Student-Managed Investment Funds: A Survey of Student Demographics, Fund Policies, and Transparency

Abstract

This paper summarizes the results of a web-based survey of 441 U.S.-based college and university Student-Managed Investment Funds (SMIFs). Results include three areas not previously included in SMIF research. Information about student demographics, fund policies, and transparency are included. Results indicate that the majority of students participating in SMIFs are white males, with few schools specifically targeting recruitment of females and minorities to the finance and investment field. Results also indicate that most funds are managed by undergraduate students, use the S&P 500 as a benchmark, and average 30% portfolio turnover each year. Results indicate a mix in the dollar value of SMIFs, of dividend policies, and of out of class activities associated with the SMIF. Finally, while professional money managers must provide timely and transparent information about fund performance, fees, and large holdings, the vast majority of SMIFs do not provide this information publicly, in part or in whole.

Introduction

The use of Student-Managed Investment Funds (SMIFs) on college campuses in the United States is certainly no longer a unique experiential learning tool. What began several decades ago as a unique feature in a few Investment Management courses, has gained universal acceptance as a nearly necessary tool for students interested in finance and investment management careers. The majority of SMIFs were created as educational tools for finance students, though there are a number of SMIFs that are utilized as clubs open to students from all majors. As the number of SMIFs have grown, research has examined the pedagogy of courses using SMIFs, has highlighted how SMIFs were originally funded, and has emphasized the legal and practical design of SMIFs related to decision-making and oversight. One area that had not been reviewed was the demographics of students participating in SMIFs. Knowing that the vast majority of Wall Street financial analysts are men (Green, C., Jegadeesh, N., & Tang, Y., 2009), and that women comprised 47% of business degrees awarded in the United States (National Center for Educational Statistics), there is a natural desire to ponder if financial analyst roles be more gender balanced in future years. Thus, the survey sought to answer the hypothesis that the gender of students participating in SMIFs would be equal. In addition, the survey sought to answer questions about SMIF policies, and the transparency of SMIF dollar values, investment returns, and student activities related to SMIF courses.

Literature Review

A review of the literature regarding SMIFs identifies research has been conducted in three primary areas: pedagogy, operations and management, and funding and performance.

Pedagogical research is critical as the primary goal of SMIFs is educational. Therefore, pedagogical approaches, classroom structure and course design are of significant importance. These areas, when combined successfully should engage students with a positive educational experience that ultimately impacts student learning and career success. Tatar (1987) provides specific classroom examples of a new SMIF at one institution. Cooley & Hubbard (2012) similarly review one institution based on experience from ten plus years of an active SMIF. Kahl (1997) discusses course structure and the educational opportunities that exist when placing students of different genders, races and countries on investment analysis teams. Clinebell, Kahl & Stevens (2012) identify both learning goals and non-learning goals of SMIFs. They conclude both sets of goals should be considered when determining the structure and pedagogical design of a course and associated SMIF. North & Stevens (2012) develop a systematic approach to SMIFs, by designing a proposed two-year academic sequence and associated organizational structure for a SMIF. The approach extends beyond one course and is a coordination of multiple disciplines and courses, all designed to develop best-practices in applied investment management. The activities and structures they suggest are robust and likely limit utilization to larger institutions.

The operation and management of a SMIF is a balance of institutional policy, faculty leadership and student action. Lawrence (1990) identifies various investment alternatives allowed by different SMIFs and how SMIF operations and activities are funded. Saunders (2008) reviews differences in religiously affiliated and independent college SMIFs and identifies attitudinal differences in screening for socially responsible investing. Clinebell (2013) extends the review of socially responsible investing by providing a history of the concept and its application to a SMIF at one school. Peng, Dukes & Bremer (2009) review asset allocation differences and the use of CAPM within SMIFs. Cooley & Hubbard (2012) identify academic content, administrative requirements and SMIF policies at Trinity University. Adams and Belcher (2015) suggest significant resources are not needed to properly operate a SMIF. They discuss the use of the Blackboard learning management system to aid in SMIF communication and information access, with little to no additional costs to SMIFs or college operating budgets. Sources of funding for SMIFs is provided by Neely & Cooley (2004) and identifies donors and college endowments as major fund sources. Lawrence (2008) provides information on U.S.-based and international SMIFs and includes the year each fund started and the fund size.

Survey Methodology

An email, including a link to the survey, was sent to faculty advisors of U.S.-based SMIFs. Faculty advisors were identified by reviewing websites of colleges and universities listed in prior research from Neeley & Cooley (2004) and Lawrence (2008), and from schools identified on the University Finance Labs (ND) website. Contacts from professional associations and conferences were added, and a search of “student managed investment fund” was conducted on over 2,000 additional college websites to complete the list. The email requested confidential faculty participation in the web-based survey hosted on Qualtrics. A second and third email were sent to faculty who did not open the original email, using a tool provided by Qualtrics. This methodology is similar to that used by Saunders (2008) and Peng, Dukes, & Bremer (2009).

A total of 441 surveys were sent to individual SMIF faculty advisors, with 104 survey responses, for a response rate of approximately 24%. Of the 104 responses, several were only partially completed and therefore the response totals throughout the paper vary according to the total responses to each question. A copy of the survey is available from the author. The list of colleges and universities identified as having a SMIF is provided in Appendix A.

Survey Results – Demographics

Those responding to the survey represent a broad range of institutions, including both large and small, and both public and private schools. Respondents include schools with SMIFs that began as early as 1955 and include a SMIF that was established in 2016. Nearly 70 percent of the SMIFs began operating since 2000. In addition, institutions identified AACSB, ACBSP, IACBE and other business accrediting agencies as those who assess their results. A summary of this information is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: School Enrollment, Institution Profile and Specialized Business Accreditation

Demographic information about student participation in SMIFs is provided in Table 2. The data shows that, for the 2015-16 academic year, respondents reported overall mean SMIF class composition of 73% male and 27% female students. When disaggregated by public versus private institutions, the percentage of female students is 20% and 31.4%, respectively. This difference is statistically significant, as shown in Table 3. Respondents also reported overall SMIF classes comprised of 74% Caucasian, 9% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 7% Black, and 1% Other. Differences in the means between public and private institutions are shown in Table 2. Statistically significant differences exist between public and private schools when measuring the percentages of international and Asian students (Table 3). In all cases of significance, private schools have higher proportions of female, international, and Asian students. No significant differences in demographics exist when measured against institution size, accrediting agency or size of the SMIF. These demographic characteristics are likely to remain consistent in the near future, as only 28% of SMIFs and/or SMIF schools actively recruit females specifically to the finance/ investment field, and only 19% recruit minorities.

Table 2: SMIF Student Enrollment Demographics and Recruitment by Institution Type

Table 3: ANOVA Test Results on Demographic Differences Based on Institution Type

The demographic results showing male dominance of students participating in SMIFs provides insight for industry professionals about likely upcoming recruits. Studies on the role of gender in finance and investing have been researched as related to behavioral finance. Barber & Odean (2001) conclude overconfidence in men causes male traders to trade more often than females, resulting in lower investment returns for males compared to females. Bhandari & Deaves (2006) corroborate this conclusion, finding the results are most significant in single men compared to single women. So why, then, do so few females pursue an investing career? North & Stevens (2012) note that “the imbalance of gender is a complicated phenomenon.” Jäkel & Moynihan (2016) report the financial services industry lags in unleashing female leadership potential. The report concludes that only 20 percent of boards and 16 percent of executive committee members are female globally. In addition, they find that “female executives are more likely to leave their employer at mid-career in financial services than in any other industry.”

Adams, Barber & Odean (2016) note that 18 percent of Chartered Financial Analysts are women and suggest one possible barrier is “that finance is a profession that disproportionately rewards those who work long and inflexible hours.” Foster (2016) suggests those in the industry should “encourage women to pursue an education and career in investment management.”

Turning from gender to race, why do fewer racial minorities participate in SMIFs and have a career interest in finance? Delvecchio, McEwen, & McEwen (2001) find that while African American students had higher preferences for careers in human resource management than Caucasians, there was no preference difference for fields of accounting, finance and marketing. What other reasons may contribute to low levels of minority participation? Lahey & Vihtelic (2000) found that 82 percent of finance faculty are white, with 2.4 percent black, 2 percent Hispanic, and 13.3 percent other. Thus, students of color are more likely to have a white professor than a racial minority. Results from Chung, Baskin & Case (1999) and Karunanayake & Nauta (2004) suggest it is possible that a lack of role models leading the classroom leads to lower career interest in the field by racial minorities. This survey identifies that the current stream of college and university students likely mirrors the demographic imbalances which currently exist in the financial services field. Some institutions are making efforts to counter this imbalance, with 27.9 percent of colleges specifically recruiting females to the finance industry and 19.8 percent specifically recruiting racial minorities.

Survey Results – Policy

Table 4 provides data related to the dollar value of SMIFs responding to the survey. The table also lists the benchmark used by the fund to gauge student investment success. Results show the S&P 500 is used as a benchmark for SMIF performance more than any other metric.

Table 4: SMIF Data by Fund Size and Fund Benchmark

Beyond the S&P 500, the “other” benchmarks mentioned by respondents reflected multiple benchmarks due to multiple funds managed by the SMIF. Why, though, should students who are learning compare their results to the same index generally used by professionals? Haddad and Redman (2006) provide evidence that doing so may be difficult by noting that both the investment portfolio and style of management are difficult to maintain within a SMIF. Mallett, Belcher and Boyd (2010) find the return performance of SMIFs “spotty at best” and suggest one possibility for the underperformance is portfolio turnover, caused by turnover of fund managers. Kreuger (2011) finds that while SMIFs provide numerous non-monetary advantages to students, even the Investment Advisory Board utilized in the study underperformed the market as well, suggesting the level of attention and direct consequence of results differs between SMIFs and professional fund managers. Gradisher, Kahl, Clinebell & Stevens (2016) discuss federal legislation and its potential impact on fiduciary responsibilities of SMIF students and professors. They provide several recommendations on SMIF structure to protect students, faculty and institutions from the SMIF being viewed as a registered Management Investment firm. With this, they suggest donors should not “have expectations of professional investment management.” These results all appear contrary to common SMIF practice as the majority of SMIFs use the S&P 500 as a benchmark.

Table 5 provides data on policy matters related to management and dividends. Results show more than 70% of SMIFs are managed by undergraduate students, with 22% managed by both undergraduate and graduate students. About half of all schools (48%) use a policy of cash dividends on all holdings, with 29% having a policy to reinvest dividends and the remaining 23% using a combination of cash and reinvestment. Two-thirds of SMIFs are not actively managed between semesters. This is not surprising given the educational nature of SMIFs.

Table 5: SMIF Data by Student Level, Interim Management and Dividend Policy

Study participants were asked to provide portfolio returns for the past two years. Ranges, instead of specific results, were used in the survey to maximize reporting without requiring participants to research their exact return from two years ago. Table 6 provides frequency and percentage of respondent returns for each year. It should be noted that the S&P 500, the primary SMIF benchmark, provided returns of 13.52% and 1.36% in 2014 and

2015, respectively. Specific differences between SMIF returns and the S&P 500 for each year could not be calculated due to the survey design requesting a return range instead of a specific return option. It is noted that in 2015, the range of returns that contained the actual S&P 500 return contained the highest response frequency. In 2014, more SMIFs responded to the range that was lower than the S&P 500 return range.

Table 6: SMIF Returns by Year

While all participating SMIFs were allowed to invest in equities, the number of SMIFs allowed to invest in other asset classes drops dramatically. Slightly more than one-third of SMIF’s have the ability to invest in fixed income, less than 20% in options, and less than 10% in commodities and other. Table 7 provides a breakdown of investible asset classes by institution size and type.

Table 7: Investments Allowed by Institution Size & Institution Type

Most funds available for individual investors have a specific targeted asset allocation. This allows investors to determine if a fund is an appropriate investment vehicle for the investor’s risk tolerance and investment objectives. SMIFs are likely different than many other funds in that it is assumed that the majority of SMIFs have a long-term investment horizon, with little need for the corpus in the near-term. Of SMIF’s participating in the survey, only 59.5% have an asset allocation policy, whereas 40.5% do not. Of those SMIFs that have an asset allocation policy, equities, fixed income, and cash are the asset classes with the largest mean percentage target. A summary of the survey results on asset allocation is shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Asset Allocation Averages of SMIFs with Specified Target Asset Allocations

Table 9 provides information on fund asset turnover. The mean asset turnover of SMIFs during a typical year is almost 32% of the portfolio, with a reported range from one to one hundred percent, resulting in a significant standard deviation of 23%.

Survey Results – Transparency

Survey results indicate that the vast majority – 83% – of SMIFs do not make their fund performance available on the school website (Table 10). In addition, only 6.5% of SMIFs provide public information about the fund’s specific holdings. In an era where transparency and performance measurement are paramount in the finance and investment industry, it appears that SMIFs may be lagging incorporating these facts into classroom

practice. In so doing, SMIFs are perhaps also missing a teachable moment of what is expected of institutional fund managers.

Table 10: Public Transparency

Kuhle & Ogilby (2010) provide a detailed approach to using publicly available information to conduct fundamental security price analysis. This approach to analysis could be utilized in any SMIF. Haslem (2004) provides a template for transparency of information for mutual funds. The template suggests providing information transparency across multiple areas, including boards of directors, fund managers, and fund performance. Haslem argues such information is necessary for fund owners to make informed decisions. Macy (2010) highlights one benefit of SMIFs is the production reports. Communication and synthesis skills are utilized is report preparation, including Macy’s suggestion of an annual report. It is likely that many SMIFs indeed utilize report preparation as a learning tool (as well as an audit or performance measurement tool), yet very few make such reports publicly available.

Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Final Rule on Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure of Registered Management Investment Companies (2004) mandated, among other things, that mutual funds and similar entities report portfolio information on a quarterly basis and “to include Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance in its annual report to shareholders.” Agarwal, Mullally, Tang, & Yang (2015) utilize the 2004 SEC rule to analyze stock liquidity and fund performance and find that after the regulation change, stocks with higher fund ownership increase greater liquidity. Each of these examples provide evidence that there are benefits to fund managers with transparency. While there are likely challenges as well, SMIF faculty and administrators should consider the benefits of increased transparency.

Results indicate SMIFs are also a springboard for a host of other educational opportunities. More than half of the survey respondents indicated that students in their respective SMIFs participate in competitions (research challenges, case competitions, security/credit analysis competitions, etc.), conferences and other events. Additionally, students in SMIFs provided community service in the form of financial literacy, provided on-campus educational programs, and attended investor meetings, amongst other things.

Table 11: SMIF Activities and Activity Funding

Limitations and Further Research

Survey results indicate a wide range of demographic information. While this is the first research that highlights demographic information of SMIF participants, the confidentiality of survey responses did not allow for further understanding of the why certain schools have higher female and minority participation. It is likely that schools with 100% female participation are female-only institutions, while schools with high percentages of Hispanic student participation may be designated as Hispanic-serving institutions under the federal definition. For college administrators and industry executives interested in increasing female and minority representation in finance and investing, further research into the variability of participation by these student groups is encouraged. With SMIFs designed to be educational in nature, it should be assumed that errors will be made while students are learning. In fact, Lawrence (1990) notes that while most faculty retain veto power over student investment decisions, “faculty advisors felt an important component of the educational experience necessitates allowing students to make their own decisions for better or for worse.” Thus, utilizing the industry benchmark for professionals – generally the S&P 500 – as a SMIF benchmark might be a high hurdle. A SMIF performance index may be a better barometer, whereby students, faculty and administrators could measure results against other students who are also learning as they make investment decisions.

The lack of public information transparency is an area that could be investigated further. Assumptions are made as to why colleges and universities do not share SMIF performance results, key holdings, and annual reports, but actual reasons may differ. If a substantial number of SMIFs begin to publicly report information on a routine basis, other schools may follow. The use of a template would aid SMIFs and result in uniform reporting. Public disclosure may also serve as an additional point of information for high school students during their college and university research and selection process. It is also possible that such publication may increase minority and female participation if, for example, large SMIF holdings identify companies of importance to females and racial minorities.

Last, while this research focuses specifically on SMIFs, additional thought and research should be conducted to identify how other business disciplines, namely accounting, marketing and management, could benefit from similar hands-on, real-world applications.

Conclusion

While the number of SMIFs has grown significantly in the past two decades, much information about specific fund performance, management and holdings remains private. This runs contrary to public disclosure required by fund managers outside of SMIFs, and is likely the result of protecting faculty and school image and reputation. With most SMIFs continuing to be managed by undergraduate students, using the S&P 500 as a benchmark for SMIFs appears to be at odds with student learning and suggests an alternate benchmark could be established for SMIFs.

Survey results indicate that gender and race in SMIF student enrollment across the United States is skewed towards males and Caucasians. Thus, the hypothesis that the gender of students participating in SMIFs would be equal does not hold. Private colleges and universities enroll higher percentages of females, international students and Asian students than their public institution counterparts. The trend of the investment industry being male-dominated may continue for some time, as few schools and/or SMIFs actively recruit females and minority students to the discipline. This research confirms prior survey results that most SMIFs are not actively managed between semesters and that SMIF fund size varies significantly. In addition, this research shows varying SMIF policies for dividends, target asset allocation and fund turnover. Last, results indicate substantial participation in out of class activities by SMIF participants, highlighting the benefits of the engaged learning component of an actively-managed fund.

References

Adams, S. A., & Belcher, L. J. (2015). “Reporting and Managing on the Cheap: Using Blackboard in a Student-Managed Investments Program,” Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15(1), 75-85.
Adams, R.B., Barber, B.M., & Odean, T. (2016). “Family, Values, and Women in Finance,” Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2827952
Agarwal, V., Mullally, K. A., Tang, Y., & Yang, B. (2015). “Mandatory Portfolio Disclosure, Stock Liquidity, and Mutual Fund Performance,” The Journal of Finance, 70(6), 2733-2776.
Barber, B.M., & Odean, T. (2001). “Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 261-292.
Bhandari, G., & Deaves, R. (2006). “The Demographics of Overconfidence,” Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7 (1), 5-11.
Chung, Y. B., Baskin, M. L., & Case, A. B. (1999). “Career Development of Black Males: Case Studies,” Journal of Career Development, 25(3), 161.
Clinebell, J. (2013). “Socially Responsible Investing and Student Managed Investment Funds: Expanding Investment Education,” Financial Services Review, 22, 13-22.
Clinebell, J., Kahl, D., & Stevens, J. (2012). “Pedagogy and Student Managed Investment Funds: What Type of Fund is Right for Your University,” Academy of Business Education and Financial Education Association meetings, Charleston, SC.
Cooley, P.L., & Hubbard, C.M. (2012). “FAQ’s About Student Managed Funds,” Advances in Financial Education, 10(1), 72-83.
Delvecchio, S., McEwen, T., & McEwen, B.C. (2001). “Impact of Race on Business Students’ Perceptions of Business Careers,” Journal of Education for Business, 76(4), 199-208.
Foster, L. (2016). “The ‘Diversity Multiplier:’ Why We Need More Women in Investment Management.” Retrieved September 12, 2016 from: https://diversity.cfainstitute.org/2016/07/13/the-diversity-multiplier-why-we-need-more-women-in-investment-management/
Gradisher, S., Kahl, D.R., Clinebell, J.M., & Stevens, J.L. (2016). “Fiduciary and Legal Considerations for Student-Managed Investment Funds,” Journal of Education for Business, 91(2), 83-89.
Green, C., Jegadeesh, N., & Tang, Y. (2009). “Gender and Job Performance: Evidence from Wall Street,” Financial Analysts Journal, 65(6), 65-78.
Haddad, M, & Redman, A.A. (2006). “Students as Fiduciaries: An Examination of the Performance of Student-Managed Portfolios,” Journal of the Academy of Business Education, Summer, 87-98.
Haslem, J. A. (2004). “A Tool for Improved Mutual Fund Transparency,” Journal of Investing, 13(3), 54-64.
Jäkel, A., & Moynihan, T. (2016). “Women in Financial Services.” Retrieved September 6, 2016 from: http://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/ oliver-wyman/global/en/2016/june/WiFS/WomenInFinancialServices_2016.pdf
Kahl, D. R. (1997). “The Challenges and Opportunities of Student-Managed Investment Funds at Metropolitan Universities,” Financial Services Review, 6(3), 197-200.
Karunanayake, D., & Nauta, M. M. (2004). “The Relationship Between Race and Students’ Identified Career Role Models and Perceived Role Model Influence,” The Career Development Quarterly, 52(3), 225-234
Krueger, T.M. (2011). “Finance Experts versus Students: Policies, Comparative Return and Risk of Investments in a Student-Directed Investment Portfolio,” Journal of Accounting and Finance, 11(4), 119-137.
Kuhle, J., & Ogilby, S.M. (2010). “Teaching the Fundamentals of Ben Graham and Warren Buffett,” Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 11(Fall), 93-112.
Lahey, K. & Vihtelic, J.L. (2000). “Finance Faculty Demographics, Career History, Diversity, and Job Satisfaction,” Financial Practice and Education, Spring/Summer, 2000, 111-122.
Lawrence, E. C. (1990). “Learning portfolio management by experience: University student Investment Funds,” The Financial Review, 25(1), 165-173.
Lawrence, E.C. (2008). “Student Managed Investment Funds: An International Perspective,” Journal of Applied Finance, 18(2), 67-83.
Mallett, J. E., Belcher, L. J., & Boyd, G. M. (2010). “Experiment No More: The Long-Term Effectiveness of a Student-Managed Investments Program,” Journal of Financial Education, 36 (3/4), 1-15.
Macy, A. (2010). “Student Managed Investment Funds: A Framework for Regional Schools,” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(Spcial Issue),47-62.
National Center for Educational Statistics, retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_318.30.asp?current=yes
Neely, W.P., & Cooley, P.L. (2004). “A Survey of Student Managed Funds,” Advances in Financial Education, 2(Spring), 1-9.
North, D., & Stevens, J.L. (2012). “The Two-Year Student Managed Investment Fund: Coordination of Applied Investment Skills across Disciplines and Courses,” Academy of Business Education and Financial Education Association, working paper, Charleston, SC.
Peng, Z., Dukes, W.P., & Bremer, R. (2009). “Evidence on Student-Managed Funds: A Survey of U.S. Universities,” Business Education & Accreditation, 1(1), 55-64.
Saunders, K.T. (2008). “Student-Managed Investment Funds in Religiously Affiliated Independent Colleges and Universities,” Christian Business Academy Review, Spring, 2008, 26-34.
Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure of Registered Management Investment Companies, 17 CFR § 210, 239, 249, 270, and 274 (2004).
Tatar, D. (1987). “Teaching Securities Analysis with Real Funds,” Journal of Financial Education, (16), 40-45.
University Finance Labs (ND). Retrieved April 5, 2016 from http://universityfinancelab.com/directory/

Appendix B – List of Colleges and Universities with Student-Managed Investment Funds*

Abilene Christian University
Adelphi University
Alabama A&M University
Alaska Pacific University
Albion College
Alfred University
American University
Amherst College
Anderson University
Appalachian State University
Arizona State University
Ashland University
Auburn University
Augustana College
Austin College
Austin Peay State University
Babson College
Baldwin-Wallace College
Ball State University
Barry University
Baruch College
Bates College
Baylor University
Bellarmine University
Belmont University
Benedictine University
Bentley University
Berry College
Binghampton University – SUNY
Bloomsburg University
Bluffton University
Boise State University
Boston College
Boston University
Bowling Green State University
Brandeis University
Brigham Young University
Brown University
Bryant University
Bryn Mawr College
Bucknell University
Butler University
California Institute of Technology
California Lutheran university
California Polytechnic State Univ.
California State University – Long Beach
California State University – Los Angeles
California State University – Northbridge
California State University – Fresno
Calvin College
Cameron University
Canisius College
Carleton University
Carnegie Mellon University
Carroll College
Cedar Crest College
Cedarville University
Centenary College of Louisiana
Centre College
Central Michigan University
Champlain College
Chapman University
Christian Brothers University
Christopher Newport University
Claremont Graduate School
Clark University
Clarkson University
Clemson University
Cleveland State University
Coastal Carolina University
Coe College
Colby College
Colby-Sawyer College
College of New Jersey
College of the Holy Cross
College of William & Mary
College of Wooster
Colorado College
Colorado State University
Colorado State University – Fort Collins
Columbia University
Connecticut College
Cornell University
Creighton University
Culver Stockton College
Dartmouth College
Davidson College
Denison University
DePaul University
DePauw University
Dixie State University
Drake University
Drexel University
Duke University
Duquesne University
East Tennessee State University
Eastern Illinois University
Eastern Mennonite University
Eastern Washington University
Elizabeth City State University
Elizabethtown College
Elon University
Emory University
Evangel University
Fairfield University
Fayetteville State University
Florida Atlantic University
Florida Gulf Coast University
Florida International University
Florida State University
Fordham University
Fordham University – Bronx Campus
Franklin and Marshall College
Freed-Hardman University
Furman University
Gannon University
Gardener Webb University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia State University
George Washington University
Georgetown College
Georgetown University
Georgia Southern University
Gonzaga University
Grand Valley State University
Grinnell College
Gustavus Adolphus College
Hampden-Sydney College
Harding University
Harvard University
Henderson State University
High Point University
Hodges University
Hofstra University
Houghton College
Howard University
Humboldt State University
Idaho State University
Illinois College
Illinois Institute of Technology
Illinois State University
Illinois Wesleyan University
Indiana State University
Indiana University
Indiana University Northwest
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana University Southeast
Iona College
Iowa State University
Ithaca College
Jackson State University
Jacksonville University
James Madison University
John Carroll University
Johnson and Wales University
Juniata College
Kansas State University
Kennesaw State University
Kutztown University
Lafayette College
Lake Superior State University
Lamar University
LaSalle University
Lehigh University
LeMoyne College
Lewis University
Lipscomb University
Longwood University
Loras College
Louisiana State University
Loyola Marymount University
Loyola College
Loyola University Chicago
Loyola University Maryland
Loyola University New Orleans
Manhattan College
Marian University
Marist College
Marquette University
Marywood University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Masters College
McMurry University
McNeese State University
Mercy College
Messiah College
Miami University
Michigan State University
Michigan Technological University
Middle Tennessee State University
Middlebury College
Midwestern State University
Millikin University
Millsaps College
Minnesota State Mankato
Minnesota State Moorhead
Minot State university
Mississippi College
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State University for Women
Missouri Southern State university
Molloy College
Monmouth College
Montana State University – Billings
Montana State University – Bozeman
Montclair State University
Moravian College
Morehead State University
Morehouse College
Muhlenberg College
Murray State University
Nazareth College
Nebraska Wesleyan University
New Jersey City University
New Mexico State University
New York University
Niagara University
North Arizona University
North Carolina A&T
North Carolina Central University
North Carolina State University
North Dakota State University
Northeastern University
Northern Illinois University
Northern Kentucky University
Northern Michigan University
Northwest Nazarene University
Northwestern University
Norwich University
Oakland University
Oberlin College
Occidental College
Ohio Northern University
Ohio State University
Ohio University
Ohio Wesleyan University
Old Dominion University
Oregon State University
Ouachita Baptist University
Pace University
Pacific Lutheran University
Penn State – Fayette, The Eberly Campus
Penn State – University Park
Penn State Behrend
Pennsylvania State University
Pepperdine University
Philadelphia University
Pomona College
Portland State University
Princeton University
Providence College
Purdue University
Purdue University – Fort Wayne
Quinnipiac University
Radford University
Rhode Island College
Rice University
Roanoke College
Robert Morris University
Roger Williams University
Rollins College
Rowan University
Rutgers University
Sacred Heart University
Saint Anselm College
Saint Bonaventure University
Saint Cloud State University
Saint John’s University
Saint Joseph’s University
Saint Louis University
Saint Mary’s University
Saint Xavier University
Salisbury University
Samford University
San Diego State University
Santa Clara University
Scripps College
Seattle Pacific
Seattle University
Seton Hall University
Shenandoah University
Shippensburg University
Siena College
Simpson College
Slippery Rock University
Smith College
South Dakota State University
Southeast Missouri State University
Southern Arkansas University
Southern Connecticut State University
Southern Illinois University
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Southern Methodist University
Southern New Hampshire University
Southern University
Southwestern University
Spring Arbor University
St. Bonaventure University
St. John Fisher College
St. Lawrence University
St. Thomas University
Stanford University
State University of New York – Albany
State University of New York – Geneseo
Stephen F Austin State University
Stetson University
Stevens Institute of Tech
Stonehill College
Susquehanna University
Syracuse University
Taylor University
Temple University
Tennessee State University
Tennessee Tech University
Texas A & M University
Texas Christian University
Texas State University
Texas Tech University
Texas Wesleyan University
The Citadel
Thomas College
Towson University
Trevecca Nazarene University
Trinity College
Trinity University
Truman State University
Tufts University
Tulane University
Union University
University of Akron
University of Albany
University of Alabama – Birmingham
University of Alabama – Huntsville
University of Alabama – Tuscaloosa
University of Alaska
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas – Fayetteville
University of California – Berkeley
University of California – Los Angeles
University of Central Florida
University of Central Missouri
University of Chicago
University of Cincinnati
University of Colorado – Boulder
University of Colorado – Colorado Springs
University of Colorado – Denver
University of Connecticut
University of Dallas
University of Dayton
University of Delaware
University of Denver
University of Evansville
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hartford
University of Houston
University of Idaho
University of Illinois
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Louisville
University of Maine
University of Mary
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts Boston
University of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Memphis
University of Michigan
University of Michigan – Dearborn
University of Minnesota
University of Minnesota – Duluth
University of Mississippi
University of Missouri – Columbia
University of Missouri St. Louis
University of Missouri-Kansas City
University of Montana
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
University of Nebraska – Omaha
University of Nebraska Kearney
University of Nevada
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of New Mexico
University of North Alabama
University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina – Charlotte
University of North Carolina – Wilmington
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
University of North Dakota
University of North Florida
University of North Texas
University of Northern Colorado
University of Northern Iowa
University of Notre Dame
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburg
University of Pittsburgh – Katz
University of Portland
University of The Redlands
University of Rhode Island
University of Richmond
University of Rochester
University of Saint Francis
University of San Francisco
University of Sioux Falls
University of South Alabama
University of South Carolina
University of South Carolina Upstate
University of South Dakota
University of South Florida
University of Southern California
University of Southern Indiana
University of Southern Mississippi
University of St. Thomas
University of Tampa
University of Tennessee – Chattanooga
University of Tennessee – Knoxville
University of Tennessee – Martin
University of Texas
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at El Paso
University of The Incarnate Word
University of the Pacific
University of Toledo
University of Tulsa
University of Utah
University of Vermont
University of Virginia – Darden Graduate
University of Virginia – McIntire School
University of Washington
University of West Alabama
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
University of Wisconsin-Platteville
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
University of Wyoming
Utah State University
Utica College
Valdosta State University
Vanderbilt University
Villanova University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Military Institute
Virginia Tech
Wabash College
Walsh College
Wartburg College
Washburn University
Washington and Lee University
Washington College
Washington State University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wayne State University
Wesleyan University
West Liberty University
West Texas A&M University
West Virginia University
Western Carolina University
Western Kentucky University
Western Michigan University
Western New England University
Western Washington University
Westminster College
Whitman College
Whitworth University
Widener University
Willamette University
William Paterson University
Winona State University
Winston-Salem State University
Winthrop University
Wofford College
Wright State University
Xavier University
York College of Pennsylvania
Youngstown State University