Board of Trustees Get it Right With Tuition Increase

Unlike my last post which was critical of University policy, I am going to give credit where credit is due. The Hatchet reported that the Board of Trustees voted to increase tuition by 3% on Friday. While just about everyone complains about the enormous price tag to attend this University, it's important to know that University officials are taking steps to address these concerns. According to the Hatchet article, the increase was significantly below the national average (4.3%) for private institutions for the second year in a row. Kudos to President Knapp for delivering on what he promised to make one of his top issues.

We are however continuously branded wit the title of "one of the most expensive schools in the country." We did drop to third most expensive last year, but what most people don't know it that there are nearly 60 schools that also have a price tag of $50,000 or more. In other words, as we continue to raise tuition at a rate much lower than the national average, we could plummet down that dreaded list. On the flip side, and often an ignored point in the price tag argument, is that the University continues to be at the top of list in regards to financial aid. Nearly two is three students at GW receive some form of financial aid.

The thing that most people here don't know is what drives the price of the University up. If you ask anyone why they chose GW, one of the top answers will probably be the location. Well, that location comes with a price. Real estate in Foggy Bottom is some of the most expensive in the country. GW's price tag would be considerably lower if we were in the middle of say...Idaho. But then again, I suspect enrollment numbers might be a lot lower... With all that though, I think it's great that GW is taking progressive measures to address the affordability issue.

Asking Me for Money isn't the Solution

With the doom and gloom of the economy dominating the headlines, many universities are finding ways to help their students afford school.

However, in true GW fashion, instead of cutting costs, the University is attempting to ask students to give more money.

As previously mentioned in this blog, some student leaders are working to implement a mandatory $25 fee that would be used to improve library services on campus.

At the most recent SA Senate meting it was reported that some members of the GW community are working on implementing George’s Green Gift, an additional voluntary gift that would go towards GWU’s green initiatives. Similar to a UC Berkeley program, the money from George’s Green Gift would be controlled by the Office of Sustainability.

I e-mailed Cory Antonakos, SA Director of Green Initiatives, for some more clarification:

This initiative is for a voluntary gift that would not be required by anybody. The purpose of putting it onto the tuition bill is to make all students and parents aware of the opportunity that they would have to donate money toward green initiatives at GW. Because this is not part of the Student Association fee and is not a required addition to tuition, George's Green Gift would not be put to a referendum. Right now, we are in the final stages of writing a concept paper and a letter to President Knapp about the green gift. We are also collecting student signatures for a petition in support of the green gift.

When asked about whether the state of the economy would affect receptiveness to George's Green Gift, Antonakos went on to state:

I think that the student body supports green initiatives and would like to see GW implement some more significant green projects. I think that the students would be receptive to the opportunity to donate money toward sustainability projects on campus. I have already spoken to many students who are supportive of George's Green Gift.

Like many GW students I’m a fan of both sustainability and improving Gelman. But, asking students to fork over extra cash isn’t the solution. There are a variety of useless projects and initiatives (inaugural float anyone?) the University has undertaken this year

The economy is in bad shape, and with many universities reorganizing and trimming budgets, it’s time for GW to follow suit. Instead of asking students to chip-in extra money, GW needs to look at its own budget, and figure out its priorities.

Want GW to be more fiscally responsible? Join the facebook group.

Victory! GW No Longer Most Expensive School in Country

We've all dreamed of the day that GW would no longer be the most expensive school in the nation. GW has finally been outpaced in the overpriced tuition race by Sarah Lawrence College. Based on total cost (tuition + room and board), GW is a downright bargain at $50,312 compared to Sarah Lawrence's $53,166.

Forty years later, it looks like the cost of adding men's bathrooms to the campus has finally caught up to Sarah Lawrence (yuk, yuk).

[via Consumerist]

Is the Economy affecting College affordability?

Unless you've been living in a cave or under a rock for the past few months, you've probably realized that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, most notably with mortgages but also with credit and the stock market.  While I am aware of the economic crisis, I haven't noticed my lifestyle change all that much in the past 6-8 months.  But, as a recent college graduate and soon to be graduate student (hopefully), my major expense is my student loans, and this made me wonder if the current economic crisis is really affecting college affordability.  I mean, gas and groceries cost more these days, but does college?  

A quick search of the New York Times website led me to an article in from March 15.  The article covered Secretary Margaret Spellings' testimony to the House Committee on Education and and Labor.  In her testimony, Secretary Spellings assure the Congress that the Department of Education would be ready to meet the demand for student loans if banks and private lenders should find themselves unable:

"Federal student aid will continue to be available,” said SecretaryMargaret Spellings, testifying before the House Committee on Education and Labor. Although a “small number” of lenders have stopped making loans in the federally guaranteed program, she continued, “other lenders have stepped in to meet student needs.”

Facing tough questions, at times, from lawmakers, Ms. Spellings said the Education Department was monitoring market conditions and collecting information from colleges to find out whether their students had been unable to borrow. She said that, if necessary, the direct-loan program, through which students borrow directly from the government, could double the amount of new loans to student borrowers.

While Ms. Spellings did assure Congress that loans would be available, the one thing the Bush administration has taught me is that I should never believe anything a Bush appointee says.  Really, I question everything the administration says or does.  So of course, I wonder how ready the Treasury Department and the Department of Education is to really handle the imminent lending crisis. 

On the positive side, however, we here at GW shouldn't have to worry too much about it.  According to a recent Kiplinger's Personal Finance study, GW is ranked among the top 50 best values in Private College.   

Regarding GW's cost, the editors write, "Financial aid for students who qualify either for need-based or merit assistance brings the cost to a much more doable $32,000." GW will provide $118 million in institutional financial assistance for undergraduates in 2008-2009.

Interestingly, the article did not note how many students pay only 32,000 a year for a school who made last year's City Paper as the most expensive university in the country. Hopefully for those students paying the full $50,630, Secretary Spellings was correct about the readiness of the government to help. 

"Wealth Gap" an understatement

A recent NYTimes article points out the growing gap between the endowments of American universities.

A quote that captures the ridiculousness of Harvard's $35 billion endowment:

"But Harvard could buy and sell a number of small countries around the globe," he said. "It could pay the tuition of all its undergraduates, and its endowment would still grow."

Harvard and a bunch of other Ivy leagues recently announced they were eliminating tuition for students whose parents make under a certain amount of money.

It was a big deal last year when GW's endowment surpasses $1 billion.

But that article points out that GW's student-to-endowment ratio is embarrassingly small: $75,000 per student at GW vs $200... ahem... million, per student at Princeton.

President Knapp acknowledged at a recent forum that GW is in a catch-22: the university can't take money out of its endowment for financial aid because it is too small, so it must increase tuition... creating the need for more financial aid, creating the need to raise tuition more...

And it's any wonder we're the most expensive university in the country/world.

I would like GW to say in more detail how it plans to increase the endowment, since it seems like that is the only way it can't stop increasing tuition.

The Cost of Monitoring Students

National Security is no longer the current thought on everyone's mind. The crazy September 11th rhetoric has died down and made way to concerns such as the economy, immigration, and health care. America has realized that terrorism is not the only problem we face.

However, a recent Hatchet article reminded me that those few years of obsessing over national security will linger with us for years to come. Reporting on President Knapp's attempts to justify GW's price, the Hatchet writes:

In addition to high costs of operation coupled with a relatively small endowment, Knapp said rising energy bills and unfunded federal mandates have significantly contributed to high prices at GW. Many of these mandates were passed after Sept. 11 and require the school to monitor foreign student academic progress and report suspicious activity.

The government began to monitor foreign students in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The 2001 PARIOT Act and 2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act expanded these measures to include monitoring of student academic progress, changes in major, disciplinary action, etc. Foreign students now have to pay a $1oo fee to help fund the monitoring, but a lot of the burden falls on the university, which passes the costs of monitoring students onto the rest of us.

Knowing who is in the country is always a plus, but security measures come at a cost. Careful monitoring of foreign students, who are not the actual threat, doesn't make sense from a cost benefit analysis, particularly if the costs are on my exorbitant tuition bill.

So it hasn't been your day, your week, your month...

This week must've been a busy one for GW's PR department.

First came the news that after being named the most expensive undergraduate university in the country, GW is being used as an example by Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, to show how the cost of college has skyrocketed.

Then, news from the Hatchet that only after months of shocked parents and prospective students witnessing beer bottles and passed out coeds on their Thurston Hall tours is the dorm - arguably one of the most infamous in the country - no longer being used to show prospective students what college dorm life is like.

Also from this week's Hatchet is an opinion piece from senior editor David Ceaser on the downturn that J Street has taken over the past five years.

And if all that bad news wasn't enough, the men's basketball team is at the bottom of the Atlantic 10.

On the bright side, no one put up any anti-Muslim posters this week or drew swastikas on their door in a twisted attempt to elicit sympathy from the GW community. And, the women's basketball team is ranked 14th and 13th in the latest AP poll and ESPN women's basketball polls.

Okay, let's make college more affordable!

According to the GW Hatchet, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is proposing legislation that would require more endowment profits from Universities be put toward financial aid. Basically, Senator Grassley would like to mandate that Universities take profits and rather than build new residence halls or raise salaries, the universities put money toward financial aid. In the case of GWU, it would mean that out of their $46 million endowment profit, they would have to give $2.3 million (according to the Hatchet, GWU gave $2 million to financial aid).

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, has requested endowment data from 136 colleges, including GW, as he prepares for possible legislation to mandate increased financial aid spending at private institutions. Representatives from Grassley's office said they are particularly concerned about into their large tax-free endowments and help make college more affordable for where endowment money is allocated each year for schools with a bankroll of more than $1 billion.

I'm glad that the Senator is trying to help students. The average BA costs $19,000, but there are many students who pay much less and much more.  There are also many students whose parents foot the bill (Senator Grassley is one such parent for his five children).  However, if Senator Grassley (or any other Senator for that matter) wanted to help students lower the cost of college, he would not require that Universities use their own internal profits to pay for financial aid. 

Part of the rising tuition at most universities is to cover the yearly operating costs of the university (everything from paying staff and faculty to making sure students have cable in the their rooms).  If the Senator requires that universities funnel more money into financial aid, that means less tuition income and less operating budget for the university, which ultimately means higher tuition for students not receiving full financial aid. 

I'm all for making college more affordable and giving every single young person in America the opportunity for college.  But if a senator is going to try to tackle the problem, then he should get serious about funding education, not just telling private universities what they must do with their private income. 

Unforeseen consequences of tuition hikes

The number of early-decision applicants to GW is down, and it's not hard to guess why. For as long as I've been at school here, we've been one of the most expensive universities in the U.S. Who'd make their first choice one that would impoverish them? But now we are, according to Forbes, the most expensive university in the world. Says Forbes:

Those costs reflect a trend among private American universities--charge a stratospheric tuition fee, then offer a generous financial aid package. A GW official says the university provides the most need-based aid in the country, according to national rankings. For this year’s freshman class, that package was an average of $23,466. Next month, the school’s new president is expected to announce a plan for improving affordability at GW.

Well, the news about Knapp announcing an affordability plan is nice (though I'll withhold judgment until I see it), but does anyone really get that much in aid from GW? I'm guessing most of you, like me, had to fight tooth and nail to get any money from GW at all. And what's in these aid packages -- straight-up scholarships, or loans with ridiculous rates? No wonder we don't want to pay more on the Metro. We're already being drained by one gargantuan bureaucracy (two if you count J Street).

But that's not the worst part. If we are, indeed, the most expensive university in the country, that makes us by default the most expensive university in the universe (seeing as Death Star University doesn't exist quite yet). If aliens discovered Earth right this minute, and decided that instead of zapping us to smithereens they wanted to get the best education money could buy, they'd be sent straight to GW. And let's be honest here: how long do you think it'd take before they decided our little planet just wasn't worth it? How many classes would have to they fall asleep in? How many miniskirted-and-Ugged girls would have to cut them in line at Starbucks? How long would they stay on hold with 4-RIDE when they just wanted to go back to their dorm (or spaceship, as the case may be)? Not to mention the arguments they'd get into over the spotty wireless network on campus.

If there's intelligent life somewhere out in the universe, we'd better hope it finds us after GW is a little more affordable. Otherwise, forget graduating on the ellipse -- we'll be lucky to graduate at all.