Sen Finance Committe Scrutinizing Univ Edowments

[hoya01]

Interesting article on the Senate Finance committee asking why Universities who have seen large endowment growth are not using this money to lower tuition costs.

I wonder if the pressure will cause some Universities (i.e. Harvard or Yale) to do so, and thus others will follow, similar to the early admission dilemma last year. If this happens, it could put Georgetown at yet another disadvantage.

ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0MR9KHhHSbmOvpbqzysTmigEuuAD8S951000

[JohnJacquesLayup]

This may be a very simplistic view, but can't a private institution set tuition at the level it chooses? So long as there are provisions to allow students to attend from all economic backgrounds, where is the problem?

Note: Didn't take time at work to read the linked article, but rather am addressing the topic.

[DFW HOYA]

These senators should be careful what they wish for. Harvard could offer low-cost tuition and basically drain the HS talent out of their state university. The high costs make a state education a realistic option, but if top schools are a bargain, the best kids won't even think about staying home.

[kchoya]

TMQ had some comments on this issue the other week:

Click here for column

"It's wonderful that such great institutions of higher learning are funded so well, with assets that seem to assure their continued existence for centuries. But as Tuesday Morning Quarterback asked last year when Harvard's endowment hit a mere $29 billion, why does anyone pay anything at all to attend this school?

"Conservatively managed investments using low-risk strategies yield 5 to 7 percent per year; federal law requires many types of philanthropies to disburse a minimum of 5 percent per year or lose their tax-exempt status. At 5 percent, the Harvard endowment would throw off $1.7 billion annually. That's $104,000 for each of the 16,715 undergrads and graduate students currently attending the university. Yet according to College Board figures, the average undergrad who lives on campus at Harvard this year will pay $37,900, that being the official price minus average financial aid award. Can Harvard seriously expect us to believe it is spending $144,000 per year per undergraduate? (That's the actual payments from students plus 5 percent of the endowment.) Shifting Harvard's endowment spending from empire-building to reducing tuition -- either lower prices for everyone, or, say, eliminating all costs for students from families that make $200,000 or less -- would be a tremendous progressive step without jeopardizing Harvard's legitimate desire to hold a rich endowment into the indefinite future."

[vcjack]

I once met a member of Princeton's board of trustees at an event and as I was a high school senior at the time (but not considering Princeton) we talked a little about issues facing schools and students. When tuition was brought up she said "if we wanted, we could give every single one of our students a free education" but also clarified that Princeton, Yale, and Harvard were the only schools in America that could afford to do this.

If Congress really wants to make a difference at lowering the barrier costs for higher education, they should look to the state schools first because they are the ones that have the opportunity to effect the most people.

[kchoya]

vcjack said:

I once met a member of Princeton's board of trustees at an event and as I was a high school senior at the time (but not considering Princeton) we talked a little about issues facing schools and students. When tuition was brought up she said "if we wanted, we could give every single one of our students a free education" but also clarified that Princeton, Yale, and Harvard were the only schools in America that could afford to do this.

If Congress really wants to make a difference at lowering the barrier costs for higher education, they should look to the state schools first because they are the ones that have the opportunity to effect the most people.

Yeah, but comparing tuition rates, there's a pretty big gap between the state schools and private schools. Here's what I found for a quick search for the tuition/fees for the 2007-2008 year at some top state and private schools:

UCLA - $7,038
UVA - $8,035 (2006-2007)
UT-Austin - ~$7,600-$10,200

Harvard - $31,456
Yale - $33,800
GU - $36,140

That's a pretty big gap. Clearly $7K to $10K a year is not pocket change for a lot of people, but that's more than a $20K gap between public and private. State schools, especially the top ones, seem to be a pretty good deal.

[DFW HOYA]

The TMQ article is woefully misinformed on endowment fund accounting.

No school is plowing 100% of endowment income into student tuition support--depending on the gift restrictions, it may support faculty (Harvard has 2400 compared to about 700 for Georgetown undergrad), academic centers, dean's offices, facilities, etc., etc.

The real question is not how a private institution is managing its money. The question is why tuition has grown six-fold since 1983 and what the solution is.

[kchoya]

dfw said:

The TMQ article is woefully misinformed on endowment fund accounting.

No school is plowing 100% of endowment income into student tuition support--depending on the gift restrictions, it may support faculty (Harvard has 2400 compared to about 700 for Georgetown undergrad), academic centers, dean's offices, facilities, etc., etc.

The real question is not how a private institution is managing its money. The question is why tuition has grown six-fold since 1983 and what the solution is.

I don't think that was the argument. I think he was trying to say "look how much money just 5% annually would amount to" and compared that to the tuition costs. No one is advocating 100% to defray student costs, but even a small percentage of that could help.