3 Percent Tuition Rise Approved
Georgetown University’s undergraduate tuition will rise by 3 percent for the 2010-2011 academic year as the budget for undergraduate financial aid will increase by 8 percent, according to a university press release published yesterday.
“An increase was necessary in order to fund the rising operating costs of maintaining our facilities, supporting our faculty and enhancing our academic programs and services,” Andy Pino, director of media relations, said. “This increase is among the smallest percentile tuition increases of the last 40 years.”
The increase approved by the Board of Directors last year for the 2009-2010 academic year was 2.9 percent, which was the smallest percentile increase since 1973.
Current tuition for undergraduate students is $38,616, an amount that will increase to $39,768 next fall. The total cost to attend Georgetown as an undergraduate, including the average cost of room and board, which is set to increase by 2 percent under the new measures, will be $52,443.
“We understand that the lagging economy is having a real impact on our students and their families,” said University Provost James O’Donnell in the press release.
He added, “We expect the need for financial aid will continue to grow, and we are prepared to help.”
According to Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Charles Deacon, this increase does not cause any concern for his office. Georgetown admits applicants based on a need-blind policy.
In November 2009, Forbes listed Georgetown’s cost of attendance as the second most expensive in the country. Sarah Lawrence College was listed as the most expensive, with total cost at $55,788 a year.
“I think that a 3 percent [increase] is significant because we were already ranked number two in the list of most expensive colleges,” Ruiyong Chen (SFS ’13) said.
Graduate program tuition will also increase, according to the press release.
Some students said they believe that as long as the funds are used effectively, the tuition hike is permissible.
“If the increase is because of an increased demand for financial aid, then it’s understandable,” Ben Mishkin (SFS ’13) said. “The school should be committed to financial aid. As long as the increase is commensurate with other peer institutions, then it shouldn’t have an effect on the applications and admissions field.”
Read the original Saxaspeak post here.
Note: This article was modified at 3:58 p.m. on March 4.
Mar 02 2010 at 12:16 p.m.
Fantastic. A school that is already ranked as the 3rd most expensive in the United States />continues to raise its tuition even as the economy remains in the tank.
(See: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/10/1029_college_costs/4.htm)
It's no secret that these tuition hikes are a result of the irresponsible fiscal management of the University (see: The Hospital Debacle in the early 00s) and the lagging (relative to its peers) endowment.
The question is why do we continue to put up with it? Why continue to attend / apply to a University that charges more than its peers while simultaneously offering less in the way of financial aid? Places like Notre Dame, NYU, Columbia, UChicago, Northwestern, Tufts, Brown, Cornell etc. look better and better as Gtown keeps on jacking up their tuition.
(This is to say nothing of the fact that, as usual, the families who will bear the brunt of this will be the typical suspects: upper-middle class professionals who don't qualify for much if any financial aid and who must just grin and nod 'yes sir' as they carry the weight of the university's financial disrepair on their backs)
Mar 02 2010 at 9:10 p.m.
Funny you should mention Notre Dame when claiming Georgetown charges more and offers less for financial aid. I recently graduated from Georgetown and my brother started college the next fall. Our family's financial circumstances were pretty much exactly the same between the time frame used to apply for Georgetown financial aid for my senior year and the time frame used to apply for financial Notre Dame for the next year for my younger brother.
Now, the expected family contribution is the number that the college expects your family to pay after financial aid. So if a school cost $1000 more, but gave out $1000 more financial aid to make up for it, the expected family contribution would be the same. So if what you were saying were correct, we would have had a higher EFC at Georgetown. Notre Dame expected $13,000 and change per year more from us than Georgetown did, which if you care to do the math is $52,000 and change more by graduation - a full year of tuition and expenses if you were to pay sticker price.
I know there are lots of reasons why our endowment is smaller, primarily because we started building it up later. But I'd say Georgetown's putting its money to good use by placing it with the students.
If you want to look at supposed financial disrepair, Georgetown was one of the only places that would have the restraint to briefly suspend construction on a new building, halting construction on the new science center for a bit over a year in the wake of the recession, later resuming after the receipt of a grant from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology.
As for "The Hospital Debacle in the early 00s" to which you refer? In 2000 Georgetown saved itself a great deal of money by entering into a partnership with MedStar, cutting off a loss in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
I'm not going to toss out any guesses about the origins of the jealousy towards Georgetown you seem to be displaying and whether you'd have gotten in even in your time, let alone among today's much tougher standards, but if you're going to disparage GU, make sure you have your facts straight.
Mar 02 2010 at 11:41 p.m.
1. Your evidence is anecdotal. The bottom line is that financial aid is a function of endowment strength, and Georgetown's endowment strength continues to lag relative to its peers.
2. Georgetown only extricated itself from the Hospital Debacle / Medstar Partnership mess after almost a decade of absorbing downside losses. It was basically an acknowledged fact at the time (peruse some old financial statements and hoya articles--they are still floating around the website and the web) that the Main Campus & Professional Schools were being used to subsidize the massive losses flowing from the Hospital. That legacy of poor fiscal management continues to haunt the University.
3. The fact that construction had to be halted speaks to the fiscal weakness of the school, not its strength. The grant is a great thing. But here's the reality check: people have been calling for a unified science center for 15 years. It's a laughing matter that the science programs are housed in the mid-20th century Reiss and White-Gravenor (a.k.a. 'chem labs next to english classes'). Many of the school's supposed peers DID NOT substantially halt construction programs during the crisis. Particularly much needed ones. (Yes, some did, e.g., Harvard. But most did not).
4. It's good that you're not going to 'toss out guesses' about me, because you'd be wrong both regarding my 'time' and my school affiliation. But thanks for the ad hominem (albeit subtly veiled ad hominem--nice) attack.
5. The bottom line is that Geogetown has been and, based on these hikes, will remain one of the most expensive universities in the United States of America. At a time when the economy is in a state of disrepair--particularly amongst regular consumers who are being affected by the 10% unemployment rate--the school continues to raise tuition rates.
It has done the same thing with its study-abroad programs--only a few years ago, they were being set on the basis of the home country fees. Now, they're moving toward a universalized 'Georgetown' rate.
Understand what Georgetown is doing: it is using its undergraduate and graduate population to keep itself afloat, in a way that is untoward and unjustified.
My point in naming many of the peer schools is that the whole situation makes you start wondering: is it really worth this much? Georgetown is not ranked #1 (or even #20) in the nation. There are many other schools out there which offer similar (I'll keep it at that--I'll avoid saying 'superior' to stay neutral) educational/recreational/cultural experiences while not routinely making it in the top 5 spot on the 'most expensive school in the nation' list.
Mar 03 2010 at 12:35 p.m.
The brutal real world fact is that the more expensive tuition is, and the less finanical aid there is, creates a better Alumni pool for networking. You have basically more rich people, who can afford/ are more likely to go on to better things like law school, med. school, architecture, business, etc. These professional degrees don't dole out financial aid anywhere near what undergrad instituions give.
The upshot of a "less diverse" and wealthy student body (of rich WASPS, rich europeans, rich latin americans, rich nouveau riche Chinese)is that you'll be more likely to meet people who are actually useful to you 3-5 years down the line. They have more resources to invest, and more successful friends/associates you want to meet.
Mar 03 2010 at 2:29 p.m.
@Alum
Bullocks.
I could just as easily turn around and say: elite education is a great equalizer. It may be harder for the financially disadvantaged to make it into the upper echelons of the academy, but once they do, they have approximately as good of prospects at 'making it' as do those who come from more privileged backgrounds. This is particularly the case given the availability of financial aid / student loans, which enables the financially disadvantaged to defer and stretch out the act of repayment.
I could then extend that by saying: moreover, relative to those who are privileged / can just write a check, you'll actually have MORE affinity, MORE gratitude, and MORE appreciation for the University ('what is has done for me') amongst those who had to struggle to get there and who were given a helping financial hand by the school to make it in.
In other words, if I just wrote a check to attend, I'm much less inclined to feel like I 'owe' Georgetown something as compared to the scenario where I needed Georgetown's help to make it in. That translates into better rates of giving, better rates of alumni attention retention, better advocacy for the school.
Finally--and really, this was a a non sequitur in your already over-generalized argument--you make a loaded assumption (tinged with racism) in proclaiming that a wealthy student body would be 'less diverse.' As of 2004, there were over 500,000 households in the United States in the top 5% of the income distribution which identified as either Hispanic or African-American (approximately 50%/50% distribution). This contrasts with ~350,000 asian households in that same top 5% (inclusive of your so-called 'noveau riche Chinese). And yes, American statistics are what matter--less than 8% of the undergraduate body is international.
Mar 03 2010 at 5:29 p.m.
An elite UNDERGRAD education is not the great equalizer. Just ask all the jobless seniors this year and last. You still need mommy and daddy to subsidize your life while you gain experience at some internship or go to grad school... or get a ton of loans (news flash: there aren't many scholarships/financial aid for mbas, jds, and mds).
Good networking is not dependent on how much affinity you feel for the university. Its dependant on the pool of people are you able to meet at the university. If I meet you and like you and want to help you out, it doesn't matter a damn whether I love the basketball team or not. The more people in a pool with higher statistical probabilities of succeeding, the better the networking.
Considering there are only 2-5 million asian persons in the US (as opposed to 80 million hispanic and african americans), their having 350,000 households in the top 5% doesn't cut against the 'non sequiter tinged with racism.'
Mar 03 2010 at 8:22 p.m.
That assumes that post-graduation networking is the point of an undergraduate education. That couldn't be farther from the truth, especially at a Jesuit university that preaches cura personalis, and especially in the liberal arts College, where education for education's sake is valued (just ask Fr. Schall). Furthermore, if you go to a good school, you don't need an alumni network to get hired. People will hire you based on the strength of the school you went to, along with other factors of course like whether you're actually qualified for the position.
Mar 04 2010 at 3:16 a.m.
The discrepancy between the tuition rise and rise in student aid is the most telling point in this article. The University feigns benevolence by increasing student aid for those who qualify while increasing tuition for the rest of us. As if to say, "Look! we're not screwing you over! Just look at our enduring desire to help students in need!"
News flash: just because some families don't "qualify" for financial aid doesn't mean paying over 50 grand a year is a walk in the park.
As it stands now, this increase will only perpetuate the trend of the "rich" paying for the "poor" to go to Georgetown. The community here is already devastatingly divided along class lines. This will only make it worse.
Mar 04 2010 at 11:28 a.m.
here are the 2009 university FS
http://www9.georgetown.edu/finaff/control/finst_09.pdf
Mar 04 2010 at 11:39 a.m.
"1. The bottom line is that financial aid is a function of endowment strength, and Georgetown's endowment strength continues to lag relative to its peers."
In Georgetown's case, this isn't actually true. Georgetown spends a larger proportion of its operating funds (tuition, other revenue, everything other than the endowment) on financial aid. While you're right that endowment strength is an important factor, Georgetown makes up for its lackluster endowment with a much larger contribution out of its operating budget. Therefore, simply citing its endowment (ranked sixty-something) is not evidence that its financial aid contribution is low, since endowment is not equal to financial aid giving at least in Georgetown's case.
Additionally, Georgetown increased its financial aid budget by 18% last year, just passed another 8% increase this year, has become a direct lender to students, and recently announced its 1789 Scholarship Imperative to raise $500 million in five years to permanently fund 1,789 scholarship grants at $25,000 each per year. That, combined with its outsized contribution to financial aid from its operating budget, definitely speaks to the university's commitment to financial aid over the last few years and moving forward.
I also think that you're reducing the value of a college investment to its ranking/prestige and its cost. None of the peer schools you mentioned ARE Georgetown, and none of them would offer you the Georgetown experience. None of them are Jesuit; only one of them is Catholic, and it is a very different brand of Catholic. None of them are in DC. None of them have Georgetown's unique history, global focus and footprint (arguably), or the other things that make Georgetown its own thing. Top-tier universities aren't interchangeable. I don't think people should choose a university like they choose a new furnace or a car -- look at the sticker price, its fuel efficiency, scan Consumer Reports and apply your preconceived notions about prestige. A university impacts you, or at least impacted me, on so many more and subtle levels that having gone through it and paid the full cost (as one of the upper-middle class people who get screwed, as you say) I can't imagine ever making money a factor in a decision like where to go to school. (No, I didn't know that I would feel this way going into it.) In my personal, professional and spiritual life, Georgetown will pay dividends far outweighing its cost.
Not that I'm saying that everyone should choose Georgetown. Some people get that incredible experience at Brown. But choosing a school is like choosing a spouse, and deserves a much more considered approach than what you suggested.
Apr 07 2010 at 9:57 p.m.
Most of these commentators miss a key point. Endowment is only part of the picture. You need to look at the other side of the balance sheet. DEBT! And GU has a ton of debt. $870 million in debt as of 2009. Almost a billion! On a net basis, the amount of GU debt almost exceeds its total endowment. Interest on that debt is almost $50 million a year. Right off the top. Take a look at a Duke, a school with which hoyas like to compare themselves. Billions in endowment, and little long term debt. I am surprised this newspaper is not more on top of this problem.