boxout05
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 573
|
Post by boxout05 on Aug 18, 2020 19:15:58 GMT -5
Golden Doh!mers?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,143
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 19, 2020 9:24:57 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 19, 2020 20:30:18 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,803
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 20, 2020 14:48:26 GMT -5
Syracuse shocked that water is wet:
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Aug 21, 2020 13:42:36 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,803
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 22, 2020 14:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 22, 2020 16:06:26 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,143
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 23, 2020 14:57:43 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,143
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 26, 2020 12:47:12 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 27, 2020 17:29:47 GMT -5
The GW story is interesting on many levels, from those shocked, ("shocked!") that GW isn't what it once was, to that long standing tradition of faculty entitlement that it is unmoved when reality gets in the way. But it raises a point that Georgetown would do well to ask, even if they would never say publicly: when is a university overextending itself?
George Washington boasts 87 undergraduate majors and 200 at the graduate school level. How many of them are necessary or essential to the core of the University? Putting aside the cultural studies and departments that are beyond contemporary reproach, I'm sure that GW president Thomas LeBlanc looks at majors like exercise science, interior architecture, and photography and wonder how his school can best be prepared for a world where private schools cast a wide net to be very good but are not truly great at anything. He also sees the fact that GW is in the bullseye of schools looking to slice off its best students. Why are NYU and Johns Hopkins developing Washington campuses? It's not to do battle with SFS, it's a shot across the bow at the Elliott School at GW and American's School of International Service.
Stephen Trachtenberg set his sights on a battle with Georgetown in the 1990's and fell short. So what is its future? GW is the largest land owner in the District and has added various properties ranging from the long lamented Mt. Vernon College to a 120 acre science campus in Ashburn, to satellite campuses/office space in Arlington, Alexandria, and the Tidewater. Those all cost money, and GW is highly tuition dependent, and that affects discussions on enrollment. His plan to reduce enrollment and refocus on STEM makes sense given how Amazon and Virginia Tech are about to reshape local higher ed makes sense strategically, but this article reads that faculty will have none of that, to no surprise.
So...how does Georgetown reshape itself in a world of higher education where pricing is no longer inelastic and on-campus learning is no longer a requirement? And can it change? These "Red House" initiatives sound great inside the ivory tower but have little or no impact outside it.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 28, 2020 0:21:59 GMT -5
Maybe Gtwn can get some real estate on the cheap from GW?
Strategic shift for Gtwn--don't expect anything til Jack D retires. After that would think there are a number of potential directions: much more significant JV's with more stem focused partners especially on grad levels, cutting marginal programs-especially grad diploma mills, key strategic investments(maybe neuroscience, some branch of AI?) Hard to say re sports, maybe fewer but more elite programs--all total speculation on my part.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 28, 2020 8:44:48 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,143
|
Post by SSHoya on Aug 29, 2020 16:16:33 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 30, 2020 11:41:05 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 31,997
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 30, 2020 11:43:11 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,803
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 30, 2020 18:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,803
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 30, 2020 19:34:52 GMT -5
There is, as they say, a lot to unpack here. First, important context: President LeBlanc's pre-Covid plan to shrink GW's undergraduate enrollment by 20%:It's worth noting here that GW's 2018-2019 Financial Report lists net student tuition and fees as making up 50% of revenue. At Georgetown, that number is 60%. I don't believe GW to be any more tuition dependent than the average private school - if anything, I think it is less so. After all, historically it has had the reputation of being 'a real estate investment firm masquerading as a university' and generating major landlord revenues that only continue to grow. What I perceived in LeBlanc's plan was an echo of Trachtenberg's maneuver all those years ago to burnish GW's brand by jacking up tuition, reasoning (correctly, it turned out) that a luxury price tag would make people perceive it to be a luxury good. In the business of quality indeed. Of course... Methinks the good President protests too much. Anyway But it raises a point that Georgetown would do well to ask, even if they would never say publicly: when is a university overextending itself? George Washington boasts 87 undergraduate majors and 200 at the graduate school level. How many of them are necessary or essential to the core of the University? Putting aside the cultural studies and departments that are beyond contemporary reproach, I'm sure that GW president Thomas LeBlanc looks at majors like exercise science, interior architecture, and photography and wonder how his school can best be prepared for a world where private schools cast a wide net to be very good but are not truly great at anything. No program exists for no reason. Some are surely around purely due to tradition or as an institutional prestige project or other situations where they may be considered a loss leader for some other priority... but the majority, most especially on the graduate side, exist because there is evidence of demand. Most graduate programs, especially ones with less of an ivory tower sheen like the exercise science, architecture, and photography ones you mentioned, don't last long if they're not bringing in enough revenue to at least cover the bulk of their expenses. Some are out and out cash cows. Their purpose is not to be "truly great" or to be "essential to the core of the University" (colleges are loathe to describe any program as not core to the mission - cuts and restructurings are done in somber tones, as compared to the endless expansions and contractions in the private sector. Making computers was essential to IBM's core... until it wasn't). This is all without going down the rabbit hole of how one can or should even define 'greatness.' In terms of societal value add, there's a compelling case that the UMBCs and Northern Virginia Community Colleges of the world do way more good than the elite schools that are chock full of elite students from elite families whose primary goal is perpetuating their eliteness. He also sees the fact that GW is in the bullseye of schools looking to slice off its best students. Why are NYU and Johns Hopkins developing Washington campuses? It's not to do battle with SFS, it's a shot across the bow at the Elliott School at GW and American's School of International Service. Nah. Johns Hopkins SAIS was already in DC and considers itself the SFS's peer or superior at the graduate level, and there are tons of other schools with a presence in DC. Arizona State just opened up a center down the street from my company's office; that is just a few blocks away from Pepperdine's facility. Syracuse is leaving their space by the Duke Ellington Bridge, but they'll surely stick around. The University of California has a center here. I know someone who went to Allegheny College and spent a semester living in an AU dorm, studying 'non-abroad' in the nation's capital. Etc. Etc. What all of these schools are doing is not seeking to compete with dedicated schools of international relations, of which there are not that many and demand is understood to be fairly limited. Instead, they are looking to capitalize on the draw of Washington DC itself. The appeal extends to many more than just those who want to study IR or something similarly international in flavor. Stephen Trachtenberg set his sights on a battle with Georgetown in the 1990's and fell short. So what is its future? GW is the largest land owner in the District and has added various properties ranging from the long lamented Mt. Vernon College to a 120 acre science campus in Ashburn, to satellite campuses/office space in Arlington, Alexandria, and the Tidewater. Those all cost money, and GW is highly tuition dependent, and that affects discussions on enrollment. Again, they can't be in such dire straits if LeBlanc was looking to slash undergraduate enrollment by 20%. Besides, the major cost driver is not facilities (makes a big difference when you don't pay property tax!) but labor. His plan to reduce enrollment and refocus on STEM makes sense given how Amazon and Virginia Tech are about to reshape local higher ed makes sense strategically, but this article reads that faculty will have none of that, to no surprise. So...how does Georgetown reshape itself in a world of higher education where pricing is no longer inelastic and on-campus learning is no longer a requirement? And can it change? These "Red House" initiatives sound great inside the ivory tower but have little or no impact outside it. I would say many of the initiatives and investments first incubated at the Red House have proven prescient in the time of Covid, seeing as many of them emphasized non-traditional forms of programming and interaction that can be more readily replicated through remote means. Anyway, both price elasticity and demand for on-campus learning are not at all uniform across the "world of higher education." People go to elite schools like Georgetown because it's an incredibly stimulating and enjoyable place for many at which to make the transition from adolescence into adulthood. Spending those four years at your parents' kitchen table or in an apartment far less likely to be in a picturesque setting than a dorm is not a particularly attractive substitute good.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 30, 2020 20:09:49 GMT -5
Anyway, both price elasticity and demand for on-campus learning are not at all uniform across the "world of higher education." People go to elite schools like Georgetown because it's an incredibly stimulating and enjoyable place for many at which to make the transition from adolescence into adulthood. Spending those four years at your parents' kitchen table or in an apartment far less likely to be in a picturesque setting than a dorm is not a particularly attractive substitute good. OK..but what if there was a case for a three year degree program? If you want to shake things up, that's a good place to start.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,650
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Aug 30, 2020 20:28:59 GMT -5
Nothing like spending your freshman year of college at home with your high school buddies. My friend’s son is a freshman at Stanford. Kids are moving in together in apartments near campus in what they refer to as “pods.” They remote learn, but get a bit of a feel of being away from home and meeting other freshman. The kids are finding each other via social media. A perk for the privileged, perhaps.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,803
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 1, 2020 22:41:35 GMT -5
Anyway, both price elasticity and demand for on-campus learning are not at all uniform across the "world of higher education." People go to elite schools like Georgetown because it's an incredibly stimulating and enjoyable place for many at which to make the transition from adolescence into adulthood. Spending those four years at your parents' kitchen table or in an apartment far less likely to be in a picturesque setting than a dorm is not a particularly attractive substitute good. OK..but what if there was a case for a three year degree program? If you want to shake things up, that's a good place to start. Nothing like spending your freshman year of college at home with your high school buddies. My friend’s son is a freshman at Stanford. Kids are moving in together in apartments near campus in what they refer to as “pods.” They remote learn, but get a bit of a feel of being away from home and meeting other freshman. The kids are finding each other via social media. A perk for the privileged, perhaps. I *love* the juxtaposition of these two posts. There is absolutely a case to be made for a three-year degree...and a two-year degree... and a one-year degree... and no college degree at all. The point isn't that traditional four-year degrees are necessary - that's not why people pursue them. They pursue them because they are fun. It's like high school, only with independence and freedom and the most fun kinds of drugs (dopamine and adrenaline very much included). Sure it's expensive as hell, but people are pretty bad at long-term costs as it is.
|
|