Running Head: Knowledge Representation Essay

Running Head: KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION ESSAY
Knowledge Representation Essay
Ryan Bradshaw
George Mason University
Portfolio 3
Drs. Swan, Baker, and Brozo

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION ESSAY
Knowledge Representation Essay
Public funding of higher education has continued to decline over the last decade
(McDonough, 2017). Since 2008, state government funding of public education in the United
States has declined by almost nine billion dollars, adjusted for inflation (Mitchell, Leachman, &
Masterton, 2017). This trend has continued to build for over 30 years, as exemplified by the
budget of Virginia public institution George Mason University. In 1985, state government
allocations covered 67% of the institution’s educational and general (E&G) expenses, with
tuition revenue covering the remaining 33% (Davis & Wu, 2017). By 2000, state funding had
declined a modest 10% to represent 57% of E&G expenses, but then precipitated downward to
only 25% of E&G expenses in 2018. In the grand scheme of the institution’s full $1 billion
budget, which includes capital expenses, research programs, and student room and board, state
funding now represents only 20%, while students now pay over $541 million per year in tuition
and other fees (Davis & Wu, 2017).
In order to sustain programs, facilities, and services while enduring these large cuts,
institutions have, on average, raised tuition by 35% over the last 10 years, with some states
seeing tuition costs double within the course of the decade. Tuition increases alone have not been
enough to keep institutions of higher education profitable; cutting faculty positions, reducing
student services, and even closing campuses has occurred as campus leaders attempt to balance
their budgets (Mitchell et al., 2017).
2
Statement of the Problem
With the decline in government funding and, in some states, severe limitations on tuition
increases(Herzog, 2017), institutions have increasingly searched for external funding sources.
Philanthropy has ever more been utilized to supplement budgets. In 2017, colleges and
universities in the United States collectively brought in $43.6 billion through fundraising,
according to the Council for Aid to Education (2018). This was a 6.3% increase over the
previous year. However, just 20 institutions, only seven of which are public institutions,
collected 28% of the $43.6 billion. The public institution that brought in the most money through
philanthropic giving was the University of Washington, whose $554 million in voluntary
external funds raised was less than half of the amounts collected by both Harvard University and
Stanford University (Council for Aid to Education, 2018).
One group of individuals who provided over one quarter of all voluntary gifts in 2017
were alumni of the institutions. Collectively, alumni donated over $11.37 billion, a 14.5%
increase over the previous year (Council for Aid to Education, 2018). Alumni are a progressively
more important group of potential donors, but gaps in the literature exist on the subject of which
alumni give back and what motivates them.
Purpose of the Study
Multiple studies have identified that a correlation exists between a student’s engagement
while on campus and that student’s propensity to donate to their alma mater as an alumnus
(Drew-Branch, 2011; Hoyt, 2004; Monks, 2003; Rau & Erwin, 2015; Taylor & Martin, 1995).
These studies also identified that alumni who had participated in student organizations were
particularly more likely to donate. Research has also been conducted on former varsity student
3
athletes and their propensity to donate, with qualitative research on the subject showing that
former varsity student athletes’ experiences as a student athlete were viewed as a barrier to
donating (Shapiro & Giannoulakis, 2009).
No identified study has superficially examined the subsection of alumni who are former
club sports student athletes. Club sports athletes, groups of students who play a sport together
and compete against other institutions, began on campuses in the mid-1800s as the precursor to
varsity athletics. Club sports experienced a resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s after the
introduction of Title IX legislation increased the number of female varsity sports and athletes.
Budget cuts of the era led to decreased funds to field varsity sport teams, which led to many
sports moving back to the club sport level while also adding gender specific female clubs
(Matthews, 1987).
Club sport athletes typically must organize and fund their teams themselves, receiving
limited financial and administrative support from the institution (Matthews, 1987). Club sport
participants are typically highly engaged students on campus (Lifschultz, 2012). It is estimated
that there are over two million club sport athletes on campuses in the United States each year
(Pennington, 2008), over four times the number of NCAA athletes (National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 2017).
My proposed research study will attempt to fill the literature gap surrounding former club
sport student athletes and their decision to donate. The study will be conducted under the
hypothesis that alumni who are former club sports student athletes will have had a more positive
student experience than alumni who did not participate in club sports as a student, and that this
positive experience will be a contributing factor in this group of alumni financially giving to
4
their alma mater at a higher dollar amount and frequency level than alumni who were not club
sport student athletes.
This study will be conducted using a mixed methods approach. The quantitative portion
of the study will consist of confirming that alumni who are former club sports student athletes
financially donate back to their alma matter by giving more money, more often, with a higher
percentage of alumni who donate, than alumni who were not former club sport student athletes.
The research questions guiding this part of the study are:
1. Are alumni of an institution who participated in club sports while attending the institution
more likely to donate to their alma mater than alumni who did not participate in club
sports while they attended the institution?
2. Do alumni of an institution who participated in club sports while attending the institution
donate to their alma mater more frequently than alumni who did not participate in club
sports while they attended the institution?
3. Do alumni of an institution who participated in club sports while attending the institution,
on average, donate more total funds since graduating to the institution, per alumnus(a),
than alumni who did not participate in club sports while they attended the institution?
Once the quantitative portion of the study is complete, the qualitative phenomenological
portion of the study will commence. I will interview alumni who participated in club sports while
attending the institution and who donated to the alma mater, in order to learn what motivated the
alumnus(a) to make the donation. The research question guiding this portion of the study will be:
5
1. How, if at all, did an alumnus’s experience participating in club sports as a student
influence their decisions to donate to their alma mater in terms of frequency of donations
and total financial sums of donations?
Review of the literature
The following literature review will provide an examination to date of theories of donor
motivations and alumni identity, as well as characteristics of alumni who donate to their alma
maters. It will also investigate motivations and the giving propensity of different constituency
groups of alumni, particularly former student athletes and highly engaged students. The literature
review begins with a brief overview of the history of higher education philanthropy; the history
of alumni organizations and alumni donations to their alma maters is also discussed to provide
context.
6
History of Higher Education Philanthropy
Philanthropy in education has a long history, dating back to ancient Greece when a friend
gifted Plato the land just outside of Athens to found his academy (Webb, 1989) and the
philanthropist Cimon helped finance the academy (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Webb, 1989). Plato,
upon his death, provided funding for the academy for another 900 years by endowing the land
the academy sat on (Cook & Lasher, 1996). The concept extended to Western civilization in
France in the twelfth-century, when a conflict between the city and the University of Paris led
local businessmen to provide the institution with in-kind donations of housing in the form of a
dormitory for poor student scholars (Haskins, 1936).
Philanthropy in American higher education dates back to the founding of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony College, later known as Harvard College, in 1636 (Drezner, 2011;
Miller, 1993; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014). Shortly after the founding of the college, a pamphlet
entitled “New England’s First Fruits” was published by college officials to serve as the fund-
raising literature used by college representatives dispatched to England to solicit needed financial
resources for the new school. These individuals, who came to be known as “honorable beggars”
(Miller, 1993; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014), returned with a collection of small gifts from
individuals, churches, and even communities totaling £1,000 to £10,000 per trip (Thelin, 2007).
The success of these campaigns led to future fundraising campaigns that in 1701 helped keep the
strugling Collegiate School of Connecticut from closing its doors thanks to a substantial gift
from Englishman Elihu Yale, prompting college officials to rename the school after its
benefactor (Miller, 1993; Thelin, 2007). Thomas Hollis is noted as being the first individual to
endow funds to pay the salary of a professor, in the form of a professor of divinity at Harvard
College in 1721 (Thelin & Tollinger, 2014), while Mary Lyon is noted for fundraising
7
specifically to open an institution of higher education for women, leading to enough funds being
donated to open Mount Holyoke College in 1837 (Miller, 1993).
History of Alumni Organizing and Giving
The first recorded alumni association was founded at Yale College in 1792 when a class
secretary was chosen to maintain a contact list for alumni and invite them back to campus
periodically to take part in organized activities (Forman, 1995). The earliest recorded association
of alumni was created at Williams College in 1821 as the Society of Alumni of Williams College
(Forman, 1995; Miller, 1993), with the mandate that “the influence and patronage of those it has
educated may be united for its support, protection and improvement” (Shaw, Embree, Upham, &
Johnson, 1917, p. 10). Alumni at Brown University in Rhode Island attempted the first financial
campaign, aiming to raise $1,000 from alumni to purchase medals and prizes for winners of
academic contests among current students (Council for the Advancement and Support of
Education, 2013). Princeton University’s Alumni Association, the Alumni Association of Nassau
Hall, initiated the first large capital campaign in 1832 with a goal of raising $100,000 for their
alma mater. The campaign managed to raise only half of its goal but enabled Princeton to
purchase a new telescope and endow three professors the following year (Forman, 1995; Shaw et
al., 1917). Colleges for women also followed the trend when the first alumnae association was
established at Cincinnati Wesleyan Female College in 1852 (Council for the Advancement and
Support of Education, 2013). The first noted continual alumni fundraising campaign, the Yale
Annual Fund, was organized in 1890, which Curti & Nash (1965) considered the beginning of
the institutionalization of giving. Alumni associations began to be professionalized in 1897 when
the University of Michigan’s newly founded alumni association hired a full-time secretary,
whose salary was paid for entirely by the alumni body (Forman, 1995).
8
Financial giving to institutions was additionally enhanced in 1917 with Congress’s
creation of tax deductions for charitable giving. After the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by
the states in 1913 establishing income taxes across the country, tax exemptions for certain non-
profit organizations, including educational institutions, were implemented in the Revenue Act of
1913. Four years later, Congress raised taxes to increase revenue to support the country’s efforts
in World War I, and as a result tax deductions for charitable gifts were created. The ability of
donors to decrease their annual tax bill by giving to philanthropic efforts is credited with
inspiring growth in higher education philanthropy (Trollinger, 2009).
Throughout the interwar period from 1918 to 1939, alumni support of alma maters
increased as more alumni began to feel an obligation to repay a debt to the institution that gave
them their education (Curti & Nash, 1965). This increased involvement also led to many
institutions professionalizing their fundraising efforts and focusing more on capital campaigns
and planned giving involving alumni (Trollinger, 2009).
Following World War II, the number of alumni funds and the money they generated grew
exponentially. Prior to the war, in 1936, only 86 alumni funds were known to exist, generating
$2.8 million. By 1961, this had grown to 1,042 alumni funds generating almost $209 million.
Through most of the 1950s, alumni were also the second most prevalent source of private funds,
behind foundations. In 1962, alumni became the primary source of private funds and they have
not relinquished the title since (Trollinger, 2009). In 2016, educational institutions received 15%
of the over $390 billion in charitable giving that occurred in the United States, second only
behind religious institutions. Of that $58.5 billion, 29% came from alumni (Giving USA, 2017).
This demonstrates the importance that alumni play in the funding and financial stability of
American higher education institutions today.
9
Motivations for Philanthropic Support
One big question is: why do alumni, and people in general, give their money away to
philanthropic causes? Thelin and Trollinger (2014) believe that there are many intermingling and
overlapping reasons why alumni give to their alma maters which can be characterized in six
categories:
1) Religion: major religions in the Western world follow the commandment of “love thy
neighbor as thyself,” which leads to individuals acting selflessly and sharing their
wealth with their neighbors.
2) Altruism: defined as an “unselfish desire to live for others.” Individuals can, however,
be satisfied because of giving, leading economist James Andreoni to use the term
“warm-glow giving” to describe the un-selfless satisfaction that can result from
giving.
3) Exchange: the act of giving to receive something in return, societal approval, “warm-
glow” feelings of satisfaction, or the act of giving back. Alumni donating back to
their alma mater in return for the education and experiences they received is a form of
exchange motivation.
4) Psychosocial: donors’ ability to find meaning and significance in their own lives by
meeting the needs of others.
5) Teleological: donors decision to give is based solely on the recipient of the gift, such
as directing their funds to their alma mater solely for supporting the alma mater. Their
alma mater is a part of their identity, with the institution’s name gracing their resume,
apparel, and more. To many alumni, this is their sole motivation to give.
10
A more cynical explanation of motivations for giving comes from the seven basic reasons
that Elliott (2006) believes make donors open their wallets:
1) Religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs: donors give because they believe it is
part of their religion and what it means to be a “good person”.
2) Guilt: giving as restitution for past sins.
3) Recognition: the immortality of having a name attached with a gift.
4) Self-preservation and fear: buying protection or in response to fear.
5) Tax rewards: taking advantage of a reduced income tax bill.
6) Obligation: feeling of paying-back for previous support, such as to an alma mater.
7) Pride and self-respect: giving to be seen as a supporter.
Elliot’s motivations, while different from those offered by Thelin and Trollinger, depict a
donor who is driven to give by much more self-serving reasons. However, all can be applied as
possible motives for alumni giving to the institution that granted them their degree.
An additional concept for donor motivations comes from Prince and File (1994), who
categorized donors in seven distinct groups that they called “The Seven Faces of Philanthropy”:
1) The communitarians: doing good makes sense
2) The devout: doing good is God’s will
3) The investor: doing good is good business
4) The socialite: Doing good is fun
5) The altruist: Doing good feels right
6) The repayer: Doing good in return
7) The dynast: Doing good is a family tradition
11
Alumni donors would generally be considered repayers, as they give to their alma mater out of a
sense of obligation for the education and lifelong benefits they received from it. Prince and File
(1994) found that only about 10% of all donors do so as repayers and that most of these
contributors give to educational or medical causes. Their definitions of the other six groups of
philanthropists do, however, cover other motivations that influence donors to higher education.
Investors, for example, may give to their alma mater in order to help their business find
adequately trained employees in the local area, while devout donors may see their faith as the
reason to give to their religiously affiliated alma mater.
Theoretical Models for Motivating Philanthropic Behavior
Marketing literature provides two theoretical models for motivating philanthropic
behavior. The Services-Philanthropic Model (SPG) states that the decision to donate is highly
influenced by the donor’s perceived value of the services the charitable organization provides,
such as the quality of the educational experience a university provides, or their connection to the
organization, including their experience as an alumnus (Brady, Noble, Utter, & Smith, 2002).
The Identity-Salience Model (ISM) is based on identity theory and believes that donors are more
likely to give to organizations with which they have a positive relationship. Relationships are
built and grown based on participation in activities the organization organizes, such as sports
leagues for students (Arnett, German, & Hunt, 2003). Arnett et al. (2003) also state that donors’
decision-making process to give are also affected by their ability to give and their perception of a
need for their gift.
Drezner (2015) believes that philanthropic giving towards higher education is a way for
individuals to reinforce that higher education is a public good. He views the act of voluntarily
12
giving as an indication by the donor that creating knowledge and educating others benefits more
than just the individual.
Brown (1991) examined philanthropic motivations from a marketing perspective using
alumni at Ball State University. His analysis led to alumni being grouped into three distinct
segments: “classroomers” who emphasized the institution’s faculty, educational facilities, and
reputation as important represent 61% of alumni; “non-classroomers” who emphasized social
activities, job placement services, and arts and entertainment make up 25% of alumni; and 14%
are considered “athletic boosters,” who deemed intercollegiate athletics and the athletic facilities
as important. Brown’s (1991) study was completed to dispel the notion that athletics and athletic
results were the primary motivator for alumni giving and his findings led him to recommend that
institutions focus on the largest segment, the classroomers, and their interests to solicit financial
gifts.
Alumni Identity
The extent to which alumni identify with the institution also plays a key role in their
motivation to donate. Stephenson and Bell (2014) used Tajfel and Turner’s 1981 social identity
theory to investigate how alumni’s self-identification with the institution affects their motivation
to donate to their alma mater. They defined social identification as the ways in which
“individuals organize themselves into social categorizations…which act as cognitive tools to
create order in the social environment” (Stephenson & Bell, 2014, p. 178). They found a positive
correlation between an alumni’s identification with the university and the number of expected
financial gifts they would make to the institution. Additionally, if a donor identified with the
institution, they were 43% more likely to have donated to their alma mater, as even if their
financial means were limited, they would find a way to contribute even a small amount. The
13
authors also found that the primary reasons identified by alumni in a quantitative question about
giving motivations were: “because I am an alumnus” (67%), “to give back to the university”
(47%), and “to help students” (43%). The primary rationale for not donating was led by “I can’t
afford to give now” (43%). Of particular note, 26 of the 1,146 non-donors explained that they
chose not to donate because they no longer identified with the institution.
Other researchers have also found that alumni identification with the institution, or lack
thereof, influences the decision to not donate. Wastyn (2009), in a qualitative study of non-
donors, found that this segment of alumni decides not to donate because they no longer see a
connection between themselves and the institution, primarily due to the current cost of attending
the institution. They also believe that other charities are in greater need of the funds and that they
already paid the institution for their degree, so there is no need to continue to pay for a
commodity that they already received.
14
Factors Influencing Alumni Decision to Donate
Research has identified several factors that influence an alumnus’s decision to donate.
These factors include: age (Carter & Duggan, 2011; Durango-Cohen & Balasubramanian, 2015;
Le Blanc & Rucks, 2009; McAlexander, Koenig, & DuFault, 2015; Okunade & Berl, 1997,
Skari, 2014; Weerts & Ronca, 2007; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012); time since graduation
(McDearmon & Shirley, 2009); race (Carter & Duggan, 2011; Le Blanc & Rucks, 2009; Monks,
2003); gender (Carter & Duggan, 2011; Holmes, 2009; Le Blanc & Rucks, 2009; Sun, Hoffman,
& Grady, 2007); income (Carter & Duggan, 2011; Clotfelter, 2003; Okunade & Berl, 1997;
Skari, 2011; Tsao & Coll, 2005; Weerts & Ronca, 2009); wealth (Baade & Sundberg, 1996;
Holmes, 2009); amount of student aid or loans received (Freeland, Spenner, & McCalmon, 2015;
Lara & Johnson, 2014; Marr, Mullin, & Siegfried, 2005; Meer & Rosen, 2012; Monks, 2003);
and distance between one’s current place of residence and one’s alma mater (Holmes, 2009; Lara
& Johnson, 2014; McDearmon & Shirley, 2009; Skari, 2014). This section reviews the literature
to date on these factors.
Demographic Factors
Age. Okunade and Berl (1997) investigated alumni giving to a large, Carnegie classified
research I institution business school over a 35 year period. Their results showed that the oldest
alumni were almost four times more likely to donate to the school than alumni who had
graduated within the most recent 10 year period. This confirmed their hypothesis that older
alumni, who have had a longer amount of time in which to accumulate wealth, have a greater
ability to donate. McAlexander et al. (2015) also found that alumni 65 years old and older were
significantly more likely to intend to donate to their alma mater and to have included the
institution in their will or estate plan. Durango-Cohen and Balasubramanian (2015) also found
15
that the optimal age range for alumni donations was 45 to 65 years old, as that segment donated
almost 40% of the total funds donated by alumni to the institution in their study.
Gender. According to most recent research on the topic, gender plays a contributing role
in determining an alumnus’s likelihood of giving. Le Blanc and Rucks (2009), in a study that
used data from a large public institution’s alumni donation records, showed that of a subsection
of 20 percent of all of the institution’s living alumni, male alumni were significantly more likely
to donate than alumnae. These results contradict the findings of studies that used more recent
alumni data. Holmes’ (2009) study looked at giving by alumni from the previous 15 years and
found that women were more generous with their donations. Sun et al. (2007), using a random
sampling of alumni who had readily available email addresses in the early 2000s, also found that
females were more likely to donate back to the institution. Due to the use of email addresses and
the timeframe, it can also be assumed that more recent graduates were the primary respondents.
These more recent findings also contradict with Okunade’s (1993) and Marr et al.’s (2005)
findings, which showed that gender had no effect on alumni’s likelihood to donate.
Race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are also contributing factors to the frequency and
dollar amount of donations. Carter and Duggan (2011) found that donors to a Virginia
community college were overwhelmingly White (95.7%), although their sample size was limited
to only 241 donors who responded to the survey. Le Blanc and Rucks (2009), in their analysis of
a random sampling of 32,898 alumni from a list of all living donors of a large public university,
also found that alumni donors were overwhelmingly White. Monks (2003) similarly found that
Black, Hispanic, and multi-race alumni gave between 23% to 39% less than White alumni.
Okunade (1993), in contrast, found that race had a limited effect on alumni giving to a business
school.
16
Financial Factors
Annual income also plays an important role in an alumnus’s decision to donate. Okunade
and Berl (1997) found that individuals who earned over $90,000 per year were almost three
times more likely to donate than those who earned $30,000 per year. Over a decade later, Weerts
and Ronca (2009) similarly found that $90,000 in annual income was a significant threshold for
larger versus smaller gifts to the institution. Tsao and Coll (2005), who examined the motivations
to donate of graduates from journalism programs, similarly found that a higher personal income
resulted in a higher propensity to donate. Skari (2011) found that wealth was also a factor in a
community college graduate’s likelihood of donating to the institution that awarded their
associate’s degree. As would be expected given the findings that individuals with higher incomes
give more to their alma maters, personal wealth is also a determining factor in an alumnus’s
propensity to give (Baade & Sundberg, 1996).
The act of taking out loans to fund one’s education has a negative effect on alumni’s
propensity to give. Alumni who have over $10,000 in student loans are 10% less likely to donate
to their alma mater (Monks, 2003). Similarly, Meer and Rosen (2012) found that the act of
taking out any form of educational loan lowers the probability of gift giving by a modest 3.6%,
with a negative relationship between loan amounts and likelihood of giving. Marr et al.’s (2005)
study showed that receiving any form of needs-based loan reduced the probability of the alumnus
making a donation by 16%. Lara and Johnson (2014) found that an academic award made alumni
5% less likely to donate.
Receiving a scholarship from the institution, however, does not affect the probability of
an alumnus donating, but the size of the scholarship does impact the size of the gift. Alumni who
received larger scholarships make smaller gifts (Meer & Rosen, 2012). Qualitative research on
17
the subject suggests that scholarship recipients do not consider the support a gift that they should
be grateful for or attempt to repay to the institution (Forrest, Nikodemos, & Gilligan, 2016). In
contrast, Freeland et al. (2014) found that receiving a scholarship did increase the likelihood of
making a financial gift, as did receiving financial support from parents. Aid in the form of
student employment on campus has no effect on propensity to give as alumni (Meer & Rosen,
2012).
Geographic Factors
How close an alumnus lives to campus also plays a role in their likelihood of donating.
Alumni who live closer to their alma mater’s campus are more likely to donate (Holmes, 2009;
McDearmon & Shirley, 2009; Skari, 2014), primarily since their proximity to campus allows
them to be more engaged with the institution. This is, however, contradicted by Lara and
Johnson’s (2014) findings from an econometric model of over 27,000 alumni of Colorado
College, which showed that living over 750 miles from a college resulted in a marginally higher
likelihood of donating to it.
Experiential Factors
Just as age, gender, race and ethnicity, wealth, income, and financial support influence
alumni’s decisions and propensity to donate, so too do their experiences as students and alumni.
This section reviews the occasionally contradictory literature to date on experiential factors that
can affect donations by alumni.
Alumni engagement. Alumni who remain engaged with an institution are more likely to
give. In their study at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Weerts and Ronca (2009) found
that alumni who kept in touch with the institution, primarily by following news about the
18
institution’s athletic teams, were more likely to donate. Tsao and Coll’s (2005) study of alumni
of a journalism program found that those who were kept in touch with via newsletters, sponsored
alumni events, and being invited to interact with current students were more likely to consider
donating to the institution. Sung and Yang (2009) also found a strong relationship between a
university’s relationship with alumni and alumni’s supportive behavioral intentions towards the
institution.
Alumni satisfaction. Satisfaction with one’s experiences as a student, both inside and
outside of the classroom, also influences donations. Baade and Sundberg (1996) found that
alumni viewed investments in their classroom educational experience as a student as the primary
reason to donate to their alma mater. Gaier’s (2005) and Skari’s (2014) works similarly found
that alumni who were pleased with their academic experience were more likely to give. Alumni
who are satisfied with their past experiences with an institution are more likely to currently have
a positive relationship with it and give in the future (McAlexander & Koening, 2001).
Alumni who are satisfied specifically with their academic experiences at the institution
are more likely to believe that the college contributed to their education and are also more likely
to have developed a relationship with faculty and staff while a student (Sun et al., 2007). Sun et
al. (2007) found that alumni who were more satisfied with their experience were more inclined to
donate to their alma mater. Similarly, Clotfelter (2003) found that alumni of private institutions
who were satisfied with their student experience also donated more often, and that those who
could identify a mentor that they had had on campus while a student were even more likely to
donate. McDearmon and Shirley’s 2009 findings aligned with those of Clotfelter (2003).
Likewise, Monks (2003) found that those who were “very satisfied” with their experience were
2.6 times more likely to donate than respondents who rated their experience in the lower four
19
points of a five-point Likert scale. In his study, student experience was the most important factor
determining the alumnus’s likelihood of donating (Monks, 2003).
Alumni who are highly satisfied with their undergraduate experience and who are
involved on the campus have a more accurate understanding of the campus’s financial needs and
are also more likely to donate (Hoyt, 2004). Sung and Yang (2009) found that total satisfaction
with the alumnus’s education, including the quality of their educational experience, the
relationships they built with faculty and staff, and the level of communication from the
institution, affect their willingness to financially support the institution. Stephenson and Yerger
(2014) narrowed alumni’s satisfaction with their educational experience to only focus on
satisfaction with student affairs and campus resources. While they found that satisfaction with
campus resources did not impact donations by alumni, they did find that satisfaction with student
affairs on campus was significantly related to the alumni’s choice to donate.
Satisfaction with student experience can also be interpreted as alumni’s likelihood to
recommend the institution to others. Those who would recommend the institution to another
person are 27% more likely to donate to their alma mater than alumni who would not endorse the
institution (Okunade & Berl, 1997). Stephenson and Yerger (2015) found that donors who were
satisfied with their alma mater’s campus resources were also significantly more likely to
recommend and promote the institution.
Student Extracurricular Involvement
Involvement in extracurricular activities on campus while a student is positively related
to the likelihood of making donations to one’s alma mater. Monks (2003) found that active
participation in certain types of activities, including student government, intercollegiate athletics,
20
and Greek life, was correlated with increased alumni giving. However, he also found that alumni
who had participated in student clubs or political organizations while on campus made smaller
donations, on average, than students who had participated in no extracurricular activities at all.
Participation in fraternities and sororities while a student was also identified as a factor in
alumni’s likelihood of donating by Marr et al. (2005) and by Taylor and Martin (1995). Taylor
and Martin (1995) found that involvement with the Greek system at the institution was the
second highest characteristic of the alumni who made up the top 20% of donors based on total
dollars contributed, behind staying involved with the institution as an alumnus. Lara and Johnson
(2014) also found a strong connection between participating in Greek life as a student and
donating as an alumnus. Marr et al. (2005) found that fraternity members were 7% more likely to
donate, while sorority members were 13% more likely to donate than alumni who were not a part
of Greek life.
Involvement in Greek life is not the only predictor of higher future giving. Taylor and
Martin (1995) also found that participation in a student club increased the chance that a donation
was made. Hoyt (2004) similarly found that donors typically had higher levels of participation in
campus life when they were undergraduate students. Drew-Branch (2011) noted that a
relationship exists between student engagement, alumni satisfaction, and alumni donations.
Cascione (2003) believed that this increased satisfaction and rate of donations related to
opportunities for leadership growth that extracurricular activities offered alumni. McDonough
(2017), in a qualitative study of motivational factors for alumni donating their time to an
institution, also found that involvement in extracurricular experiences led to an increased
affiliation with the institution and motivated alumni to volunteer for the institution. Similarly, in
their qualitative study of former scholarship recipients, Forrest et al. (2016) found that having a
21
connection to a university’s community, or more importantly a lack thereof, was a determining
factor in an alumnus’s decisions to donate.
Rau and Erwin (2015) developed a predictive model for determining alumni’s propensity
to give. In their model, engagement in campus as an undergraduate was a found to be a strong
predictor of future giving. In contrast, Lara and Johnson’s (2014) econometric model found that
former Greek life alumni donated more frequently and generously, but that this trend did not
hold true for other alumni who were highly engaged in campus life as students.
Engaging Student Alumni
Building off of the literature that indicates that students who are more engaged in campus
develop higher affinities for the school (Gaskins, Rey, & Scott, 2006; McAlexander & Koenig,
2001) and that alumni with a higher affinity for their alma mater are more likely to support their
alma mater (Pumerantz, 2005; Sun, et al., 2007), Fresk and Mullendore (2012) interviewed
student employees to determine if they believed their job made them involved on campus. The
researchers found that students considered themselves engaged with the campus, but that most
did not view themselves as building relationships on campus through their employment, which
would make them less likely to donate in the future. Gaskins et al. (2006) recommended that
departments on campus develop their own alumni networks to cultivate their relationship with
their former students, including producing alumni newsletters and hosting alumni-specific
events, to keep these formerly engaged students involved as alumni. This recommendation aligns
with Drezner’s (2018) finding that sharing good news and accomplishments with alumni
positively impacts their identification with the organization and their relationship with the
institution.
22
Universities and colleges can further strengthen their relationship with alumni who were
highly engaged as students by welcoming them back to campus and keeping them engaged with
their former student club, organization, Greek life chapter, or team (Rissmayer, 2010). Research
suggests that student and alumni affairs offices should work to engage students post-graduation,
encourage them to stay involved with the campus, and have them begin making small donations
shortly after graduation. Campuses can also create opportunities to engage students while they
are on campus in order to harness this relationship in future years to help support the institution
(Gaskins et al., 2006).
23
Former Student Athlete Population
Alumni who were intercollegiate athletic athletes had different experiences while on
campus than their non-intercollegiate athlete peers. This leads to former varsity student athletes
being less likely to donate to their alma mater (Lara & Johnson, 2014; O’Neil & Schenke, 2007;
Shapiro, Giannoulakis, Drayer, and Wang, 2010). O’Neil and Schenke (2007) found that this was
due to a sentiment that they already contributed to the alma mater through their athletic abilities.
Shulman and Bowen (2001) conducted a study at both highly selective Ivy League,
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I schools, and New England Small
Colleges Athletic Conference (NESCAC), NCAA Division III institution (which does not offer
scholarships specifically for athletes and does not sell high-dollar tickets or receive revenue from
television broadcast contracts) (National Collegiate Athletic Association, n.d.). They found that
older former student athlete alumni donated more often, but that younger former student athletes
were less likely to donate as frequently as the average alumnus (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). This
finding was reaffirmed in Bowen and Levin’s (2003) supplemental analysis of the data. In
contrast, Holmes, Meditz, and Sommers (2008) conducted research at Middlebury College, a
NESCAC member institution, to dispel Shulman and Bowen’s findings. In their study, they
found that younger former athletes were more likely to donate than older former student athletes
and that former student athletes were overall more likely to donate than the general alumni
population (Holmes et al., 2008). Others have found that the different experiences that older
alumni had as student athletes compared to the experiences of the newer graduates has an impact
on former student athletes’ decisions to donate (O’Neil & Schenke, 2007; Shapiro &
Giannoulakis, 2009).
24
In contrast to research that shows that former student athletes donate less, Marr et al.
(2005) found that participating on a varsity athletic team generated the same type of attachment
to the university as did participating in Greek life. Their assumption was that this would translate
into donations to the institution by alumni. This was confirmed in their study, with 8% more
student athletes than non-student athletes responding to appeals for donations.
With respect to alumni donations made specifically to university athletics programs,
Tsiotsou (2006) found that men gave more to athletic programs than females. However,
Burchette (2013) and Halpin (2015), in their separate studies which only examined former
student athletes, as opposed to Tsiotsou’s (2006) study which look at the general population,
found no statistical difference in the propensity male and female former student athlete alumni to
give to athletics programs.
Constraints to Giving by Former Student Athletes
Halpin (2015) examined constraints that keep former student athletes from donating. He
found that the former student athlete’s experience, if negative, was a constraint to donating. This
followed Shapiro and Giannoulakis’s (2009) findings that an individual’s student athlete
experience could significantly impact their propensity to give. Halpin’s findings also support the
findings of Monks (2003), McDearmon and Shirley (2009), and Sun et al. (2007), which
identified positive student experiences as a motivating factor for future donations. Similarly,
Halpin (2015) found that a lack of connection with the institution by a former student athlete
negatively affected their propensity to donate.
Participating in a “revenue” sport, primarily football and men’s basketball (Sanderson &
Siegfried, 2015), leads to the student athlete feeling more like an athlete than a student (Potuto &
25
O'Hanlon, 2007). Many of these students also had scholarships that were tied to their skill,
dedication, and performance as a student athlete, which made them feel less able to participate in
campus activities, such as extracurricular activities, or building relationships with non-athlete
students and faculty (Potuto & O'Hanlon, 2007). These experiences have been shown by
numerous studies to negatively affect students’ time at the institution, which in turn makes them
less likely to donate (Monks, 2003; McDearmon & Shirley, 2009; Sun et al., 2007).
Decision to Donate
An institutions’ approach to soliciting donations from alumni is a strong determinant of
the likelihood that a donation will be made (Baade & Sundberg, 1996; Lertputtarak &
Supitchayangkool, 2014; Pumerantz, 2005). Institutions must keep themselves at the top of
alumni’s minds through email updates, newsletters, magazines, alumni events, and social media
(Lertputtarak & Supitchayangkool, 2014; Tsao & Coll, 2005). This mirrors Shapiro and
Giannoulakis’s (2009) findings that if former student athletes were not contacted by the
institution or athletic department and asked to donate, they likely would not donate on their own
and supports Gaskins et al.’s (2006) recommendation that departments find ways to keep alumni
engaged and involved with the department and university in order to build a relationship before
asking for funds in the future. The ability to direct donations to a specific interest of the alumnus,
such as a department, club, or athletic team, is a motivator for donations (McDearmon, 2010).
Donors are also more likely to donate to a group they have a connection with and from whom
they receive recognition (Bennett, 2006; McDearmon, 2010).
Even with the ability to direct funds to a specific target group, alumni will spread their
donations around. Stinson and Howard (2004) examined alumni giving at the University of
Oregon over an eight-year period, from 1994 to 2002, and found that 38.7% of alumni directed
26
their entire gift to the athletic department. An even larger 69.5% of alumni donated at least a
portion of their money to the athletics program while donating the rest to academic and other
campus services.
27
Recommendations for Future Research
The research to date leaves several research gaps that can be addressed in future scholarly
work. The work on the demographic characteristics of alumni who donate to their alma maters
paints an unclear picture of who institutions should target when soliciting funds. This opens an
opportunity for qualitative researchers to delve more deeply into this subject by interviewing
individuals of different ages, races, genders, and income levels, and cross-referencing these
demographic identities with institutional characteristics, including institutions’ size, type (e.g.,
private, public, four-year, two-year), prestige level, and geographic location, to identify
motivations and constraints to donations for diverse alumni. The role of gender and how it
affects donors’ motivations and propensity to donate to their alma mater is also an area for future
research.
As would be expected, alumni who were more satisfied with their experience as a student
were more likely to donate. The research on this subject to date consistently draws a link
between satisfaction, engagement, likelihood of recommending the institution, and propensity to
donate. However, involvement in extracurricular activities as a student provided a less clear
picture of alumni’s likelihood of donating. Participation in Greek life was consistently correlated
with increased alumni giving (Lara & Johnson 2014; Marr et al., 2005; Monks, 2003; Taylor &
Martin, 1995), though the effect of participation in other campus activities as a student, such as
clubs and student government, was less clear. Some scholars found that higher levels of
engagement in campus activities increased donations (Drew-Branch, 2011; Hoyt, 2004; Rau &
Erwin, 2015; Taylor & Martin, 1995), while others found that this type of engagement made
alumni less likely to donate (Lara & Johnson, 2014; Monks, 2003).
28
This contradiction warrants additional research. Further research could delve into the
affect that involvement in different types of student activities has on alumni’s likelihood to
donate, including participation in student government, student academic clubs, student social
clubs, student sport clubs, and intramural sports. Qualitative studies can also be used to identify
motivations and constraints of these alumni, to verify that these experiences influenced their
propensity to donate.
Drezner (2011) also identified a need to further explore the involvement of student affairs
divisions in institutional fundraising.
The majority of research to date has also found that former student athletes are less likely
to donate than their alumni peers (Bowen & Levin, 2003; Halpin, 2015; Lara & Johnson, 2014;
O’Neil & Schenke, 2007; Shapiro & Giannoulakis, 2009; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Marr et al.
(2005) and Holmes et al. (2008) found that former student athletes in their studies were more
likely to donate than the average student, however, they both completed their studies at private,
selective institutions. Future research could explore the types of institutions at which former
student athletes played and the role that their specific sport played in their likelihood of donating.
Club Sport Student Athletes
The multiple literature gaps identified in the reviewed literature reveal that little is known
about former club sports student athletes’ propensity to donate, their motivations for donating,
and the impact that their experience as club sports student athletes had on their decisions to
donate.
No scholarly research on this subject has specifically involved alumni who participated in
club sports as a student, a group who are found to typically be highly engaged students on
29
campus (Lifschultz, 2012). With an estimated two million plus club sport athletes on campuses
in the United States each year (Pennington, 2008), this group of students is over four times larger
than the total number of NCAA athletes (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2017), about
whom more is known with respect to alumni giving (Bowen & Levin, 2003; Halpin, 2015; Lara
& Johnson, 2014; O’Neil & Schenke, 2007; Shapiro & Giannoulakis, 2009; Shulman & Bowen,
2001). The estimated number of club sport athletes in the United States indicates that club sport
athletes annually comprise over 10% of the total number of degree seeking college and
university students in the country (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017), and these
students have had a very different sports-related experience as students as compared to their
varsity athlete counterparts (Matthews, 1987). My proposed research study will attempt to fill
this gap by examining former club sport athletes’ propensity to give as alumni, in terms of total
donations, frequency of donations, and total dollars given.
Little is also known about the motivations to donate, or not to donate, for most groups of
formerly engaged students, including former club sports student athletes. Forrest et al. (2016)
and McDonough (2017) were the only identified qualitative studies conducted with formerly
engaged students. No identified studies have looked into the effect that an alumnus’s experience
participating in club sports had on their decisions to donate to their alma mater in terms of
frequency of donations and total financial sums of donations. Shapiro and Giannoulakis (2009)
interviewed former NCAA student athletes about the effect that their experience as a varsity
athlete had on their decisions to donate, finding that for most alumni who were a part of this
group, their experience was a barrier to donating. However, club sports student athletes typically
have a very different experience than varsity athletes, which calls for a need to separately study
the effect of their experience on their decisions to donate.
30
Conclusion
As government funding for public higher education in the United States continues to
decrease (Mitchell et al., 2017) and as students continue to take out more loans to fund their
education, with over $1.53 billion in student loans currently outstanding (Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, 2018), alternative sources of funding are needed to fund both public
and private higher education institutions.
Philanthropy is increasingly filling the need for outside funding of higher education, with
alumni of institutions of higher education collectively donating over one quarter of all voluntary
gifts to those institutions in 2017 (Council for Aid to Education, 2018). Gaps still exist in our
knowledge about the propensity to give and the motivations of these important donors.
This project will attempt to add to the scholarly literature on the subject by helping
university administrators, particularly recreation and student affairs professionals and
development officers, better understand the propensity to donate and motivations for donating of
former club sports athletes.
31
References
Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship
marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67, 89-105.
Baade, R. A., & Sundberg, J. O. (1996). What determines alumni generosity? Economics of
Education Review, 15(1), 75-81.
Bennett, R. (2006). Predicting the lifetime durations of donors to charities. Journal of Nonprofit
& Public Sector Marketing, 15(1-2), 45-67.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (2018). Student Loans Owned and
Securitized, Outstanding [SLOAS]. St. Louis, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLOAS
Bowen, W. G., & Levin, S. A. (2003). Reclaiming the game. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E. (2002). How to give and receive: An
exploratory study of charitable hybrids. Psychology & Marketing, 19(11), 919-944.
doi:10.1002/mar.10044
Brown, J. D. (1991). Targeting university alumni segments that donate for non-athletic reasons.
Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 7(1), 89-98.
Burchette, B. M. (2013). Examining factors that influence donor motivation among former
student-athletes and NCAA DI classification (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI No. 3567240).
32
Carter, L. S., & Duggan, M. H. (2011). Philanthropic motivations of community college donors.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35, 61-73.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2011.525178
Cascione, G. L. (2003). Philanthropists in Higher Education: Institutional, Biographical, and
Religious Motivations for Giving. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2003). Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities. Economics of
Education Review, 22, 109-120.
Cook, W. B, & Lasher, W. L. (1996). Toward a theory of fund raising in higher education.
Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 33-51. doi: 10.1353/rhe.1996.0002
Council for Aid to Education. (2018). Voluntary Support of Education. New York, NY: Author.
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. (2013). Explore the History of Alumni
Relations. Retrieved from About CASE:
https://www.case.org/About_CASE/CASE_History/100AnniversaryAAS/100Anniversar
yExplore.html
Curti, M. E., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Davis, J. J., & Wu, S. D. (2017, September 12). Faculty and Staff Budget Town Hall. Fairfax,
VA. Retrieved from http://budget.gmu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/BudgetTownHall_Sep2017.pdf
Drew-Branch, V. L. (2011). Student Engagement, Alumni Satisfaction, and Alumni Donations at
a Public Four Year Institution: An Analysis of How the Undergraduate Experience
33
Influences Alumni Donations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI No. 3476544).
Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education. ASHE
Higher Education Report, 37(2), 1-146. doi:10.1002/aehe.3702
Drezner, N. D. (2015). The 6th Annual Barbara Townsend Lecture: Fundraising and
institutional advancement: Theory, practice, and new paradigms. Denver, CO:
Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Drezner, N. D. (2018). Alumni engagement in higher education: A matter of marketing and
leveraging social identities. In A. Papadimitriou (Ed.), Competition in Higher Education
Branding and Marketing: National and Global Perspectives (pp. 181-195). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58527-7_9
Durango-Cohen, E. J., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2015). Effective segmentation of university
alumni: Mining contribution data with finite-mixture models. Research in Higher
Education, 56, 78-104. doi:10.1007/s11162-014-9339-6
Elliott, D. (2006). The Kindness of Stangers: Philanthropy and Higher Education. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Forman, R. (1995). Alumni Relations - A Perspective. In C. H. Webb (Ed.), Handbook for
alumni administration (pp. 5-11). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education & The
Oryx Press.
34
Forrest, J., Nikodemos, L., & Gilligan, C. (2016). The experience of receiving scholarship aid
and its effect on future giving: a listening guide analysis. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 13(1), 47-66. doi:10.1080/14780887.2015.1106628
Freeland, R. E., Spenner, K. I., & McCalmon, G. (2015). I gave at the campus: Exploring student
giving and its link to young alumni donations after graduation. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 755-774. doi:10.1177/0899764014529625
Fresk, K. L., & Mullendore, R. H. (2012). Connecting student employment, involvement, and
alumni affinity. Recreational Sports Journal, 36, 140-151.
Gaier, S. (2005). Alumni satisfaction with their undergraduate academic experience and the
impact on alumni giving and participation. International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 5(4), 279-288.
Gaskins, D. A., Rey, S. V., & Scott, D. L. (2006). Celebrating your recreational sports alumni:
Connecting generations for future success. Recreational Sports Journal, 30, 136-141.
Giving USA. (2017). Giving USA 2017. Chicago, IL: Giving USA.
Halpin, K. R. (2015). Investigating Former Student-Athlete Donor Constraints at Multiple NCAA
Institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global (UMI No. 3715218).
Haskins, C. H. (1936). The rise of universities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Herzog, K. (2017, July 6). University of Wisconsin Regents freeze tuition, OK student fee and
housing increases. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from
35
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2017/07/06/regents-approve-new-
budget-gives-less-uw-madison/455165001/
Holmes, J. (2009). Prestige, charitable deductions and other determinants of alumni giving:
Evidence from a highly selective liberal arts college. Economics of Education Review,
28(1), 18-28. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.008
Holmes, J. A., Meditz, J. A., & Sommers, P. M. (2008). Athletics and alumni giving: Evidence
from a highly selective liberal arts college. Journal of Sports Economics, 9(5), 538-552.
doi:10.1177/1527002507313896
Hoyt, J. E. (2004). Understanding Alumni Giving: Theory and Predictors of Donor Status. Paper
presented at the 44th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston,
MA.
Lara, C., & Johnson, D. (2014). The anatomy of a likely donor: econometric evidence on
philanthropy to higher education. Education Economics, 22(3), 293-304.
doi:10.1080/09645292.2013.766672
Le Blanc, L. A., & Rucks, C. T. (2009). Data mining of university philanthropic giving: Cluster-
discriminant analysis and Pareto effects. International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 9(2), 64-82.
Lertputtarak, S., & Supitchayangkool, S. (2014). Factors influencing alumni donations.
International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 170-178.
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n3p170
36
Lifschultz, L. (2012). Club sports: Maximizing positive outcomes and minimizing risks.
Recreational Sports Journal, 34, 104-112.
Marr, K. A., Mullin, C. H., & Siegfried, J. J. (2005). Undergraduate financial aid and subsequent
alumni giving behavior. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 45(1), 123-
143. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2003.08.005
Matthews, D. O. (1987). Managing Collegiate Sport Clubs. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2001). University experiences, the student-college
relationship, and alumni support. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 21-
44.
McAlexander, J. H., Koenig, H. F., & DuFault, B. (2015). Millennials and Boomers: increasing
alumni affinity and intent to give by target market segmentation. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21, 82-95. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1544
McDearmon, J. T. (2010). What's in it for me: A qualitative look into the mindset of young
alumni non-donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(1), 33-47.
doi:10.1057/ijea.2010.3
McDearmon, J. T., & Shirley, K. (2009). Characteristics and institutional factors related to young
alumni donors and non-donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2),
83-95.
McDonough, K. M. (2017). Young alumni perspectives about philanthropically supporting their
alma mater (Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University). Retrieved from
lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15370
37
Meer, J., & Rosen, H. S. (2012). Does generosity beget generosity? Alumni gibing and
undergraduate financial aid. Economics of Education Review, 31, 890-907.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.06.009
Miller, M. T. (1993). Historical perspectives on the development of academic fund raising.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(3), 237-242.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterton, K. (2017). A Lost Decade in Higher Education
Funding: State Cuts Have Driven Up Tuition and Reduced Quality. Washington, DC:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2017_higher_ed_8-22-17_final.pdf
Monks, J. (2003). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective
institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121-130. doi:10.1016/S0272-
7757(02)00036-5
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Total fall enrollment in all postsecondary
institutions participating in Title IV programs and annual percentage change in
enrollment, by degree-granting status and control of institution: 1995 through 2016.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_303.20.asp?current=yes
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2017). Student-Athletes. Retrieved from National
Collegiate Athletic Association: http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Division III Philosophy Statement. Retrieved
from National Collegiate Athletic Association: http://www.ncaa.org/governance/division-
iii-philosophy-statement
38
Okunade, A. A. (1993). Logistic regression and probability of business school. Education
Economics, 1, 243-262.
Okunade, A. A., & Berl, R. L. (1997). Determinants of charitable giving of business school
alumni. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 201-214.
O'Neil, J., & Schenke, M. (2007). An examination of factors impacting athlete alumni donations
to their alma mater: a case study of a U.S. university. International Journal of Nonprofit
& Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 59-74. doi:10.1002/nvsm.274
Pennington, B. (2008, December 1). Rise of college club teams creates a whole new level of
success. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/sports/02club.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=a
ll&adxnnlx=1415607028-dX04LbLCPFwHAJMSxFxHaw
Potuto, J. R., & O'Hanlon, J. (2007). National study of student-athletes regarding their
experiences as college students. College Student Journal, 41(4), 947-967.
Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1994). The Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approach to
Cultivating Major Donors. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Pumerantz, R. K. (2005). Alumni-in-training: A public roadmap for success. International
Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(4), 289-300.
Rau, N. E., & Erwin, T. D. (2015). Using student engagement to predict alumni donors: An
analytical model. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 5(2), 101-111.
Rissmayer, P. A. (2010). Student affairs and alumni relations. New Directions for Student
Services, 19-29. doi:10.1002/ss.357
39
Sanderson, A. R., & Siegfried, J. J. (2015). The case for paying college athletes. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 115-138.
Shapiro, S. L., & Giannoulakis, C. (2009). An exploratory investigation of donor constraints for
former student-athletes. International Journal of Sport Management, 10, 207-225.
Shapiro, S. L., Giannoulakis, C., Drayer, J., & Wang, C. (2010). An examination of athletic
alumni giving behavior: Development of the Former Student-Athlete Donor Constraint
scale. Sport Management Review, 13, 283-295. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.12.001
Shaw, W. B., Embree, E. R., Upham, A. H., & Johnson, E. B. (1917). Hand Book of Alumni
Work. Washington, DC: The Association of Alumni Secretaries.
Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Skari, L. A. (2011). Who Gives? Characteristics of Community College Alumni Donors
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI
No. 3460434).
Skari, L. A. (2014). Community college alumni: Predicting who gives. Community College
Review, 42(1), 23-40. doi:10.1177/0091552113510172
Stephenson, A. L., & Bell, N. (2014). Motivations for alumni donations: a social identity
perspective on the role of branding in higher education. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 176-186. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1495
40
Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2014). Optimizing engagement: brand identification and
alumni donation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6),
765-778. doi:10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0057
Stephenson, A. L., & Yerger, D. B. (2015). The role of satisfaction in alumni perceptions and
supportive behaviors. Services Marketing Quarterly, 36, 299-316.
doi:10.1080/15332969.2015.1076696
Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2004). Scoreboards vs. mortarboards: Major donor behavior and
intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(2), 129-140.
Sun, X., Hoffman, S. C., & Grady, M. L. (2007). A multivariate causal model of alumni giving:
Implications for alumni fundraisers. International Journal of Educational Advancement,
7(4), 307-332.
Sung, M., & Yang, S. (2009). Student-university relationships and reputation: a study of the links
between key factors fostering students' supportive behavioral intentions towards their
university. Higher Education, 57(6), 787-811. doi:10.1007/sl0734-008-9176-7
Taylor, A. T., & Martin, J. C. (1995). Characteristics of alumni donors and nondonors at a
Research I, Public University. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 283-302.
Thelin, J. R. (2007). Colleges in the Colonial Era. In H. S. Wechsler, L. F. Goodchild, & L.
Eisenmann (Eds.), The History of Higher Education (3rd ed., pp. 54-74). Boston, MA:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Thelin, J. R., & Trollinger, R. W. (2014). Philanthropy and American Higher Education.
Pelgrave MacMillan: New York, NY.
41
Trollinger, R. W. (2009). Philanthropy and transformation in American higher education
Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (UMI
No. 3471544).
Tsao, J. C., & Coll, G. (2005). To give or not to give: Factors determining alumni intent to make
donations as a PR outcome. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59(4), 381-
392.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006). Investigating differences between female and male athletic donors: A
comparative study. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11,
209-223. doi:10.1002/nvsm.34
Wastyn, M. L. (2009). Why alumni don't give: A qualitative study of what motivates non-donors
to higher education. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2), 96-108.
doi:10.1080/09645290801976985
Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2009). Using classification trees to predict alumni giving for
higher education. Education Economics, 17(1), 95-122.
doi:10.1080/09645290801976985
Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable
giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review,
3(2), 217-245. doi:10.1332/204080512X649379
Wood, E. W. (1989). Philanthropy: Past, present, and future. The Journal of Contemporary
Issues in Fund Raising, 27(2), 6-8.
42

Running Head: Knowledge Representation Essay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: Knowledge Representation Essay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION ESSAY

Knowledge Representation Essay

George Mason University

Drs. Swan, Baker, and Brozo

Knowledge Representation Essay

and other fees (Davis & Wu, 2017).

their budgets (Mitchell et al., 2017).

Statement of the Problem

Stanford University (Council for Aid to Education, 2018).

alumni give back and what motivates them.

Purpose of the Study

donating (Shapiro & Giannoulakis, 2009).

sport student athletes.

The research questions guiding this part of the study are:

sports while they attended the institution?

sports while they attended the institution?

1. How, if at all, did an alumnus’s experience participating in club sports as a student

and total financial sums of donations?

Review of the literature

History of Higher Education Philanthropy

dormitory for poor student scholars (Haskins, 1936).

Philanthropy in American higher education dates back to the founding of the

donated to open Mount Holyoke College in 1837 (Miller, 1993).

History of Alumni Organizing and Giving

the institutionalization of giving. Alumni associations began to be professionalized in 1897 when

Financial giving to institutions was additionally enhanced in 1917 with Congress’s

inspiring growth in higher education philanthropy (Trollinger, 2009).

and planned giving involving alumni (Trollinger, 2009).

American higher education institutions today.

Motivations for Philanthropic Support

wealth with their neighbors.

meeting the needs of others.

that Elliott (2006) believes make donors open their wallets:

1) Religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs: donors give because they believe it is

part of their religion and what it means to be a “good person”.

2) Guilt: giving as restitution for past sins.

3) Recognition: the immortality of having a name attached with a gift.

4) Self-preservation and fear: buying protection or in response to fear.

5) Tax rewards: taking advantage of a reduced income tax bill.

6) Obligation: feeling of paying-back for previous support, such as to an alma mater.

7) Pride and self-respect: giving to be seen as a supporter.

1) The communitarians: doing good makes sense

2) The devout: doing good is God’s will

3) The investor: doing good is good business

4) The socialite: Doing good is fun

5) The altruist: Doing good feels right

6) The repayer: Doing good in return

7) The dynast: Doing good is a family tradition

reason to give to their religiously affiliated alma mater.

Theoretical Models for Motivating Philanthropic Behavior

Marketing literature provides two theoretical models for motivating philanthropic

need for their gift.

than just the individual.

Brown (1991) examined philanthropic motivations from a marketing perspective using

reputation as important represent 61% of alumni; “non-classroomers” who emphasized social

“individuals organize themselves into social categorizations…which act as cognitive tools to

commodity that they already received.

Factors Influencing Alumni Decision to Donate

to date on these factors.

propensity to give (Baade & Sundberg, 1996).

5% less likely to donate.

likelihood of donating to it.

can affect donations by alumni.