next »

[phdbliss]

Anybody know what the people who work in development do on a day-to-day basis? I'm imagining that it's a lot of jet-setting and hob- knobbing - am I glamourizing it? Is there a typical salary at an R1 for a Ph.D working in development? What kind of personality is best suited for this type of work?

I'm toying with the idea of applying for a position in development, if you couldn't tell. I would do so with the thought of sustaining the goals of higher education, trying to work towards the aims of the R1 to enhance the educational experience, etc. My Ph.D field is tiny, and we've had less than 20 academic openings this year. I'm a little freaked about where money's going to come from next year.

[notaprof]

Anybody know what the people who work in development do on a day-to-day basis? I'm imagining that it's a lot of jet-setting and hob- knobbing - am I glamourizing it?

Development has many different parts.  There are those that work with alumni, maintaining contacts, supporting the alumni board, recruiting additional board members, researching prospects, etc. in addition to planning many events like reunions etc.  There are those that work with parents doing similar things.

There are those that work with data management, it can be a huge task to keep data accurate and write reports and pull lists for targeted mailiings and campaigns.  There are those that work with corporations, there is quite a bit of grant writing, there is campaign management, designing brochures and campaign materials, there is writing the articles and editing of the alumni magazine.  There are people that organize phonathons, recruiting and working with students. 

There are major gift officers that do some of the hobnobbing you mention, perhaps jet-setting a bit but it is often pretty rigorous travel, landing for an event across the country and on a plane back to the office the next day.  And there is just the day to day management of a staff and the routine tasks of any office.  Oh and there are meetings, lots and lots of meetings. 

There aren't enough development people to go around so salaries are typically higher than in other office jobs on campus.  Recruiting and trying to keep a full staff can be a full time job in some places.  Headhunters call several times a week offering incentives to leave.  The turnover can be high which can be a problem when an office is almost always never fully staffed.  You do have targets to hit and depending on the personality of your president and board, not hitting these targets can range from discomfort to a loss of a job.  Respect from faculty for development people is often lacking unless perhaps you have a spousal hire working in the office and then sometimes that helps.

I am not in development, but I play with someone who is.

[phdbliss]

Thanks, notaprof - sounds less glamourous than I had imagined, but sounds kinda cool, too. Kind of like being an academic except not exactly...geez, that's articulate, isn't it...I mean, the writing and strategizing and trying to meet deadlines and goals...very similar. The idea of short spurts of travel is appealing...Thanks. This is really helpful!

[sibyl]

I went to a very good workshop on development given by one of the country's leading development VPs, and at the start of the talk he made it seem that I could move into development.  But by the 30th minute it was clear I would never be a good development officer.

Development officers need the ability to write, think, speak, and research.  They need people skills to cultivate and maintain relationships.  They need the ability to represent different things to different audiences.  They also need the ability to ask people (especially donors) for help, which is not a trait that comes easily to anyone.  But most of all they need a bias for decision and action.  Academics, this person said, tend not to be good candidates because they want to over-study and over-prepare and are slow to reach decisions.  (Business people, for that matter, are also poor candidates because they are also usually too cautious.)  They need to be able to move quickly and think fast when circumstances change.  You need a long-term relationship with a donor, but once a donor decides to act she always wants to act quickly and you need to be able to respond; you might hope she will some day give a scholarship fund for students from her home state, but if she wants to give a performing arts complex you need to have an answer for her in a jiffy.

Henry Rosovsky, in his delightful The University: An Owner's Manual, talks about the relationship between deans and donors.  That's a great place to start -- and it is probably as close as most academics should want to get to being in development.

If you don't get good advice on this board, go over and talk to the development people on your campus.  They'll be glad to tell you.

[infopri]

I used to work in development.  I didn't do the hobnobbing (definitely not my cup of tea!); I was one of the behind-the-scenes people, and my job was to write the proposals submitted to corporations, foundations, and various levels of government.  I never left my desk (which was fine with me).

Notaprof's description is quite accurate.  My office was near the people who did the research and maintained the data bases on individual donors (alumni, parents of students, Board of Trustees members, and other "friends" of the university) and on the giving programs run by corporations, foundations, and governments, as well as on the ad hoc funding opportunities that arose.  These folks almost never left their desks, and they spent about seven hours of their day staring at computer screens.  Nothing glamorous about it, although the woman who ran the research operation reached a high profile within the university and is now a vice president at another school.

The people who got to travel most were the glad-handers who cultivated individual donors.  Notaprof is right, even this was hardly glamorous.  You travel by car or by the cheapest airline ticket available.  You fly halfway across the country (depending on where your "territory" is) for a meeting and turn right around two hours later and are home for dinner, exhausted.  Or you might stay overnight, rent a car, drive 40 miles to meet two more donors, and then fly home.  Sure, you might be going to NYC or Chicago or LA--but you also might be going to East Nowhere, depending on where your donors live and work.  A lot of the money that comes in from individuals comes in from ordinary (not wealthy) people who live in rather mundane places and make rather modest donations (that add up in the aggregate).  No glamor there.  Then, when you get back from your trip, you must write a report of your visit (regardless of whether the person made a gift), which is then entered into the database for future reference.  The report must include such details as whether the (potential) donor's kids belong to the school band, what their dog's name is, and a nephew's interest in astronomy.  And, after all this, most of these development people also have low profiles within the university.

The one "glamorous" part of the job is that the university provides lots of freebies to high-level donors, such as box tickets to football games, and the like, and some development officers get to accompany them to the games, or whatever the event is.  If you like that sort of thing, it happens a lot, so there's your glamor.

Sibyl posted while I was writing and is right that the hobnobbers must have the ability to "close the deal."  That is, when all the hobnobbing is done (and it might be that day, or it might be after a long cultivation), he or she must be able to ask for the donation.  And there are all kinds of giving.  Some folks write a check right now, some leave gifts in their wills, etc.  You have to be knowledgeable enough to show them the advantages (to them, in terms of taxes, etc.) of the different ways of making the gift.

Frankly, I hated development work (does it show?), but YMMV.  I still have friends there (some of them still there after 20 years!) who just love it.

[phdbliss]

So far this is sounding better and better. Thanks sibyl and infopri. All extremely helpful things to read.

[aspirant]

I work in Development, and I have to say, you should learn as much about it as you can before you jump in.   I would recommend attending a conference, like an AFP or CASE one to get a good sense of the people there.  Environments can vary a lot according to how big a school is, or what kind of school it is.  I worked at an Art College where people were very into art, but not so into professionalism, and it hurt the work environment.  I'm currently moving out of a super corporate development office that has become super goal oriented as part of an overhaul of the university.

There is a whole philosophy behind development, and really, it's about connecting a donor with the institution.  Finding an alum who really loves their school and wants to give back.  I wouldn't call it hob-nobbing, I call it visiting, learning, and respecting.  I don't agree with people in Development who treat every donor as a wallet, I prefer to think of them all as people who have a vested interest in the school. 

If you're interested in chatting more, I'd be happy to.

[bilbio88]

I currently work in development, and have found it to be a rewarding experience.  The people with whom I work feel strongly about the roles they play in making our institution stronger through funding the innovative research of our faculty and graduate students and raising the money to provide financial aid to a new generation of undergraduates.  There is a feeling, not to be cliche, of serving the greater good - and it does feel good when your office closes a gift that will establish an endowment that will, for example, provide tuition for an inner-city student.

Depending on your role in development, you may have an opportunity to work with administrators and with faculty.  For example, if you are the development person for a specific program or school within a larger university, such as a school of medicine, chances are you will be interacting with the medical faculty and the Dean on a pretty regular basis. Likewise for a law school, engineering program, etc.

Although it goes without mentioning, I will point out that a nice benefit to working in development is very good food, regardless of what your position is.

As Sibyl and infopri said, there are a variety of roles within development. Here are elaborations, as well as a few more:

- There are those who "hob-nob" with prospective donors and who do much of the traveling and soliciting.
- If you enjoy developing relationships with older generations, which some people do, then planned giving (bequests) can be a very rewarding
experience. 
- For the avid researchers, learning about prospects' giving potential is a huge job that usually requires an entire office dedicated to Google searches, zip code familiarity, and cross-checking news articles and references to prospects' other charitable giving. 
- The field of development is an event-planner's paradise, if that is one of your passions. 
- For the computer savvy, there are a variety of roles available,
including tech support and writing new software to keep track of
prospects.  (Keep in mind that performing even the most basic of alumni searches can be a complex logical reasoning problem - for example, trying to determine all instutional alumni who a) are in the Chicago area, b) have made a gift in the past year, and c) are alive.)

Depending on whether an institution is regional or national, it may also have smaller, permanent offices across the U.S. (and even internationally), with development officers who live locally and work with regional prospects, and only travel to the institution's campus a few times each year.

Pay tends to be pretty competitive compared to other careers within the university. Check out the "External Affairs" section of the Chronicle's most recent "Almanac" for a detailed breakdown; most directors of
divisions within development can expect a salary $70,000+, and the Almanac suggests entry-level salaries of $40-50,000.  If you will be working at an institution during a campaign, expect that to be higher.

Especially during a campaign, an institution's development office will be looking to hire.  There may be lay-offs after a campaign (which usually lasts 5-7 years, depending on the length of the "quiet phase"), but a qualified development officer is always in demand.  This is an important bonus to keep in mind - development is an area in which there are a lot of jobs, and in which it is very easy to advance (and quickly).  It is also a career that is quite portable; not only do most higher education
institutions have development offices (which are ever-growing), but so do many musuems, theaters, hospitals, and even private high schools.

Development is also a terrific area for networking.  You may not
initially appreciate the connections you make, until you realize, down the road, that you personally know law partners and major players in business and industry across the country.  While you may not be interested in these connections, who's to say that a spouse, child, relative, or friend wouldn't appreciate a foot in the door at that top law firm?

Development as a field tends to be much more women-friendly than other careers, which I for one appreciate.  At my institution, it is ballpark 70/30 female/male. 

Regarding travel, it can definitely be grueling, especially if you are traveling regularly - although I don't think that even the most active development officer anywhere approaches the amount of travel that
admissions officers do on a regular basis.  Although many development positions will likely include some travel (e.g. 1-2 trips a year), it is really only a handful that include extensive travel.  At my institution, of a development office of 400 employees, only about 40 are the
stereotypical "fund-raisers" who travel multiple times each month.

I am currently working in development at my alma mater - which of course biases me - but it also means that I feel a real connection with my institution, and do enjoy playing a role in raising funds for it.  At some
universities, development offices can be composed of up to 1/2 alumni of the institution, but even in such cases, the university will usually appreciate an outside perspective. 

[phdbliss]

This is such great information. I'm getting a much clearer picture now - and it seems like a good fit the more I think about it.

What is the typical role for a Ph.D in development? Do they tend to be directors or entry-level despite the advanced degree?

[infopri]

This is such great information. I'm getting a much clearer picture now - and it seems like a good fit the more I think about it.

What is the typical role for a Ph.D in development? Do they tend to be directors or entry-level despite the advanced degree?

I've never known anyone in development to have more than a master's, so I can't answer your question.  Generally, the folks I knew in leadership roles had either a master's or a bachelor's with boatloads of development experience.

Oh, wait, there was one woman with a Ph.D.  She was my bosses' boss and was vice president for fundraising from corporations, foundations, and government.  Last I heard, she was a regent for a state system out west.  This was a woman who made people with a typical Type A personality look lazy.  Super ambitious, super competent.

[bilbio88]

I do not think there is a "typical role" for someone who holds a doctorate; at most institutions, I would think that they would primarily be interested in your experience in the field of development and fundraising. 

The development organization CASE, the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, offers a career center on their website (case.org) that lists current jobs in development.  Perhaps reading through the job descriptions and the backgrounds they are seeking may be helpful?

A PhD can be beneficial in that it shows you have experience in a higher education setting (more on this momentarily), as well as demonstrating (hopefully) that you have an ability to write, which is important in development regardless of your role.

Regarding the experience in higher education, you may already have involvements related to the development profession that could help get your foot into a more mid-level position.  Have you attended your undergraduate institution's reunions?  Were you involved in any fundraising committees for those reunions, or perhaps in phone-a-thons?  (Or even such committees for a child's middle/high school?)

If not, I don't know what your time-table is for shifting into the development profession, but I would suggest becoming active in such groups.  Other examples include the local United Way, or any local theaters or museums that are currently in campaign mode.

If you are immediately seeking a development position, I would think that, depending on your past experience, you would be qualified for a relatively entry-level position, but with the potential for quick promotion (e.g. if you were in a smaller division within a bigger office, promotion to an assistant director position within 2-3 years; from there, it would be easy to shift into a role with more responsibility). 

If you are thinking about six months or a year into the future, then I would suggest jumping in with the local campaigns and fundraising.  Any experience in such a capacity would be valuable, but it would be especially helpful if you could continue with it long enough to have some quality references who could speak to your people skills, enthusiasm, ability to work under pressure, and time management.

[jwormold]

Abdgansta (wonderful moniker, by the way), to your question of having a PhD, I took a development job shortly before defending, so it seems I was in a very similar position to you right now.  My job was the lowest in the (admittedly very small) department. As has been stated so often when switching out of the academic world, the advanced degree won't mean an instant promotion.  I was, in fact, the only PhD in the entire institution (a small art museum).  The current institution where I now work has several people in development with advanced degrees, including at least one PhD (it's a huge department that keeps hiring, unlike the rest of the institution). 

I was a grant writer, and, as infopri I believe noted, that job doesn't involve any of the hobnobbing or travel that can happen with other positions.  It was actually quite nice: in my interview, I argued that my previous ability to fund my dissertation through competitive fellowships was analogous to funding the museum's programs, I had the necessary research and writing skills, etc.  And that's what I did: I researched and I wrote. Except research was mostly googling, using Hoover's, Lexis-Nexis, and other databases to learn about prospects and the like.  Apparently, in the grant writing world, you can put on your resume that you know how to use Lexis-Nexis!

There are temp agencies that specialize in placing people in entry level development spots (Professionals for Non-Profits is one).  If you're in a location with enough cultural or academic institutions that might be a way to try it out before too big of a commitment.  Lower-level development jobs also want database skills (Raiser's Edge is one fundraising database).  I argued successfully that I could use Access, so even though I didn't have specific experience with Raiser's Edge, I could easily learn it. I did, but I never used it! Just a heads up.  It's not hard: if you can get a PhD, you can figure out how to run a report.

Development pays relatively well, at least in the museum world (certainly better than the curatorial positions in the museum).  My job, at least, was far easier than adjuncting, and I got benefits!

I'm no longer in development-- I got a post-doc, so I was only in my spot for about 10 months, and I don't plan on returning. Quite honestly, I was bored fairly quickly.  I felt I learned all I could from the particular job I was in, and after a while, it became quite repetitive.  I also realized that I really wanted to work on my own projects.  In a larger department or more dynamic institution, that might not be a problem, especially if there was room for promotion.  I found it was also quite helpful because by the end of the diss, I was feeling burnt out. It gave me time to breath. I never took work home, and there was something nice about having evening and weekends back. 

[phdbliss]

infopri, bilbio88 and jwormold - thanks! For the record, I guess I should say that I'm not sure how long I would stay in a position in development - it sounds like something I might enjoy doing indefinitely, but if a position were to open up in my tiny MLA field - who knows? At this point I'm concerned about having a job - and one that I enjoy. If the pay is around the same as I might make, say, teaching in the public school system, I don't know though...I might prefer doing something closer to my field in that instance. Although the independent work is more appealing than the supervision of being a classroom teacher...plus I left that to go back to grad school six years ago...to go back to it might feel like a defeat of some sort.

Anyway - I digressed there - sorry - thanks everyone for all the info!

[infopri]

Good luck, abdgangsta!

[scarletbegonia]

A few other comments, from someone who was in a similar situation and took the development route:

1) Your PhD will help you communicate what professors need into what donors understand. Many faculty members become stuck when trying to explain what their research interests are to a lay audience. For example, I once had a donor who wanted to know who was "working on cancer." The chair of biology was doing some interesting work on cell structures that related to cancer. I asked him to write a few paragraphs for the donor to see if there was a match. I received 6, single spaced pages of language that would have been appropriate for the NIH. My background is not in science, so I sat with the chair for about 15 minutes and was able to discern what he was trying to convey. That's not to say only a PhD can do that, but it helps.

2) Expect to hear rude comments from some of your current academic colleagues. I have heard that I was finally "responsible" (apparently a suit and some makeup is what defines responsibility), that I was a beggar, "money grubber", glorified event planner, etc. I have also been told that I wasted my education. Which brings me to my next point...

3) You have to have a thick skin, especially if you are a major gift officer. Every donor will want to tell you what they hate about the university/president/provost/chair, etc. and will expect you to act on it. Additionally, many people will tell you no. The last statistic I heard was something like 1 in 14 requests will end up in a "yes." That is 13 negative responses, and not all of them will be polite.

4) As a fund raiser, you are in the public eye all of the time. That may not bother you, but I began to get annoyed that I couldn't go to the grocery store in my dirty sweat pants and unwashed hair without running into a donor, who would then tell another donor, and eventually someone would say something to me about the importance of appearances.

5) If you are one of the people that makes the ask, it can be difficult to have a home life. There are a lot of events to attend (plan to invest in evening wear) and considerable travel. My SO finally asked me to consider leaving development because the schedule did not work well with having a young child. Days would go by and I would not have the chance to speak to my child because I would leave before she got up and come home after she went to bed. At the point that she was old enough to realize one parent was missing, I moved to a different position in development that required less travel and events. Eventually, I left the field altogether.

That all being said, I loved it most of the time. It worked well with my personality and it was both challenging and rewarding.