Will there be a gift? Seniors have yet to pay up

Branford: $0; Jonathan Edwards: $0; Saybrook: $0; Trumbull: $0; Timothy Dwight: $0. So read the college standings for senior class gift donation rates one week before the Fri., Mar. 3 deadline. Yet the mass e-mail entitled "senior class gift update," which circulated these numbers, ushered in scrawny figures such as the 9 percent class involvement to date with the congratulatory opening sentence, "The class of 2000 has made good progress so far." Charles Smith, JE '74, a Yale Alumni Fund representative involved in every stage of the senior gift docket, was enthusiastic about the results achieved thus far. "The Senior Class Gift program is in full swing," he said.

CAYTE PUSHKAREVA/YH Several colleges have raised no class gift funds.

How is so much cocksureness possible in light of all that naught? "A couple of those numbers weren't legitimate zeroes," Senior Class Gift Chairman Michael Falencki, SM '00, explained. "They were a matter of some college chairs not coming to the meeting and turning things in." According to Falencki, it is standard practice for a substantial share of the total contributions to roll in during the few days prior to the deadline. "The last week is the crunch week when people all of a sudden come in with all these last-minute contributions—that's when the numbers really go up," Falencki said. Smith echoed Falencki's optimism: "[With a few days to go until the deadline], the Class of 2000 is poised to put forth a great deal of effort in terms of participation," he said. Or in Falencki's blunter version, "[Yale students] are going to get the job done, but they'll wait till the last minute; they need to be pushed."

But while Smith calmly waits for the last-minute donation frenzy to take effect, Falencki has some qualms about this year's solicitation process. "As far as my personal agenda, I would have hoped for some more numbers by now," he said. One key to improving them is the college chairpersons. The two college chairs of each residential college are the sine qua nons of the program, and their efforts directly impact donation volume. "Participation rates are clearly reflective on who the college chairs are," Falencki said.

The chairs' main responsibility is to procure agents—student volunteers who solicit seniors on a one-to-one basis. "What it really boils down to is who is going to provide the best leadership and be able to divvy up that power and pass it off to the agents," Falencki said. So what are the indicators of effective chairs and agents? Dedication is the first. "[They have to be] gung-ho about the program, and lead all the way." Resourcefulness is another. "A few colleges held senior study breaks," Falencki said. "Grab a keg and everyone shows up for happy hour—and the agents are there soliciting." The flip side scenario, when agents don't approach students and provide all the facts about the program before asking for cash, leads to the lack of funds accumulated by some colleges so far. "You get more reception when people know exactly what the purpose of all this is," Falencki explained. "That's why the lack of feedback from college agents [has been such a hurdle]; without face-to-face meetings, people just don't understand."

The main point Falencki wants people to understand is that the money seniors fork over is put to use immediately in whatever area the student designates. "A lot of people assume that the money will just go to the endowment and sit there and look pretty and not be used for anything; that's a big misperception." Nevertheless, the endow-ment's girth has soured some students on the idea of dishing out their greenbacks for Yale. "It's all a scam," Ramsi Woodcock, SY '00, said. "The Yale Administration just wants to milk you for money. They're a bunch of f***ing businessmen; their job is to scam people. They'd rather take money from poor seniors than spend endowment funds."

Face-to-face informative meeting or not, an agent would be in for quite the uphill battle trying to sway Woodcock. But some students that may have been persuaded far easier have yet to be contacted. And agent sluggishness is not the sole culprit. The program was hurt this year by a very late start. "[The Yale Alumni Fund] hires someone to deal with undergraduate fundraising and that person took another job right at the end of the first semester, when it's time to be getting ready to start the program," Falencki said. "They were unable to find someone else to fulfill the role at the time. So solicitations didn't begin in earnest until the second week of February—we lost out on almost four weeks."

Having considered all the missteps of this year's program, Falencki is now eagerly anticipating the award party for the college that raises the greatest mint—a "full meal, open bar, live band, all night long" extravaganza at the Omni Hotel for the entire winning college. Even Woodcock admitted that the affair makes for a good incentive. "It's a nice touch; there should be more parties like this at this school," he said. But he remains implacable in his own refusal to contribute. Because paying doesn't guarantee his college will win, "I might as well spend my $50 on a party [I'm sure to get into.]"

As far as the winning college goes though, everyone, non-contributors included, partake of the Omni Hotel shindig. "It's a class effort, and a class reward," Falencki said. A magnanimous gesture, and an economically sound one at that. "You want people to feel inadequate because they didn't give, so five or 10 years down the road when the same opportunity comes, they'll be more inclined to participate," he said. This is why a low monetary turnout concerns Falencki far less than low participation rates. The long-term perspective is the all-important one. "The $5 and $10 gifts are going to be $1,000 and $2,000 at the 10- or 20-year reunions. [The senior gift program] is laying the groundwork, getting people in the habit of participating and wanting to give back to Yale," Falencki said. "That's what this is really about."

Back to News...