|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Sept 14, 2015 18:19:03 GMT -5
This has been extensively covered in the NYT/WaPo etc. but this Slate article nicely summarizes how the Dept. of Education's new study and website allows families to compare post-enrollment compensation (at 10 year mark) among many colleges across the US. The Hilltop competes very strongly among elite schools at the 25th, 50th and 90th percentiles in compensation (top 5 across all categories)! I'm certainly not arguing that remuneration is the sole criterion of a quality education but apparently the marketplace does value a GU degree as much as it does degrees at the Ivies and other distinguished institutions.... www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/14/ivy_leaguers_in_their_20s_they_make_even_more_money_than_you_thought.html
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Sept 15, 2015 7:16:12 GMT -5
This is a pretty incredible showing by Georgetown, especially because of our relatively weaker science program (read: no engineering and small computer science department) and the fact that
"The Department of Education's dataset is entirely based on students who either borrowed student loans or received Pell grants, meaning they exclude wealthy undergrads whose parents are able to finance their education in cash, of which there are many in place like Cambridge, Massachusetts; New Haven, Connecticut; and Evanston, Illinois. In other words, we're looking at some of the least privileged students at America's top schools."
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Sept 15, 2015 7:48:30 GMT -5
This is a pretty incredible showing by Georgetown, especially because of our relatively weaker science program (read: no engineering and small computer science department) and the fact that "The Department of Education's dataset is entirely based on students who either borrowed student loans or received Pell grants, meaning they exclude wealthy undergrads whose parents are able to finance their education in cash, of which there are many in place like Cambridge, Massachusetts; New Haven, Connecticut; and Evanston, Illinois. In other words, we're looking at some of the least privileged students at America's top schools." Yes, so I'm reading the report as saying, "IF you're going to receive government loans, here are the kind of results that you can expect." It's not a survey of how all of the graduates are doing, but those that receive government loans. Georgetown looks impressive. The one weak spot: if you click on the category of student body, you'll see that our "socio-economic diversity" is not high: Georgetown Dept of Education ReportTo give a comparison, here's the info for Syracuse: Syracuse Dept of Education ReportScroll down to click on "Student Body" and you'll see they have 27% socio-economic diversity. Of course, they also only graduate 81% of those receiving government support. Georgetown graduates 93% in that category (which, I assume, shows the effectiveness of our various commitments to not only recruit such students, but also work to make it possible for them to graduate).
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Sept 15, 2015 9:54:12 GMT -5
I hope that the admissions office is thinking about how to utilize this report. Given how expensive GU is, the demonstration of its value proposition in government data is no joke. Prospective students (and their parents, more importantly) should be directed to the study. I am surprised that campus press hasn't even noticed it. (It also wouldn't hurt if some athletic recruits saw it as well....)
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Sept 15, 2015 10:23:16 GMT -5
How much of that stems from the fact that Georgetown is one of the few Top 25 schools with an undergraduate business school? Obviously, you don't need have a finance degree to get a high paying banking/consulting out of undergrad, but I'm assuming it helps Georgetown send a higher percentage to those type careers than someplace like Vanderbilt that doesn't offer business degrees.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,852
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Sept 15, 2015 11:14:24 GMT -5
How much of that stems from the fact that Georgetown is one of the few Top 25 schools with an undergraduate business school? Obviously, you don't need have a finance degree to get a high paying banking/consulting out of undergrad, but I'm assuming it helps Georgetown send a higher percentage to those type careers than someplace like Vanderbilt that doesn't offer business degrees. I'm sure it offsets some of the hit we must take for not offering engineering.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Sept 15, 2015 12:37:09 GMT -5
but apparently the marketplace does value a GU degree as much as it does degrees at the Ivies and other distinguished institutions.... Is it saying that? Or is it saying that Georgetown disproportionately sends alumni into certain sectors? Here's what the data documentation for the data set is saying :
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 15, 2015 23:21:49 GMT -5
I hope that the admissions office is thinking about how to utilize this report. Given how expensive GU is, the demonstration of its value proposition in government data is no joke. Prospective students (and their parents, more importantly) should be directed to the study. I am surprised that campus press hasn't even noticed it. (It also wouldn't hurt if some athletic recruits saw it as well....) And I hope the Alumni Office is looking at it as well. This certainly debunks one excuse for our alumni participation lagging behind peer institutions (if it does in fact lag; my sense is that it does, but I could be wrong).
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 16, 2015 7:26:29 GMT -5
The admissions office is not going to sell compensation as a plus to attend Georgetown--it doesn't fit the educational message, it's not a differentiator among its peer schools, and if someone is applying to Georgetown for a salary, chances are they're not thinking it through.
Alumni participation in annual fund is not driven by salary, but by positive experiences while in college and a value proposition that a gift, whether $25 or $25,000, has meaning for both donor and recipient.
At present, Georgetown has stronger support in the undergraduate classes in the 2000's and 2010's and the classes of the mid to late 1960's but a demonstrated gap among those who graduated in the 1970's and 1980's. Why? Georgetown didn't invest in students then and the prevailing wisdom was that you didn't reward the Georgetown bureaucracy for four years of red tape and administrative indifference.
Some of the more visible non-donors of that era are those with the most capacity to give. It's not that they can't give, they choose not to, and that's an important distinction that a survey like this is unlikely to change.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 16, 2015 9:31:47 GMT -5
The admissions office is not going to sell compensation as a plus to attend Georgetown--it doesn't fit the educational message, it's not a differentiator among its peer schools, and if someone is applying to Georgetown for a salary, chances are they're not thinking it through. Alumni participation in annual fund is not driven by salary, but by positive experiences while in college and a value proposition that a gift, whether $25 or $25,000, has meaning for both donor and recipient. At present, Georgetown has stronger support in the undergraduate classes in the 2000's and 2010's and the classes of the mid to late 1960's but a demonstrated gap among those who graduated in the 1970's and 1980's. Why? Georgetown didn't invest in students then and the prevailing wisdom was that you didn't reward the Georgetown bureaucracy for four years of red tape and administrative indifference. Some of the more visible non-donors of that era are those with the most capacity to give. It's not that they can't give, they choose not to, and that's an important distinction that a survey like this is unlikely to change. While the monetary value proposition of a Georgetown education is never going to be one of the proactive arguments being made by undergraduate admissions (graduate is, of course, a whole 'nother story), it is nonetheless an important message to have on hand. Students competitive for Georgetown will have myriad state schools throwing full rides, stipends, laptops, honors colleges, etc. at them. They will also be considering peer or near-peer institutions whose financial aid is often equal or superior to that of Georgetown. At a certain point, as great as Cura Personalis and the rest of the Georgetown brand is, cold hard financial realities intrude for many. Being able to argue, with data, that the Georgetown value proposition is sound and a worthwhile investment in one's future is quite powerful. Your point about alumni giving is correct, of course: most people do or don't give based on their undergraduate experience and how they felt they were treated by the University, with a smaller subset donating for purely transaction reasons (season tickets, admissions preference for their kids, etc.). Perceived administration indifference or outright hostility to students is to blame for a lot of the underwhelming alumni donation rates. There are some other factors more specific to Georgetown that are at play as well, including with some of those "visible non-donors...with the most capacity to give." For schools with a religious affiliation, there will always be some who are disinclined to donate because they feel the school does not follow, or has strayed from, what they consider to be the righteous path.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 16, 2015 9:44:35 GMT -5
The admissions office is not going to sell compensation as a plus to attend Georgetown--it doesn't fit the educational message, it's not a differentiator among its peer schools, and if someone is applying to Georgetown for a salary, chances are they're not thinking it through. Alumni participation in annual fund is not driven by salary, but by positive experiences while in college and a value proposition that a gift, whether $25 or $25,000, has meaning for both donor and recipient. At present, Georgetown has stronger support in the undergraduate classes in the 2000's and 2010's and the classes of the mid to late 1960's but a demonstrated gap among those who graduated in the 1970's and 1980's. Why? Georgetown didn't invest in students then and the prevailing wisdom was that you didn't reward the Georgetown bureaucracy for four years of red tape and administrative indifference. Some of the more visible non-donors of that era are those with the most capacity to give. It's not that they can't give, they choose not to, and that's an important distinction that a survey like this is unlikely to change. While the monetary value proposition of a Georgetown education is never going to be one of the proactive arguments being made by undergraduate admissions (graduate is, of course, a whole 'nother story), it is nonetheless an important message to have on hand. Students competitive for Georgetown will have myriad state schools throwing full rides, stipends, laptops, honors colleges, etc. at them. They will also be considering peer or near-peer institutions whose financial aid is often equal or superior to that of Georgetown. At a certain point, as great as Cura Personalis and the rest of the Georgetown brand is, cold hard financial realities intrude for many. Being able to argue, with data, that the Georgetown value proposition is sound and a worthwhile investment in one's future is quite powerful. Your point about alumni giving is correct, of course: most people do or don't give based on their undergraduate experience and how they felt they were treated by the University, with a smaller subset donating for purely transaction reasons (season tickets, admissions preference for their kids, etc.). Perceived administration indifference or outright hostility to students is to blame for a lot of the underwhelming alumni donation rates. There are some other factors more specific to Georgetown that are at play as well, including with some of those "visible non-donors...with the most capacity to give." For schools with a religious affiliation, there will always be some who are disinclined to donate because they feel the school does not follow, or has strayed from, what they consider to be the righteous path. I agree completely. At the risk of generalizing from my nieces and nephews' experiences, kids and parents today are much more attuned to the financial realities of college than were students (and their parents) even 20 years ago. Schools that are (for lack of a better term) one "tier" down from the "best" school a student can get into routinely provide enormous financial inducements for students (regardless of their financial need). And with increasing costs, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of income and wealth, the financial aspect is more stark today than it has been. For the limited young people I know, these sorts of issues were an enormous consideration -- just as much as the traditional factors (size of school; location; academic reputation; etc.). Since parents and students are weighing costs as an enormous factor in where they go to school, I would suggest that not weighing return on investment would be an indication that they aren't thinking things through -- rather than the opposite. There's a reason these sorts of rankings are cropping up all over the place now. It's because there's a demand for the information as an important part of the decision-making process. Do you put it as a headline on your website? Well, no. But it'd be myopic for it not to be a part of the spiel given at college night presentations.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 16, 2015 10:32:41 GMT -5
There are some other factors more specific to Georgetown that are at play as well, including with some of those "visible non-donors...with the most capacity to give." For schools with a religious affiliation, there will always be some who are disinclined to donate because they feel the school does not follow, or has strayed from, what they consider to be the righteous path. After all these years, Georgetown remains tone-deaf on this issue. Answering concerns about the erosion of big-c Catholic values at Georgetown, a valid point of discussion, are not well answered but "Oh, but we have Jesuit values." This is an deflection to these people, some of which could be very, very generous. These are people who are not looking to bring back Mass cards and the Sodality but need a basic level of institutional trust for their gift. Unfortunately, that's not there right now.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 16, 2015 11:40:44 GMT -5
There are some other factors more specific to Georgetown that are at play as well, including with some of those "visible non-donors...with the most capacity to give." For schools with a religious affiliation, there will always be some who are disinclined to donate because they feel the school does not follow, or has strayed from, what they consider to be the righteous path. After all these years, Georgetown remains tone-deaf on this issue. Answering concerns about the erosion of big-c Catholic values at Georgetown, a valid point of discussion, are not well answered but "Oh, but we have Jesuit values." This is an deflection to these people, some of which could be very, very generous. These are people who are not looking to bring back Mass cards and the Sodality but need a basic level of institutional trust for their gift. Unfortunately, that's not there right now. It depends who's doing the talking. Jack and Kevin do it very well; others, who are less culturally steeped in Catholicism, likely do not. That's how it feels to me, anyway - I've never been a Catholic and am not religious. I'm not losing any sleep about it, because I do believe that there is a fundamental contradiction between being a modern, diverse, global institution of higher learning and being an institution whose primary purpose is religious indoctrination and propagation of the faith. For those looking for the latter... well, that train has left the station, but there's always Ave Maria University. Making administrative decisions to try to chase the deep pockets of a handful of conservative old white men is much more likely to backfire and alienate more recent generations of alumni. Doubtless there are some folks in this cohort who could be reached and convinced through better messaging. By I doubt it's a big number; at the end of the day, you can't win 'em all.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 16, 2015 11:55:58 GMT -5
It depends who's doing the talking. Jack and Kevin do it very well; others, who are less culturally steeped in Catholicism, likely do not I'm not losing any sleep about it, because I do believe that there is a fundamental contradiction between being a modern, diverse, global institution of higher learning and being an institution whose primary purpose is religious indoctrination and propagation of the faith. For those looking for the latter... well, that train has left the station, but there's always Ave Maria University. Making administrative decisions to try to chase the deep pockets of a handful of conservative old white men is much more likely to backfire and alienate more recent generations of alumni. Jack DeGioia, Kevin O"Brien, Chris Steck, etc. all understand how to communicate this. Development, um, less so. But for pursposes of this discussion, I would disagree that "religious indoctrination and propagation of the faith" are the drivers here. Donors want surety in their gifts, not a school who changes as the winds do. Notre Dame has been able to make a much stronger case in a statement that, according to its web site, it is "a distinctive voice in higher education that is at once rigorously intellectual, unapologetically moral in orientation, and firmly embracing of a service ethos." That sends a message to donors that it will maintain basic principles in a modern society that is contrary to constancy. However, if you somehow define words like "modern, diverse, global" as somehow "irreligious" or "agnostic", I think we have a problem. And who's to say that lost donor group is old? If you assume that everyone born after Vatican II must be liberal Catholics, again, that may be contrary to demographics.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 16, 2015 12:36:46 GMT -5
Notre Dame faces the same challenges, albeit at a different point along the spectrum (recall the Obama commencement address brouhaha). They certainly have taken a more well-defined stance on their institutional orientation and religiosity. They also have a powerhouse national athletics brand that produces an order of magnitude more benefits to institutional affiliation and unlimited space to expand campus facilities (and therefore naming and pet project opportunities), so the fundraising context is very different. Having said that, Notre Dame loses out on tons of students (and faculty) because of where it has drawn its line.
In any case, I think what works for Notre Dame is perfectly fine for them, and I certainly wouldn't argue that they aren't "modern, diverse, global" or that any of those things are incompatible with a religious affiliation. I can see how what I wrote might be interpreted that way, but that wasn't my point. Rather, it was that the kind of people who withhold donations specifically for that reason - who would subject their alma mater to an ideological or theological purity test before cutting a check - are expecting the institution to be something that is incompatible with where higher education is and is going. Some might be convinced to think otherwise, but most people with that orientation are beyond convincing - Georgetown (or any mainstream university in 2015, Catholic or otherwise) will never be Catholic enough for them.
To put it another way, I think the number of people who wouldn't give money to Georgetown because it's not Catholic enough but would be fine with giving money to Fordham, Villanova, Marquette, Loyola, St. Mary's, etc. is much smaller than many believe.
To extend the point: it's not that everyone born after Vatican II is a liberal Catholic. But they are much less likely to have been cloistered in a parochial environment from cradle to college and expect all of the institutions in which they take part to meet a strict litmus test. I know plenty of conservative Hoyas of my generation who may disagree with various administrative decision, but they recognize that their alma mater is never going to be a perfect manifestation of their worldview. The people who hold that perfectionist perspective tend to be One True Path types who do, yes, skew older.
There is a variant of this on the left as well, but those folks tend not accumulate vast sums that they are willing to consider donating to objectively well-off institutions.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Sept 16, 2015 13:57:04 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I cannot think of a single billionaire (or even $100 millionaire) who went to Georgetown and is withholding money over ideological concerns. They may be out there, but I've never heard of it (and I used to work in development, although that was quite a while ago). I certainly can think of a number of large gifts recently that have come from extremely devout Catholics: giving.georgetown.edu/celebrating-generosity/profiles/rooneyadvancement.georgetown.edu/mcdevitt/Meanwhile, a number of large donors have made gifts indicating a desire to ensure plurality and diversity of the institution: www.washingtonblade.com/2011/10/31/georgetown-university-gay-center-gets-1-million-gift/giving.georgetown.edu/story/doyle-initiativeAt the end of the day, though, you can't please everyone on either side of the ideological spectrum. In terms of the future, when it comes to building a world-class faculty, attracting the best students, and engaging alumni (the majority of whom may be Catholic now but will not be forever, given the shift in student demographics), I have to agree with Russky that this is a no-brainer for the institution.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Sept 17, 2015 9:12:30 GMT -5
Yes, so I'm reading the report as saying, "IF you're going to receive government loans, here are the kind of results that you can expect." It's not a survey of how all of the graduates are doing, but those that receive government loans. Georgetown looks impressive. The one weak spot: if you click on the category of student body, you'll see that our "socio-economic diversity" is not high: Georgetown Dept of Education ReportTo give a comparison, here's the info for Syracuse: Syracuse Dept of Education ReportScroll down to click on "Student Body" and you'll see they have 27% socio-economic diversity. Of course, they also only graduate 81% of those receiving government support. Georgetown graduates 93% in that category (which, I assume, shows the effectiveness of our various commitments to not only recruit such students, but also work to make it possible for them to graduate). I think the NYT's feature on the best colleges for low-income students helps us understand this a bit more. Georgetown does not fare as well under these metrics (based on the share of students who receive Pell grants; the graduation rate of those students; and the price that colleges charge both low- and middle-income students) www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/17/upshot/top-colleges-doing-the-most-for-low-income-students.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&modref=HPGraphicRefer&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 17, 2015 10:24:48 GMT -5
The NYT analysis is helpful, but it's essentially a gauge of "adjusted cost of attendance" for middle income students - it doesn't tell you anything about how those students do during and after college.
To whit: Georgetown is ranked #88 with a "College Access Index" score of 0.95 and middle income students paying $16k on average(per their methodology, any money earned through work-study counts against this average). The top ranking school, UC Irvine, has a score of 1.91, costs $13k on average. If a middle-income student has a choice between paying $16k for Georgetown vs. $13k for Irvine, which one should they take? I would say that the vast majority of the time, Georgetown would be the wiser investment.
There's lots of funky examples that drive home the point that this isn't a particularly meaningful way of scorecarding schools against each other, especially in terms of choosing between them. Moody Bible College is ranked #25, 1 better than Yale, even though it costs #13,000 per year more than Yale for a middle income student. And also is like comparing a tricycle to a Maserati in terms of value offered.
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Sept 17, 2015 10:56:47 GMT -5
Agreed. I thought it was helpful in terms of connecting the "x % of the students receive pell grants" to the salary data.
Also I thought the "middle-income" tuition average was interesting. It's these folks that will be the ones taking loans out, and will be swayed away from Georgetown by full scholarship offers from very good but not as prestigious schools, as well as all state schools. The salary data is what may convince these students to choose Georgetown.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Sept 21, 2015 10:40:28 GMT -5
Planet Money of NPR did some analysis of the new numbers from DoE and Georgetown comes out looking pretty good, ranking No. 7 in "Schools that Make You Money," No. 4 in "Schools that Make Financial Sense" and even No. 17 in "Schools that Emphasize Upward Mobility," alongside a lot of public universities. I don't know how much these numbers prove, but at least we can say Georgetown is holding its own.
|
|