was in the '80's, so it would be higher in today's dollars, but Siebel's is probably still larger. Beckman's gift had a huge effect and has enabled 10's of millions/year in research funding. It will be interesting to see how Siebel's gift plays out.
Just wondering...what ever happened to the Restoring the Core initiative that was discussed a few years ago to raise funds for facility renovations? Is that plan just on hold due to a lack of state matching funding? My understanding is that the new fundraising ampaign is moreso aimed at student scholarships and faculty positions.
I guess Thomas Siebel didn't care about the Chief, huh? It'll be difficult for all the "No Chief No Money" folks to make a dent in a $100 million donation, part of nearly $1 billion already pledged.
On June 2nd, 2007 at 06:15 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I guess Thomas Siebel didn't care about the Chief, huh? It'll be difficult for all the "No Chief No Money" folks to make a dent in a $100 million donation, part of nearly $1 billion already pledged.
That was kinda my thought as well. I was of the belief at the time (of the Chief's ending) that some people would refuse to donate to the University because of the removal of the Chief, and that some people would be heartened by the removal, and decide to donate with a clear conscious. Not knowing Siebel's viewpoints on the Chief, it's a bit of a stretch to say that he didn't care about the Chief; we just don't know, right now, what his opinions were/are. What we do know, is that he wasn't disuaded from donating after the Chief was removed.
Course, this is somewhat academic, because the donation will be processed after Siebel passes away, less any giving (additional amounts, or giving from the $100 million while alive) done in the mean time. all in all, good news for the university, especially at a time when state funding for the UofI system seems to be stagnating.
HG
Note that he earned his BA in history. Perhaps people who think college is all about choosing a "useful major" will reconsider.
This is indeed good news for the U of I, I wish Mr Siebel a very long life! I hope by the time he passes away Gov. Blagovich and Emil Jones are old, old men rotting in some hell hole of a Federal prison far from the money Siebel is giving the U of I. These two are probably salivating at the thought of siphoning this dough off to some pet projects north of I 80!
Amazing how some sorry, misguided folks (Gregg) can turn anything into a political rant against Democrats.
This is wonderful news for the U of I, CU and the State of Illinois. Great 1st post.
This is not a rant against Democrats, I was critical of George Ryan, a Republican who is also a criminal. When these two end up in jail they will wear the same stripes as Ryan! Anonymous you must be real proud of the Dems as you sound just as sorry as they are ! As for a litte history of criminals in the Governors mansion, Otto Kerner (D) Dan Walker (D) George Ryan (R) all convicted felons, 66% Democrats this is not a rant just the reality of fact's famous Democrats; Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy who killed a woman while driving drunk . Cong. Dan Rostenkowski famous theif from Illinois, Cong. Mel Reynolds convicted child molester and the list goes on. So don't accuse me of ranting, You can read all about your heroes, and oh before I finish Pres. Bill Clinton impeached trash from Arkansas!
It'll be difficult for all the "No Chief No Money" folks to make a dent in a $100 million donation, part of nearly $1 billion already pledged.
Personally I was never convinced that this would amount to much of a dent anyway. People talk a lot but the actual alumni (as opposed to random locals who never went to the U of I but are really upset anyway) won't stop giving. Maybe a few, but they'll probably be offset by the new givers who can feel okay giving to the U again.
As for Gregg ... yeesh! Calm down, my brother.
"Course, this is somewhat academic, because the donation will be processed after Siebel passes away"
I seem to recall reading that the school will actually begin to receive some of the funds as soon as next year.
On June 3rd, 2007 at 02:33 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"Course, this is somewhat academic, because the donation will be processed after Siebel passes away"
I seem to recall reading that the school will actually begin to receive some of the funds as soon as next year.
The only pertinent info i found from the AP story, regarding the possibility of actually transferring some of Siebel's money prior to death, was the following: "[Chancellor Richard] Herman said the 54-year-old billionaire software mogul "has a sense of urgency about helping us attain excellence" and is open to the possibility of providing money sooner. He said a task force of faculty members will brainstorm ideas for Siebel to consider funding before his death."
If there's another story or source available that states some of the funds will be passed to the UofI, I'd love to read it and gauge it against what's already been reported.
HG
This Chicago Tribune story provides slightly more detail:
"The university could begin receiving the money as soon as next year, and the $100 million likely will be spent over the next 20 years, Siebel and officials said."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-chi-070601giftjun01,1,5109345.story
"I guess Thomas Siebel didn't care about the Chief, huh? It'll be difficult for all the "No Chief No Money" folks to make a dent in a $100 million donation, part of nearly $1 billion already pledged."
Nice! The Alumni Association can consist of one person.
For what little it's worth, I think the Chief's impact on donations will be minimal, and will mostly affect donations to athletic programs.
Those who support the UI as an academic institution will continue to do so regardless of it's having caved to an NCAA ruling that wasn't going to be defeated.
It's actually more important that the top donors care or don't care about the chief. In large capital campaigns, you can usually count on about 10% of the donors giving about 90% of the money (give or take some, depending on type of organization, alumni base, etc.). My sense was that the people that made the most noise about the chief were the ones that gave the least money to begin with. That said, there was a letter to either the NG or the DI from a rather prominent and wealthy donor that took UI to task for ditching the chief - that's when I started to wonder how many others like him believed the same thing. Still, I think that most of the bigger donors probably don't care much, and since the campaign will go on for another four years, the rest will have a chance to hopefully move on from this issue.
I thought the most interesting part was the starting date - 2003. I know that quiet phases of campaigns are just that - quiet - and that we don't always know that this is going on (although at a place the size of UI, it's inevitable that it's the worst kept secret in town). Still, I get the feeling that they just picked a date off the calendar where they may have gotten a few big donations - I wouldn't think that those early donors were told that this is part of a campaign. Not that this really matters much, although they might have missed a chance to get the maximum donation from some of those early donors. If it was me running the campaign, I would have wanted a little more thought and resolution at the front end. The good news is that UIUC has already raised more half of their portion - if the campaign runs into trouble, it will probably be because of the Chicago or Springfield campuses.
Also, FYI, as long as they have a signed pledge agreement from Tom Siebel, they can count that as an accounts receivable entry, and borrow money against that, less 10% or so - the amount of pledges that don't get collected - so having to wait for the money (if they do) probably won't be a big issue.
On the alumni donation thing, I actually think getting rid of the Chief will improve donations. It is true that there is an "old guard" of donors who may take a pass, but getting rid of the Chief brings the U one step closer to being an elite university. It is not there yet, and there is much to do (as I think Siebel understands), but getting rid of a contentious and (sorry) racist symbol/mascot is a step in the right direction.
The closer the U gets to Michigan or Wisconsin-type status, the better it will be for our entire community. More investment into the school is important, but national and international image is also important. As the University grows into an elite school the more the alum will go on to higher paying gigs and will eventually (long term) bring in more money.
i'm not a chief fan, but i doubt the chief held the UI back from being an elitie university -- the UI has No.1 programs in accounting and several engineering programs, It is the computer school that gave you HAL 9000, the web browser (as mosiac), spreadsheets, the list goes on ... Mighigan and Wiscxonsin don't have a supercomputer.
It's No. 2 in urban planning. It is equal to or betteer than Wisconsin in most disciplines.. No especially styrong in osme of the humanies and in social sciences -- except the fantastic psychology department, long a national leader. It has a bigger library than any colleges besides Harvard and Yale.
you must be thinking of a different UI
The closer the U gets to Michigan or Wisconsin-type status, the better it will be for our entire community.
The same U of M that has the race-based admission standards?
(U of I) It's No. 2 in urban planning.
I am not sure that is a good thing :-)
Has the News-Gazette had anything on this story? (no threadjack intended)
***edited by cp - to answer my own question, yes. It ran on Friday.
On June 4th, 2007 at 01:50 PM, cheesy poofs said:
Has the News-Gazette had anything on this story? (no threadjack intended)
no threadjack at all; i just found the NG story on the donation online...
HG
The problem with Anonymous 11:51's post is that UI has been number one in a few academic areas for many years, and it consistently compares itself with the top-tier flagship state schools in the country - Michigan, Wisconsin, UVA, UNC, Texas - but fundraising has lagged those schools by a wide margin. This was the first $100M donation, which is great, but those schools have been pulling in $100M donations for years now. Plus, UI's next biggest gifts are $40M, $32M, and then down to the $20M range. That may seem like a lot of money, but schools like UVA can pull in gifts that hit all those numbers every year.
This shouldn't be the case, especially with schools like Michigan and Wisconsin. When UI students graduate, many of them end up Chicago, America's third largest city with a vibrant business community - as good a place to find wealthy alumni that remain connected to their alma mater as anywhere. No, there must be different explanation - the small number of non-Illinois students admitted is a pretty good place to start, possibly followed by UI's fundraising methods.
Slightly amusing story ... I ran into Geneva Belford several weeks ago. She's a very kind professor emeritus in Computer Science at UIUC. She joked about how she hadn't pulled in that much grant money, but she'd been Thomas Siebel's advisor, so maybe that was something.
i think that says alot about illniois -- having No1 programs despite decades of underfunding
you must be thinking of a different UI
I have two degrees from U of I and am well aware of the top five ranking in the some of the colleges. I'm also aware of the size of the library.
But if you think Illinois is the equal of Wisconsin or Michigan on the national level you are just mistaken. I am not going to run the numbers, but there is little doubt that most those school's programs consistently rank above the U's. Same with Wisconsin, and Ohio State.
The reality here is that Illinois is close, very close, to being a top-tier national school. Getting rid of the Chief won't get us there, but keeping him was definitely holding us back. Think about it. All the top schools in the country: Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Michigan. Is a university with a NATIVE AMERICAN mascot going to be viewed as a part of that company? Really?
I believe the U of I's leadership wants to get the school to that place. In reality, that meant the Chief had to go. The donations help, building the sports program will help, and attracting top scholars will also help. But definitely ... getting rid of a (at least perceived) racist mascot was a step that had to happen.
Nice! The Alumni Association can consist of one person.
Eh, I think the Chief is less of a concern to the Alumni Associations than you think. In fact, I belive it's a safe bet that a large chunk of the people squawking "No Chief, No Money" fall into one of a few categories:
- UIUC Alumnus/Alumna who considers paying their membership fees in the UIAA as their donation to the school;
- Athletic boosters and local people with no ties to the school who consider paying for season tickets as a donation to the University [1]
Either way, their donations aren't much and don't really affect the core mission of the University and its desire to be a top-tier, elite school. I'm glad to see this donation, and hopefully UIUC can keep pursuing more big-money people.
[1] Granted, the way the football team has been playing the past couple of years, I could almost see that as a charity write-off :)
The football team has nothing to do with the rankings. Sorry.
And UI will never rise to the top tier until it brings down its student-to-faculty ratio, improves its liberal arts programs and addresses more of its building problems.
At the risk of drawing this thread out way too long...
I largely agree with Arvid, and to a lesser extent Teach. The chief has been overplayed, and I think that people will eventually move on - and I believe that the top donors will probably lead the charge. I have come to the conclusion that people's willingness to withhold a donation due to the chief to be in inverse proportion to the actual size of the gift. If you would consider giving UI $10M, for example, that means that you have had a great deal of contact with the Ofc of Campus Dev people, the UI Fdn, deans, dept heads, and top professors, just to get you to the point of considering a gift of that size. At that point, the chief begins to fade as a really important issue, with the usual caveat that this doesn't much apply to athletics donors. I would only quibble with Teach about the chief in that I thought that it was the often ridiculous chief debate that held UI back moreso than the chief himself, but then I wasn't really anti-chief. (Yep, I was one of the few chief agnostics - the few, the proud, the prevaricating.)
The football team has nothing to do with the rankings. Sorry.
Uh, actually it does. Football and basketball are of huge interest to the alumni base, and keep people involved in the school long after they graduate. It's like the world's best alumni magazine sent to potential donors, over and over again. As a fundraising center, as well, athletics is at least as important as other areas and schools (sorry right back to you). I recently read that UI spends about half of what OSU spends on intercollegiate athletics - and the results speak for themselves.
And UI will never rise to the top tier until it brings down its student-to-faculty ratio, improves its liberal arts programs and addresses more of its building problems.
Sounds to me like you are ready to give to the campaign! Ha ha. Seriously though, if that's the way you feel, get out your checkbook.
"But if you think Illinois is the equal of Wisconsin or Michigan on the national level you are just mistaken. I am not going to run the numbers, but there is little doubt that most those school's programs consistently rank above the U's. Same with Wisconsin, and Ohio State."
Yeah, don't run the numbers -- it would take .2 seconds of your valuable time on google.
The most widely known rnaking, US News and World Report, rans Michigan 24th best national university, Wisconsin 34th, and Illinois 41. Given any sort of margin of error in the thousands of collegews ranked, that puts them all pretty damn close -- at the very top of statre universities
my guess is the uedication collge at UI isa not highly ranked, and that skews your perception.
and agian, I'm glad the Chief is gone, but it's not the only issue here
SIU ROCKS!
...that puts them [Michigan, Wisconsin & UI] all pretty damn close -- at the very top of statre universities...
Looking at the list of USNWR ranked universities (an unscientific way of measuring these things, but ok, I'll bite), UI was topped by eight other state schools - Berkeley, UVA, Michigan, UCLA, UNC, William & Mary, Wisconsin, and UC San Diego. Close on UI's heals were: UC Irvine, Penn State (really?), UT, UC Davis, and UC Santa Barbara. Just beating UC Santa Barbara isn't exactly the same as being top of the heap.
I would note, however, that I certainly wasn't out to say that UI is a second-rate university - it's certainly top flight in things like accounting and many types of engineering, and because of its size it can't but help have top programs in rarely offered areas - vet school, flight school, police and fire training, ag engineering - the list goes on. The point that I was making was that because of that excellence in academics, they should really be raising much more money than they have in the past - and which will keep them on top, and propel other programs up the rankings as well. UI may be able to remain competitive with Michigan and Wisconsin in academics, but it gets its clocked cleaned in bringing in money. That's something measurable by numbers of dollars, as opposed to a debate about which school is "better."
"UI may be able to remain competitive with Michigan and Wisconsin in academics, but it gets its clocked cleaned in bringing in money."
source, numbers please. It's very wenalway of posters to throw out assertions -- such as Michigan and Wisconsin are elite and UI is not, or that they both get much more money -- without offering some sort of support.
Yeah, I'm always throwing around allegations here without the facts. Yeesh.
Yet another gutless anonymous poster making up lies ...
"Yeah, I'm always throwing around allegations here without the facts. Yeesh."
Not allegations without facts, but plenty of insults with nothing whatsoever to back them up.
Repeatedly telling everyone how stupid they are isn't persuasive. But you don't care, I'm sure, because you think I'm an idiot.
source, numbers please...
Honestly, would it kill people on this blog to use Google? Here's a list of the top 20 fundraising schools in 2004:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908051.html
As you can see, Michigan is on it, as are many other state schools like UT, UCLA, OSU, and UNC, while UI didn't make the list. This is pretty consistent with how things have gone in the past few years. After all, there was the recent $100M gift - but when did those other big gifts come in to UI? - it was years ago. Meanwhile, Michigan brings in more than $200M every year. You don't get to a number like that without bringing in a few really large gifts every year - and hopefully UI will be able to build on this most recent big donation. But until then, they will have trouble keeping faculty, supporting their grad students, and staying near the top in dollar-intesive fields like engineering. That's not some slight on UI, just the facts.
From Tribune today, page 2:
MADISON, Wis. -- University of Wisconsin-Madison has long been an attractive target for elite schools such as Harvard and Stanford looking for top academics. But now other public universities are among the faculty poachers, and school administrators are worried.
Dozens of professors have left in the past two years, and Chancellor John Wiley said some are going to schools that traditionally could not compete with Wisconsin's flagship university.
So, apparently, UW not rolling in dough
Well, I don't think that there was ever a claim to anyone "rolling in dough," just that some state schools have done better at raising money than UI, despite the fact that UI is just as good as they are in academics. Schools poach professors all the time, regardless of size and prestige. I know that UI has hired professors away from Ivy League schools, and will continue to do so - however, most of the traffic is in the other direction. And of course state schools hire faculty from each other. There are plenty of reasons why someone would want to go from one state school to another - it's not just money - but that's a really good place to start.
This is obviously not an isolated problem - UI has recently had the faculty retention problems too:
http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2006/11/10/News/New-Retention.Plan.May.Call.For.Yearly.Increase.In.Faculty.Salaries.Tuition-2451965.shtml
A better measure of how much dough there is to roll in would the endowments of these schools, since year to year fundraising totals can vary, but the endowment keeps building and funding new programs, staff, scholarships, etc. It's essentially the measure of how fundraising has been doing over the long haul. Here's something that shows UIUC's endowment ranked 17th among state universities, after Michigan, Texas A&M, UVA, UT, Berkeley, Minnesota, OSU, Pitt, UNC, UW, Purdue, Wisconsin, Penn State, MSU, Florida, and Iowa:
http://www.ir.ufl.edu/nat_rankings/privatesup/endow_old.pdf
It's not some slight on UI to say that they should have more money...and if you think it is, send them a check and help to fix the problem.