Lift Financial Burden Off Hoyas

Three weeks ago, Forbes magazine unveiled a new ranking of top colleges in the United States, and Georgetown University’s placement in the list may come as a surprise to many a proud Hoya. Instead of a lofty position in the Top 25, a rank we’ve grown accustomed to after holding it for 19 years in another noted listing (the U.S. News and World Report) Georgetown ranked number 76. The drop results largely because the ranking included the average amount of debt students graduate with.

Though this news is shocking, the shock may wake us up to a long-ignored problem: Students at Georgetown are graduating with staggering student loans, and the administration is not doing enough to address the issue.

The cost of higher education is a burden felt at all schools across the country, but it is one felt especially at Georgetown: Out of the 569 schools ranked by Forbes, Georgetown is listed as the third most expensive university. The Office of Student Financial Services at Georgetown estimates costs for the 2008-2009 school year to be around $50,000, a figure that has increased given this year’s 5.5 percent tuition raise and 5 percent raise in housing and meal plan rates.

According to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the database Forbes used to determine the amount of debt students accumulate, the average Hoya who received financial aid in the 2006-2007 school year took on $5,728 in student loans. If roughly the same amount is taken out by the same Georgetown student over four years of postsecondary education, he or she is faced with a daunting debt at the end of his or her undergraduate career that will only continue to build. Even middle- and upper-middle-class Georgetown students, who may not have to face the drastic decision of dropping out of college because they can no longer afford to attend school, are handed student loans they will still be paying off years after graduation. And that daunting prospect is what lies ahead for those who are lucky enough to receive student loans and grants, which has become more and more difficult in recent years.

There are, of course, both federal and institutional mechanisms available for students on campus who need help paying college bills. However, with the failure of subprime mortgages, these have become less and less accessible. We do not mean to suggest that Georgetown is doing nothing for its students during this crisis. Georgetown offers student grants, various Georgetown alumni groups around the country raise money for students, and the Student Employment Office is available for students who want to find a job on campus, whether or not they have been awarded a Federal Work-Study. We applaud efforts such as the Georgetown Fund, which was created less than two years ago by alumni to help, among other initiatives, to subsidize student tuitions.

All of these initiatives to help students tackle the problem of paying their tuition bills are a good start, but clearly the Forbes ranking shows that other schools are doing more. Unfortunately, Georgetown has a smaller endowment than many comparable universities and therefore has less money to spend on subsidizing tuition. This is a factor all alumni should keep in mind when asked to give money to the university.

As all smart Hoyas, parents and prospective students should know, college rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. Whatever faults the Forbes list had, however, still does not take away from the fact glaring problem it points out that not only hurts Georgetown’s reputation but, more importantly, endangers the well-being of its student population. It deeply saddens us that some of our fellow Hoyas have had to leave the Hilltop because they could not shoulder the financial burden of finishing their Georgetown education. Perhaps this kick to Hoya pride will make the Georgetown powers-that-be realize with more urgency that an affordable education needs to be a top financial priority.

If you actually investigated the Forbes methodology and the actual list itself, you would dismiss it for some pretty obvious reasons. Ratemyprofessor.com isn't exactly a scientific methodology for rating satisfaction, yet counts for 25% of the ranking. Furthermore, listings in Marquis Who's Who in America count for another 25%, even though nine years ago, Tucker Carlson disparaged the Who's Who system in an article for the very same Forbes Magazine. On these two counts alone, 50% of the Forbes methodology can be thrown out.

Here's the final kicker, though. The number #39 school in the nation according to Forbes, Westminster in Missouri, is ranked a Tier 3 liberal arts school by US News. It admits 70% of its applicants and its students have a composite SAT range of 980-1230. According to Forbes, Westminster is a better school than UVA (43rd Forbes/23rd US News), Rice (41/17), UPenn (61/6), Georgetown (76/23), Duke (80/8), and Dartmouth (127/11).

Now there is no denying that Georgetown does have a problem with rising costs. However, it shouldn't take a ridiculously flawed rating of schools for Georgetown to get its act together.

The merits of the ranking system aside, someday the academics at Georgetown and elsewhere will have to answer why they allowed the cost of the same University education they recieved for practically nothing to inflate beyond the annual salary of the average american household.

To adequaltly address the issue, they'll have to answer how the price they've demanded impacted the same classically liberal values they espoused in the classroom. They'll have to answer how it impacted their efficacy as agents of social change. They'll have to answer how their inflated price impacted their Catholic mission and identity, how sticker shock scared away the smart kids of unsavvy parents, how it perpetuated a class system in America in which the rich bought in, the poor begged in, and the middle class either cheated in or got left out.

Its a conversation worth having here or any any university but the first step is inviting self-critique.

The editorial board cleverly used the unflattering though flawed ranking system to encourage such a discussion. It may be time for others to think it through as well.

Regards,

Saxon Gillis

I don't think it is the proper place or role of the Hoya's editorial board to pontificate about inconsequential personal choices of students. This editorial is too frivolous-there must be something more important you can write about.dizi izle haber program indir

Post new comment

Comments which are spam, off-topic, abusive, use excessive foul language or promote hate or bias will be deleted.

Anonymous comments will be held for moderation. This may take some time, so we recommend you create a free account.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <li>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.