When Will G.W. Students Say No?
Who're you looking at?
The Washington Monthly's College Issue, out for weeks but posted just recently online, features a lengthy attack on George Washington University's "prestige racket": The tactic of charging exorbitant tuition to fund glitzy buildings and other superficial signals of elite-ness, on the theory that ambitious applicants will equate the high sticker price with a better education, or at least a more marketable degree. In doing so, the magazine charges, GWU has abandoned its formerly proud tradition of helping the city's working stiffs on their road to advancement–one of whom, Harry Reid, ended up as the majority leader of the Senate. Now, even though only 40 percent of students pay full tuition and subsidize the many who don't, the average student still graduates from GWU with $31,299 in debt.
This isn't a new thing. Three years ago, when tuition and fees first hit $50,000 per year, City Paper published a cover story asking whether that figure could possibly be justified (the conclusion: almost certainly not). At this point, it seems like the people who should be asking that question are the students themselves–this is a private university, after all, and they're the ones who choose to go there. The Monthly is essentially arguing that GWU has pulled off a gigantic con, but a university is only worth what people are willing to pay for it.
And it's not as if George Washington is the only place to go in D.C. that's less selective than Georgetown where you can still hold down an internship on the Hill. The Harry Reids of today would be better advised to go to the University of the District of Columbia, which didn't exist in its current form in the 1960s. It may not have the GWU's carefully cultivated "cachet", but for all that money, GWU's still not even in the top 50 schools nationwide on U.S. News' list (which they pretend not to care about). If parents want to pay for it, that's up to them.
8:56 am
Don't we see the same story every year when the US News rankings come out and everyone gets sticker shock about how expensive college is?
I remember seeing the same stories, the same outrage, the same predictions of price unsustainability, the same wringing of the hands about college become unaffordable some 15 years ago when GW's tuition was around $20k a year.
Their tuition is now $50k+ and yet it still has a ton of kids who want to go there and a sizeable waiting list.
If the feds cut tuition assistance programs and cut the deductability of student loan interest, I'm sure we'd see a mighty quick drop in college tuition since the taxpayer subsidies would be gone.
9:41 am
High price tag isn't bad. High-performing students all get solid merit scholarships at GWU and similar schools. High-need students generally get the financial aid they need to enroll, in spite of the dwindling federal resources, courtesy of a solid endowment that is well-supported by tuition. So the only kids who are really paying these astronomical tuition bills are the ones who slouched through high school (or college in case of GWU grad students) despite an overly-privileged lifestyle and every resource at their fingertips to succeed academically and professionally. Is redistribution of wealth really such a bad thing, especially when a happy side-effect is a higher prestige value?
9:56 am
There are a couple reasons why students choose to go to GW: a) They're flush enough to afford GW's sticker price, but can't get into a more elite East-coast university; b) they can get into a more elite East-coast university, but can't afford the Ivy sticker price.
GW gives generous merit-based scholarships; most Ivies don't. So if you're a high-achieving student from an only-moderately-flush family, you may not get enough need-based aid to justify the price of a place like Columbia, but you'll certainly get a very healthy merit-based scholarship from GW. Even families that can theoretically afford the sticker price at Columbia (and can get past the admissions process) aren't necessarily interested in trashing all their savings and racking up debt just to get into the inner circle. It's just college.
As for the Harry Reids of the world: You can receive need-based financial aid at GW, too, just like you can at all the Ivies. The average need-based awards at Columbia and GW are pretty similar, but the price tag at both probably still ends up being prohibitively expensive. In other words, a lot of private universities are pulling off a con and not helping poor people enough. When will all those students say no?
10:31 am
Hmm...no discussion of GW's tuition clearly being anti-feminist? Shocking.
10:33 am
Hold on there, Skipper (I just ...had... to). For most remotely successful people, especially in larger cities, the student loan interest deduction is already cut pretty quickly after graduation. Beginning to phase out at just over $60,000 and cutting off completely around $75,000 income (double for a married couple) means that the "student loan interest deduction" is just another marketing ploy by government-subsidized lenders to make a mint off of financing increasingly expensive and increasingly necessary (maybe not the skill set, but the piece of paper) college degrees. Just 4 years out of grad school and I can't think of a single one of my friends who can claim the deduction. Isn't that what a college education is supposed to get us, a better-paying job? Not to mention that the "full deduction" is only worth a maximum of $625 a year (you're only allowed to deduct $2500 in interest max, which bears no resemblance to the amount of interest I and my friends actually pay in a year), which is barely one student loan payment for most people I know.
So I guess my point is that it's all marketing designed to get students into debt, and superficial moves like cutting tuition assistance programs (which most middle-class kids don't qualify for) and student loan interest deductions (ditto) aren't going to change that. Lenders will just switch gears to focus on their argument that a college degree pays for itself several times over over your lifetime (money which they will gladly take off your hands in interest).
But I *DO* know people who have had to change their plans because of recent increases in tuition. Changes ranging from going to a community college for a few years to not going to school at all. While GW's tuition is shocking, recent increases in state-school tuition should be the focus of our analysis. The school I went to now costs more than twice what it did when I started there, just over 10 years ago. Does anyone else remember 100+% inflation since 1999? And that doesn't even include the increased (mandatory) fees for a new rec center, student union, and renovated-to-luxury-standards dorms. Where does the desire to do these things come from? A desire to keep up with the Jones, like GW. And it hasn't stopped since the recession has kicked in, leaving more and more students without the option of a college education, especially since, unlike GW, way more than 40% of state-school students pay full tuition.
11:03 am
P.S. Let's just acknowledge the elephant in the room and turn this discussion ever so slightly: GWU is DC's "public" university and UDC is DC's "community college"/community college. So the real question is WHEN WILL THE FEDS FINALLY GET ON THE BUS, CREATE SOME KIND OF QUASI PUBLIC-PRIVATE STATUS FOR GWU AKIN TO PENN's ARRANGEMENT, AND HELP LESS-FORTUNATE DC KIDS GO TO A REAL COLLEGE IN THEIR HOME "STATE"? DC TAG is a great thing, but the assumption that kids can "just go anywhere" is misguided and misleading. Too many low-income kids from local public schools give out-of-state schools a shot, only to return home because (A) their families are struggling to keep themselves afloat without big bro/sis looking after the youngins and/or working part time and (B) out of state schools have a secret habit of treating DC TAG situations like financial aid, which means the kids are drowning in loans while their peers who are actual residents of Wisconsin or Penn State etc. are getting in-state tuition PLUS financial aid grants.
So here's my dick-of-the-week suggestion: GWU, raise tuition to $65k, get yourself on that first-tier, top 30 list for U.S. News and use that cash boost to give your local kids a much needed "in-state" tuition experience.
5:05 pm
I went to GW 20 years ago. It was enormously expensive then, but my family only paid about $1000 a semester in tuition due to grants. I don't have the figure, but I seem to remember that a majority of students didn't pay full sticker price.
Also, college rankings like US News are bogus. They are based on opinions, not qualitative analysis.
5:54 pm
What about other private universities? GW students go there because it is the best school for them, price tag or not.
I'm surprised to read the article with such a bias voice, seeing as many of your readers are hard-working GW students and alumni.
10:45 pm
Mrs D, a lot of things have doubled or tripled since 1999 - public transit, housing (rent and purchases), gas, utilities etc etc.
1:14 pm
Completely untrue, landlord. Over my time in college my rent did not double (it went up about 10% over those 6 years), which is typical of towns with more stable populations and housing stock. Outside of the boom areas, most people have seen their housing values rise only slightly in the last 10 years. In my hometown, people's homes typically increased in value 10-20% at the peak of the boom, not double or triple. The only reason rent and housing has gone up so dramatically in the District is development and population growth, and accounting for simply the increase in the quality of the housing will put the true increase at less than 100%.
Public transit in the town I went to college in costs the same today as it did in 1999, and even in DC, it's not double the cost. Metro rail fares went up to a base of $1 in 1991, and aren't double that yet.
Gas is a terrible example for inflationary purposes, as only sustained changes in gas prices without any corresponding conservation will lead to equal inflationary pressures (now there's that econ degree). And it's a volatile, publicly-traded commodity.
I certainly don't pay twice as much for groceries, cars, movie tickets, refrigerators (remember, you have to talk about the same model), or water. Even my electric bill hasn't DOUBLED in that time (http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apwb.htm , nationwide electricity rates are up about 12% since 2005).
Here's the facts: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/
We're at around 100% inflation from 1985 until today, and a smidge under 30% inflation since 1999. And that's just for urban consumers...the rest of the country is probably lower. Again, why is college 110% more expensive? (yes, I know it's budget cuts, but students and parents should be screaming bloody murder about this completely wacked-out increase, which is totally out of line with rises in other costs and wages)
1:09 am
The author of this blog is biased. Why pick on GW only? The price tags at American, Catholic, Marymount, Georgetown and on most campuses across the country is seemingly exorbitant. That's the state of higher ed today in 2010. I don't get her question about when GW students will say no. Say no to what? They can go to American or NYU or Columbia and face the same issues she describes. There's nothing for GW students to answer. A silly premise that's larger than one university this author obviously doesn't like.
10:21 am
GW guarantees no increase in tuition for four years over the first year's cost for each undergraduate; it's the only one I've heard of that does.
10:08 am
Actually at GWU, tuition is guaranteed for up to 5 years. There are only 9 schools in the country that do this in addition to state schools in Illinois. So I know what my daughters tuition will be in her Senior year. Another not so publicized fact is GWU ranks near the top of the list in aid given. I am sending my daughter there for about the cost of a state school.