A Tuition Gimmick?

October 29, 2017

“College Costs Continue to Edge Higher” (Wall Street Journal, October 24, 2017) reported on the release of the annual “Trends in College Pricing” study by the College Board. Not unexpectedly, the amount that private colleges charged for tuition in 2017-18 rose 1.3% (1.9% in public institutions) from the year before. But financial aid, which has historically tempered the effect of the rise in published prices, failed to keep pace with price increases so that the average net price families paid after grants and scholarships rose by 4.6% at private colleges and 3.2% for in-state public schools. More so than the published price, net price is what actually determines access and affordability, and this is what families (and institutions) need to focus on.

My institution, Drew University, the only national private liberal arts college in New Jersey, was cited in this short report as one of several schools to announce a tuition price decrease for the 2018-19 academic year. Rather than the published price increasing by the “normal” 3%, Drew is decreasing its price by 20%. Here’s exactly what was recounted in the Journal report, lifted with attribution from a Moody’s note to investors in September:

“Moody’s Investors Service warned in a note last month that recent cuts to published tuition rates by schools including Sweet Briar College in Virginia, Drew University in New Jersey and Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama may be little more than a gimmick, since few students at those schools pay sticker price to begin with.”

At Drew, staff from the finance, enrollment, communications and institutional research areas spent the better part of six months studying, modeling and testing options. We looked at data from a larger market position study conducted on our behalf, and we paid attention to a national study by the firm Ruffalo Noel Levitz that found half of all families exclude colleges from consideration based on published price alone. When combined with the fact that Drew, at 1560 undergraduates, is about 250 students shy of its optimal size and that only 75 of our students paid the full price charged, it became abundantly clear that our published price was too high for our prospective students and that lowering it could capture the attention of some who otherwise would write us off as too expensive.

“Gimmick?” Only if we positioned this as a $10,000 price reduction for all. But we didn’t. In her open letter on the Drew website, President MaryAnn Baenninger clearly stated:

“Effective for academic year 2018–19, Drew’s tuition will be lowered by 20%—about $10,000—narrowing the gap between the actual tuition charge and the amount many families pay. This move will make Drew’s true tuition, and our true value, more clear to more families.”

“Narrowing the gap between the actual tuition charge and the amount many families pay,” – after financial aid. When the published price was $48,336, the average Drew family paid just under $20,000 in tuition after scholarships and grants (room and board is an additional charge, and loans and outside grants help to defray that expense). With a tuition charge of $38,668, families will still pay just under $20,000 with scholarships and grants that are proportionately lower. Only now, two things are different – first, they will all be protected from the average 3% tuition increase next year (a savings of $1450); and second, more families will consider Drew as a college of choice since the published price and the price they actually pay will be closer – not the same, but closer. This will help us to attract more students who will benefit from a Drew education at a price that they can afford after aid, but who never would have looked at Drew before because the list price was just too high.

And one other very important point.  With a tuition reset at Drew, we’re not lowering how much it costs us to educate a student.  We are certainly finding efficiencies to lower some of our expenses, but if we significantly cut our cost, we would impact our quality. So, primarily, we’re not cutting costs, we’re cutting the price that we charge.

Far from a “gimmick,” this move will increase access because more students will consider Drew a financial possibility. A “gimmick,” Moody’s concluded, because so few students pay the published price. You don’t go on a diet if you are thin. You don’t take a statin if your cholesterol is normal. You don’t wear glasses if you can see quite clearly. And you don’t lower tuition unless very few students are paying it, and charging more makes it seem that you are out of reach for the average student. “Gimmick?” Its time to fetch my glasses so I can find my Lipitor and eat my salad!!


A February 19, 2017 opinion piece by Montclair State University Professor Brigid Callahan Harrison in nj.com posits that New Jersey could keep more students in state if only the legislature and Governor would reduce state grant support to students attending NJ independent colleges and universities and increase grants to students attending public colleges:

So as this structure works now, a needy student would receive $2,734 to study at Essex County Community College, but the very same student would receive $12,438 — nearly $10,000 a year more — to study at Drew University. This bizarre system — in which taxpayers subsidize private and religious colleges and universities and penalize students for making cost-saving decisions — could be reformed by allocating a set amount to an individual student based on need, and then allowing that student to use that allocation at the college of his or her choosing.

“Bizarre system?” Really? In light of New York State’s politically expedient, but caveat-ladened decision to make SUNY tuition “free” for those students from families earning less than $125,000 per year, it is appropriate to call out the same faulty logic used here by Professor Harrison – that making public education more affordable at the expense of private education will benefit students and taxpayers alike. It “just ain’t so,” and here’s why:

Montclair State charges about $20,000 in tuition for out-of-state students. Assuming there is no State subsidy at work for those students, the in-state tuition of about $12,000 means that the State is giving EVERY in-state student about $8,000 of support, regardless of need. TAG money received by needy students at NJ public colleges is in addition to this $8,000 state tuition subsidy for every student. Making private colleges less affordable by removing or lowering a grant that is indexed to the federal “Estimated Family Contribution” (EFC) will most likely result in an increased enrollment in NJ public colleges and decreased enrollment at private colleges – not a reduction in out-of-state student migration. Just as will happen in New York, New Jersey will then be forced to subsidize more students – all of whom would get the State tuition subsidy ($8,000) and many of whom would get an increased TAG on top of that. It is, therefore, less expensive for the State to provide grants to help low-income students afford a private in-state college than it is to subsidize an increased number of students in the public sector. That is why many states have need- or income-based grant programs to help residents attend private colleges: it is less expensive for the State to subsidize needy students at private colleges than at the state colleges.

Professor Harrison also misuses the term “need,” when she claims that the “system” could be fixed by “ allocating a set amount to an individual student based on need, and then allowing that student to use that allocation at the college of his or her choosing.” Need is defined as the Cost of Education MINUS the Expected Family Contribution (EFC). Since EFCs are not cost-dependent (that is, the EFC is the same for a family whether the child decides to go to Montclair State or to Drew), the ”need” –and hence the grant eligibility — would be lower at the public institution than it would be at the more expensive private institution. That is as it is now, even though technically TAG is income-based (from which the EFC is derived).

Finally—and words do matter here – Professor Harrison claims that current policies “penalize students for making cost-saving decisions.” Students attending public colleges and universities are making price-saving decisions for themselves – the price they are being charged is less than the price charged at private colleges. That decision actually costs New Jersey more than if they had decided to attend a private college in-state.

New Jersey is the greatest exporter of students not because of the financial aid benefits available or not available to the State’s college students, but because we are a populous state with significantly fewer institutions of higher education compared to neighboring New York and Pennsylvania. To suggest that shifting financial aid away from students who require less in state support to attend private colleges is short-sighted, misses a critical point in the funding of higher education, and is just plain wrong!

Every year without fail, a well-respected educator comes out against early admission programs, calling them “barriers to keep most low income students out.” This year’s quote is from a recent piece in Inside Higher Ed by Harold O. Levy, the former NYC Schools Chancellor and executive director of the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. <https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/01/12/discrimination-inherent-early-admissions-programs-essay?>

I have great respect for Dr. Levy and for the significant work done by the Cooke Foundation to advance students of great potential from economically disadvantaged families. But early admission programs are not discriminatory by definition at the bulk of the nation’s 2300 non-profit, four-year colleges and universities. And in fact, they do not have to act against the inclusion of disadvantaged students at the nation’s most prestigious institutions. Here’s why.

While it is true that many low-income students are not aware of early programs because they are first generation and attend high schools where counselors are responsible for 1,000 or more students each, colleges can and do promote Early Decision and Early Action in all of their search communications, on their web sites and in their brochures. And those of us who are committed to enrolling low-income students go out of our way to connect with them and to make them aware of early programs while saving places for them in the regular pool. Pell-eligible students represent 35% of the enrollment at my institution, Drew University, and we have an Early Decision program, so it can be done. Further, these students graduate at the essentially same rate as the other two-thirds of the student body, so they are being served well.

Many highly selective colleges are now test optional in admission, so the fact that low-income students may not have test scores in time for early deadlines is a non-issue at those institutions. And the notion that low-income students can’t commit to enrolling through an Early Decision program because they need financial aid is an equally empty hypothesis. First of all, the early FAFSA allows colleges to award actual aid upon Early Decision admission. Secondly, as every ED institution will tell you, if the aid is not sufficient in the family’s mind, the student will be released from the ED commitment. I always tell students and their parents that they should apply in a binding Early Decision program only if parents know how much they are willing and able to contribute toward college expenses, and if they are not interested in comparing offers from other schools. If they receive enough to make attendance possible, and if the college is the student’s first choice, then the process has successfully concluded. If however, they want to shop for the best deal, then Early Decision is not for them.

In many ways, ED is the best time to apply for financial aid, because colleges do not exhaust their grant resources during the early round. And as I said, if the aid is not sufficient, colleges will release students from the early commitment. This is a “no lose” proposition for the student.

But Dr. Levy presents compelling evidence of the disparity of incomes represented in Early Decision programs:

The Cooke Foundation study found that only 16 percent of high-achieving students from families with annual incomes below $50,000 applied for college admission on an early-decision basis in the 2013-14 academic year. But 29 percent of high-achieving students from families with incomes above $250,000 applied on an early-decision basis. Is it any wonder that so many more upper-income students gain admission?

To be fair, this needs to be put into context. According to the Pew Research Center in a 2014 report, < http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/college-enrollment-among-low-income-students-still-trails-richer-groups/ > 51% of all low-income students were enrolled in college compared to 81% of all high-income students (low income= bottom 20%; high income = top 20%). In other words, many more high-income students enroll in college in the first place, so it is not surprising that many more high-income students also enroll through Early Decision.

This underscores the real issue for American higher education. We need to spend less time advocating for the elimination of a program (early admission) that attracts higher income students (who, by the way, help to bring in the revenue to support lower income students) and more time – as the Cooke Foundation and many colleges do so well – developing better ways to recruit and support low-income students. The future competiveness of our country depends on it.


New York Governor Cuomo has taken Senator Sanders’ key higher education platform issue – free tuition – and proposed a version for New York residents attending community colleges and CUNY/SUNY institutions with family incomes of $125,000 or less. Who could possibly think this was a bad idea? College prices have increased by 139% over the past 30 years in 2016 dollars while family incomes have increased only 16% during the same period.

There are, however, major issues beyond the estimated $163m annual price tag. SUNY tuition is already significantly subsidized by the State – – $6470 versus an average independent college tuition of approximately $38,000. Low-income students already get “free tuition” with a combination of federal Pell Grants and State TAP awards. There is another $14,000 in fees, room and board that is not addressed by this plan. If the State has $163m extra for higher education, it should first make sure that costs are covered for all low-income students before providing funds for those at higher income levels. While I understand that $21,000 a year at SUNY is a challenge for many families with incomes at the upper range of the Governor’s proposal, it would be significantly more equitable to award need-based grants to those students whose family resources are not sufficient to cover the cost of attendance, rather than giving a $6500 grant to everyone with incomes below a certain level.

In addition, there are over 100 independent not-for-profit colleges and universities in New York. Many of these colleges provide significant need-based financial aid to make college affordable from institutional, state and federal sources. That is becoming an increasingly difficult challenge to meet. Competing against “free” tuition could be the nail in the coffin of some of these institutions, resulting in more students flocking to a “free” SUNY. This will inflate the cost of the program well beyond the initial estimates of $163m.

With a median 2015 New York family income of about $58,000, the Governor’s proposal would impact slightly over 80% of New York State families. From a political perspective, this makes total sense. Pragmatically, however, it is a different story. As some private colleges lose enrollments to SUNY, the actual cost of this program will be significantly higher than current estimates. And inequity is bound to result when a student from a $58,000 income family is treated the same as a student with a $125,000 income; and when low income students are eligible for less grant aid when funds are diverted from need-based aid to help fund the program.

Rather than eating Mom’s apple pie, legislators in New York need to look carefully at the recipe and figure out an equitable formula to make New York State colleges and universities more affordable.

“Undermining” Pell

March 30, 2016

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel’s recent Washington Post story, “These colleges expect poor families to pay more than half their earnings to cover costs,” (March 16, 2016) makes a simple, yet critical point to all concerned about access in higher education: colleges and universities may admit students from low income families, and they may even provide generous financial aid – grants from federal, state, private and institutional resources as well as maximum subsidized federal loans and work/study – but unless that aid meets a student’s need, they will be forced to borrow more at unsubsidized rates in order to pay college costs. In fact, Stephen Burd from the New America Foundation, whose work is cited in the Post story, writes in his report, Undermining Pell: Vol. III , that many colleges and universities expect students from families earning less than $30,000 a year to spend half of their annual income on college costs.


The argument is also put forth in the story and in Burd’s work that wealthier colleges, with endowments in excess of $250 million, are pumping money into so-called “merit scholarships,” awarded to students with no or low financial need in order to increase their academic profile and thus their rankings, when in fact — according to the critics — they should be meeting a higher percentage of student needs. While there is no doubt that merit aid helps to enroll top students who might go elsewhere, the fact is they bring net revenue to the institution that helps to pay for grant aid to needy students. Without a discounted price, some of these low-need “merit” students would not have enrolled and revenue from them would be zero. As the airlines understand, a discounted seat that is full is better than a full-price seat that is empty.


That said, there are institutions that heavily discount just about every student in order to maximize enrollment, but who “cap” institutional grant amounts to needy students, resulting in “gaps” as much as $20,000 or more (a “gap” is the difference in the amount of money a student needs, determined by the federal formula, and the amount of money awarded to that student). If those students choose to enroll with the “hope” that they can borrow to make up the difference or that the university will eventually come through with more grant money, they tend to drop out at a much higher rate than those whose financial needs were lower and met.


Before changing its financial aid strategy this year, my institution – Drew University – found that students with financial gaps in excess of $13,000 dropped out at a rate that was 33 percent higher than those with lower or no gaps. With that knowledge at hand, we cut non-need based merit aid by almost 50% and increased need-based aid by a similar amount. Gaps will not be eliminated, but will rarely exceed $10,000 as opposed to $20,000 in years past. I expect this will increase the percentage of lower income students choosing to enroll at Drew as well as their retention and graduation rates – all good results.


Prior to Drew, I served as the chief admissions and enrollment officer at a major national research university and a top liberal arts college for a total of 21 years. While I was there, these institutions were committed to meeting the full demonstrated need of every student admitted. So there were no “gaps” as defined above. But our applicant pools were large and deep, which meant we could deny admission to some marginally qualified students because we could not meet their needs had we admitted them. In the admissions world, this is known as “need-aware” admission. Some would think this disgraceful – denying admission to students because they can’t pay (of course, we did not do that for the bulk of the candidates who were needy and well-qualified). But these institutions believed it was far more humane to make a full commitment to those students they could afford to assist, than a partial commitment to everyone. There is a better outcome for the enrolled student (they actually graduate, and with moderate debt), but also for the student who is not admitted and enrolls at another good college with the aid he or she needs.


So there’s the rub – do we deny admission to some (lower) qualified applicants because we cannot afford to meet their full needs, or do we admit all those we would like to admit, without regard to their need, understanding that we may have a “gap” the very needy students? Most institutions cannot afford to be “need-blind” in admission AND meet the full financial need of everyone they admit. Generally speaking, only the uber-selective and wealthiest institutions can do this.


The Pell Grant is the major federal student financial aid grant program, providing about $32 billion in grants of up to $5730 per year to about 10 million low income students. In their July, 2013 report (“Measure Twice: The Impact in Graduation Rates of serving Pell Grant Recipients”) the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance reported that “Overall, as the percent of students (at a college) who are Pell recipients rises and endowment per student falls, average 6-year graduation rate falls from 85% to 33% (in private 4-year colleges)…(and)..from 67% to 28% (in public 4-year colleges).”


What this means is that the more financially challenged an institution, the less selective it can be, the more low income students it attracts, and because these schools need to accept as many students as they can, the more they tend to “gap” low income students, making them borrow beyond the maximum subsidized federal loans for which they are eligible.


Understanding that there are wealthy institutions that can meet full need and be need-blind in admission, that there is a strong second tier that are need-aware in admission but meet full need, and that there are many under-endowed private and public institutions that admit needy students without meeting their full needs, it is clearly not accurate to paint higher education with the broad brush of retrenching on access. In fact Burd does acknowledge that some wealthy institutions are doing a good job of meeting full need and enrolling a healthy percentage of low income students. But in many ways, less well endowed private institutions and many publics are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Their costs have risen as their students demand more technology and modern facilities, as salaries escalate to remain competitive and as government regulatory requirements balloon.

But unless they represent a “name brand” or have outstanding regional reputations in certain professional fields, many families are unwilling to pay the full price without a discount. This limits the options these institutions have to fully fund very needy students. Its not that these colleges want to gap low income students, forcing them to borrow heavily if they enroll. I would submit that they simply do not see a way around it.


Unless the cost of educating a student declines and/or federal and state aid increases, the gapping practice is sure to continue. What may be of great help, however, is training college counselors to help guide low-income students to a “financial aid fit” college. In those low income school districts, where counselors have responsibility for over 600 students each, a federal-state partnership could provide funding for guidance in matching a student to a college with the right financial fit. This could go a long way to controlling student debt and assuring access.


Let’s stop implying that commitment to access is measured solely by the percentage of Pell Grant recipients an institution enrolls and by the percentage of need it meets, but rather by the percentage of low income students it graduates with debt levels that are similar to the national average or lower. If we do, our dialogue will move from finger pointing to helping students make good choices for their future.


My colleague at Drew University  Chris Teare, writes a weekly blog on college admissions for Forbes.  This week, he asked me to be his guest.  The post can be found the link listed below and is also re-posted here.   rjm



On the eve of the annual gathering of members of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) in September, 2015, the “Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success,” a group of about 80 of the most selective colleges and universities in the country, announced their intent to create a new admission application process. The plan included, among other things, the creation of a “virtual locker” where students, starting in the ninth grade, could add examples of their best high school work that could be used to enhance their future college application.


The members of the Coalition had a noble goal – to provide students more access to college by engaging them in the preparation process earlier. The college admission process had become complex and overwhelming, and excluded too many students. The Coalition sought to change this. The announcement was met with much opposition, especially from high school counselors who felt totally left out of the discussion and skeptical about the details.


The debate over the admissions process and what it creates for students, parents, counselor and colleges is not new. In 1974, the Common Application began with a small group of highly selective colleges seeking to simplify the process. Concern was expressed that this elitist group would dominate the admissions scene. Today, the Common Application has almost 600 members and while it has contributed to the ease of applying to college, it also has helped to inflate the number of applications per student submitted. That in turn has led to increasing competition among colleges for students and among students for admission.


In 2002, former college counselor Lloyd Thacker started the Education Conservancy, to “help students, colleges and high schools overcome commercial interference in college admissions.” His 2004 book, “College Unranked,” sought to restore sanity and purpose in college admissions.   Yet more than a decade later, the same issues exist.


The Coalition’s plans to take on the process has brought a new urgency to the reform conversation that has continued to brew since Thacker’s book was published. In a working paper still in progress entitled, “The College Admission Process: A Call for Reform,” Willard Dix, a college counselor with InGenius Prep, and his colleagues claim that the Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success presented their proposal as

“a fait accompli…despite the fact that Coalition members themselves admitted it was not truly ready and they did not really know what would happen once it was in place. It was met with instant and often bitter criticism from counselors, who felt the college admission process was already complex enough and that the plan had been presented without any significant input from counselors who work with students daily.”


Further, Dix and his colleagues allege that the new Coalition application process would become harder and more stressful because of the ninth grade start of a “virtual locker,” with unequal access to the technology and assistance necessary to use it.


For this reason and others, they call on counselors and admission officers to work together to reform college admissions. Among the points they advocate:


  1. Streamlining the college admission process to relieve some of students’ burdens of preparing for college entrance;
  2. More collaboration between high schools and colleges
  3. A halt to indiscriminate marketing that floods students with “invitations” to apply, replaced by more targeted efforts based on realistic assessments;
  4. An approach to the college application process that supports counselor/student as well as technology/student interactions.


In addition, Dix and his colleagues call for a “comprehensive study” of the college admissions process and its impact on students, parents, schools and colleges.


I applaud the work the Will Dix and others are doing to articulate the issues, though their suggestions are not new. The Education Conservancy advocated similar principles 12 years ago, and with leadership from several college presidents, numerous higher education leaders signed on to boycott the US News peer assessment survey. Despite presidential signatures, there was no uniform movement by colleges representing a broad spectrum of institutions nationwide to come up with a “solution” to “college admissions hype” and other application process issues.


So if the new wave of interest in reform, spawned by the Coalition’s new process, is to succeed in actually making substantive changes to college admissions, what must be done?   Studies will not result in change without broad participation on a national scale. To that end, I would call on the leadership of NACAC to immediately:


  1.  Create a Task Force of college admission and school counseling personnel to evaluate and propose change the college admissions in the direction called for in the Dix et. al. paper.
  2.  Determine the make-up of this national group of colleges and schools – assuring representatives from all sectors and degrees of selectivity and from a socio-economically diverse collection of schools.
  3.  Create a process whereby representatives on the Task Force are elected by the NACAC membership. Those interested in serving on this national Task Force can petition for candidacy. A chair would be elected by the membership of the Task Force
  4.  Develop a timeline for task completion with feedback requested along the way.


In all my years in higher education, one thing I have learned is that studies and discussions are necessary for progress, but they are hardly sufficient. Very little can be accomplished unless a broadly representative and generally accepted group of professionals work together on a solution. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of the young lives we are impacting and sensitive to the needs of all students seeking to further their education. So let’s take organized action now using our national association to structure a representative group to address the issues around college admission. If we do so, successful change will have a fighting chance.

In about a week, US News will release it’s all important college rankings to inform the public about colleges that lost or gained a tenth of a point and dropped or increased five spaces in the rankings as a result. I have written countless times about the absurdity of the arbitrary weighting of certain characteristics in the rankings, so I’ll not take time to do that here. But rankings fever and the competition it breeds among colleges (let alone giving incomplete short-hand information to students), contributes to ridiculous headlines in the wake of the decision by the Department of Education to hide from colleges’ view the list of colleges to which students are submitting the FAFSA.  The assumption here is that if colleges see their position on the list (number 1 through 10), this will influence an admission or financial aid decision.

On August 17, my friend Lynn O’Shaunessy penned a story that cbsnews.com titled, ” Feds to stop tipping off colleges on student choice.”
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-to-stop-tipping-off-colleges-on-student-choices/). While Lynn used the phrase “tipping off” in her story, her account was mostly balanced. The headline, however, implied widespread abuse of this information. Having served as the chief enrollment officer at three institutions over the past 27 years, I can say that abuse of “FAFSA position” is hardly widespread, as far as I know.

First of all, the vast majority of the nation’s 2400 non-profit private and public undergraduate universities are not selective. Perhaps no more than 5 percent of them admit fewer than half of the students who apply. Most cannot afford to deny admission or give less aid to a student who positions them low or high on the FAFSA list, because they need the student, no matter the odds of enrollment.

Secondly, schools with strong demand and strong applicant pools do not need to use their position on the FAFSA to impact a particular admission or aid decision. They have plenty of demand at just about any price point.

Over the past fifteen years, students have applied to more and more colleges because of perceived competitiveness and the need to have an affordable option. Colleges have aided this frenzy to be sure, in an effort to be more selective and to improve in the rankings, but mainly to assure that they can meet their enrollment goals.

During this time, predictive modeling has emerged to help enrollment leaders predict how many students (not individually whom) to admit at what level of financial aid in order to meet enrollment and net revenue goals. In some cases, if there is predictive value, FAFSA position may be used as one characteristic among many that — in the aggregate — can predict total enrollment. But an individual characteristic alone cannot predict behavior, and even taken in the aggregate, characteristics can only assign a probability of enrollment between zero and one for an individual.

When I say “characteristics,” I am referring to things students can impact (such as grades, test scores, campus visits, FAFSA position, leadership experience, strength of curriculum) and things that the student cannot control (gender, race, state or country of residence, socio-economic status).

To suggest that institutions make individual decisions based on their listed position on the FAFSA, and to remove this data because of a suspicion that a handful of colleges may be using the information inappropriately, would be like requiring students to visit campus under an alias, so schools would not know who is really interested. Interest, after all, predicts enrollment. Or since lower grades predict enrollment at a selective college, perhaps we admit all with low grades, since they are likely to enroll,  and deny those with high grades as they are least likely to enroll.  Absurd, right?

The point is, using a single characteristic to make an enrollment or aid decision raises not only ethical questions, but demonstrates a lack of understanding on how to use predictive models. These models should never be used for individual decisions — only to inform in the aggregate how many students can be admitted at what level of financial aid — in total — in order to reach our goals.

It is a shame that the Department of Education yielded to uninformed pressure to remove this data element from the FAFSA.  Of course, this is not the end of the world, as a college’s position on the FAFSA is just one element in a predictive model. But the implication that colleges are sinister in using this information against students is as absurd as it is insulting. My colleagues and I deserve better.

In the New York Times today, Professor Paul Campos from the University of Colorado made the case that public funding for higher education has not declined over the past several decades, but has in fact increased significantly. The number of institutions and certainly the number of students pursuing post high school education has soared, and while per capita funding may be down, the states and federal governments are providing more funding than ever.


Fair enough. But why then has tuition increased so much (if the average price of a car had increased in the past 40 years as much as tuition, Campos claims the average car price would be $80,000!)? In part, he claims, because of the vast increase in administrators and their salaries – a 60 percent increase in positions between 1993 and 2009, while faculty positions grew only modestly. He does not address the decline in teaching loads for faculty, but that has also contributed to increased costs. He also cites the increasing numbers of students served and their demands for amenities as reasons for the price increase. He does say that both the increase in administration to handle increasing numbers of student is – in theory at least – defensible.


What he doesn’t say is that the price increase is fueled by an INCREDIBLY competitive marketplace for students, which now includes over 1500 for-profit schools offering real degrees. This is a major cost driver and it needs to be acknowledged as a primary reason for price increases.


Even within the traditional non-profit sector, the competition is intense — amenities for students (including food everywhere, anytime and top quality); study abroad which loses money for a college (tuition goes out, as does aid); and competition for top administrators and professors (high salaries and reduced teaching loads) – all of this drives up price. It is interesting to note that competition in the private sector typically results in decreased prices (less of a profit margin). In the non-profit world, competition typically increases prices as someone has to pay for the “enhanced” product.


And finally, just like cars (where prices haven’t risen as fast, mainly because there is economy of scale in production that one doesn’t have in education) a college education today is not what it was in 1970.  Study abroad, off campus study programs (such as Drew University’s four programs in NYC — Wall St, UN, Communications and Theater/Arts), internships, interdisciplinary field work programs — all of these cost more.


Add to this the fixed costs of technology improvements on a daily basis, benefits such as health insurance (which every industry has), federal regulations that have to be carefully monitored and executed, and an increasingly litigious society, and it totals to a cost explosion.  And a little told fact — since most financial aid is NOT endowed or funded, colleges have to charge more in order to have the money to underwrite those who cannot pay.  Back when I started in admissions and financial aid at Colgate 40 years ago, 30 percent of our students received aid.  Now at schools like Drew, Dickinson, Hopkins and Colgate, 60 percent are receiving financial aid.  And, on top of everything else mentioned above, that costs!


With all of this, one still must ask, is there value in what colleges and universities provide? I just have to look at my University of Rochester graduate daughter and my Lafayette College graduate son to answer that one – a resounding yes. I have written on value before and I will certainly do so again. We do need to contain our costs as much as possible, but in my book, the value is still convincingly there.


Pell Grant and Higher Education Access: It’s not as simple as it seems

The Pell Grant is the major federal student financial aid program in Title IV of the Higher Education Act. What began in 1972 as the Basic Opportunity Grant, worth just several hundred dollars a year, has grown into a $32 billion program providing grants of up to $5730 per year to about 10 million low income students.

Various ranking publications, as well as the White House and Education Department, look at the percentage of Pell Grant recipients enrolled at a particular college as an indication of that institution’s commitment to access and to socioeconomic diversity. This simple but misleading measurement is further complicated, when making a case for a college’s commitment to access, by the use of the undefined term “need blind” (as in not being aware of financial need when a college makes an admission decision on a student). Both criteria are flawed — an institution’s financial strength, or lack thereof, must be considered along with their aid practices before judging an institution’s true commitment to access.

Last month, the Lehigh Valley’s (PA) major newspaper, the “Morning Call,” published a story about area colleges and their commitment to access as measured by the number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled and the practice of being “need blind” or “need aware” in admission (http://touch.mcall.com/#section/1742/article/p2p-81851011/). The author praised public institutions like Kutztown University for enrolling a large percentage of Pell recipients (32%) and private colleges like Cedar Crest (43%) and Moravian (30%) for their tremendous efforts as well. Conversely, the author implied that Muhlenberg (8%) and Lafayette (11%) were clearly not as committed to access and, unlike the others, were also not need blind in admission meaning that “a mediocre applicant may be accepted because of his or her family’s wealth, while an equivalent student with less money would be rejected.” Horrible! Unconscionable! Not so fast.. It isn’t that simple!

Let’s understand this: there are only three types of institutions that do not take financial need into consideration at some point (for selective colleges, usually the last 10% or so of the spaces available) in the admissions process:
1) the wealthiest colleges and universities in the nation, with strong market position, endowments that pay for most if not all of the scholarship and grant aid, and a commitment to fully fund every needy student, leaving no gap (as the institutions in 2 and 3 below do) between what a student needs to attend and what the college provides in financial aid;
2) private institutions with below average endowments and weak market position because they cannot afford to deny qualified students and risk being under capacity…AND because they do not meet a student’s full financial need with institutional grant (which means it doesn’t “cost” the institution any additional aid to admit another needy student); and
3) public institutions, because most do not provide institutional grant aid, so whatever federal or state money a student gets is all they will get, regardless of financial need.

The bulk of the other private colleges — those with strong market position and resources but not in the very top group – neither “gap” students (they meet full need) nor do they accept very needy, marginally qualified students toward the end of the admission process. They believe it is far better to make a commitment to needy students by fully funding those they admit (so that they can graduate on time with manageable debt) than by admitting more students than they can afford to assist, thereby leaving them to fend for themselves should they decide to attend. These students typically wind up borrowing more than they should to fund their education and their attrition rate is typically high.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague Tom Mortenson, who has devoted his career to the advancement of post secondary opportunity. But I take great issue with his statement to the “Morning Call” in their story on local colleges and Pell enrollments. “…schools with high tuition and a very low percentage of Pell Grant students are not committed to serving low income students. They are committed to maximizing tuition revenue.” In most cases, this is simply not true, though I would say that these schools do need to maximize tuition revenue in order to fully fund low income students since, unlike the wealthiest colleges in number 1 above, their scholarships are not primarily funded through the endowment but, indeed, through tuition revenue. In other words, you have to collect the revenue in order to give it away.

I also appreciate what the chief enrollment officers at Lafayette and Muhlenberg said in the story– that they choose to define economic opportunity more broadly than only by those eligible for the Pell Grant; that they partner with community-based organizations to identify students for whom their institutions would be a financial reach; that they are committed, too, to helping students from lower middle income families who may not be eligible for the Pell Grant but who are increasingly squeezed out of private higher education.

So, those colleges with a high percentage of Pell recipients are committed to enrolling low income students and those who have lower enrollment percentages are not? Hardly. What the numbers don’t tell us is this — although there are some exceptions, in general:

1) Colleges with significant resources to meet full need AND to enroll a high percentage of Pell recipients will meet the needs of those students without excessive reliance on loans.
2) Those institutions with significant resources to meet full need, but that are need aware in admission because their resources are not sufficient to meet the needs of all qualified applicants, may enroll a lower percentage of Pell recipients, but those enrolled will have their full needs met without excessive reliance on loans.
3) On the other hand, under-endowed, private and public institutions that enroll a large percentage of Pell recipients will, more often than not, provide aid that does not meet full need, thereby forcing students to rely on large loans to bridge the gap between costs and affordability.

Further, in their July, 2013 report (“Measure Twice: The Impact in Graduation Rates of serving Pell Grant Recipients”) the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance reported that “Overall, as the percent of students who are Pell recipients rises and endowment per student falls, average 6-year graduation rate falls from 85% to 33% (in private 4-year colleges)…(and)..from 67% to 28% (in public 4-year colleges)”

Although the institutions in number 3 above appear as though they are committed to access of low-income students as suggested by the percentage of Pell recipients they enroll, one has to ask the question, “Access to what?” If those students are either not graduating, or are graduating with debts way above the average class of 2012 student loan debt of $29,400, they will enter the work force in a financial position that is significantly behind those low income students who attended colleges with lower Pell enrollments, but higher institutional grant aid and lower loans to those Pell eligible students.

Let’s stop implying that commitment to access is measured solely by the percentage of Pell Grant recipients an institution enrolls, but rather by the percentage of Pell recipients it graduates with debt levels that are similar to the national average or lower. And let’s look at a college’s ability and willingness to meet full need without over-reliance on loans as the true indicator of commitment to low income students. If we do, our dialogue will move from finger pointing to helping students make good choices for their future.

July 1, 2014 marked the 40th anniversary of my career as a college administrator.  In 1974, I started working full time in the admissions and financial aid office at Teachers College, Columbia University, where at the ripe old age of 22, I was pursuing a doctorate in higher education administration.  Little did I know that 40 years later, I would still be excited about my work.

I have had the privilege of serving some really remarkable institutions — Colgate University where I would learn how admissions and financial aid come together to enroll a class; Union College where I first became a director and also learned about student life outside of the ‘view book;”  Johns Hopkins where I served as dean of enrollment for a decade; and Dickinson College, where an energetic new president put his faith in me to manage a large division that impacted students from the time they were looking at the college through their alumni years.  I took early retirement from that tremendous experience after ten years of service and proceeded to accept an invitation from my son’s alma mater, Lafayette College, to serve as their first VP for Communications.  I have just stepped down from that position after five years.

Looking back and peeking ahead 

During the past five years, I learned quite a bit from my colleagues in college communications.  While I oversaw this area at Dickinson as the VP for Enrollment and College Relations,  and developed a brand strategy that served that college well, I did not get into the nitty gritty — day in and day out — of how to position the institution best.  At Lafayette, I learned about web management, televised athletic contests, story editing, crisis communication, design elements, the rapidly changing and emerging field of social media — the list goes on.  As an admissions officer, I certainly knew how to promote my institution, but my work with the professionals at Lafayette gave me a new appreciation for the work that is involved to reinforce the college brand in everything we do — from brochures to web to tweets to design to media relations.  I have developed an enormous respect for these “behind the scenes” professionals.  They are not in front of crowds of prospective students or alumni.  They do not enroll the class or bring in the bucks.  But they are every bit as responsible for a college’s success in admissions and development as are the troops on the road.

In my last post, I spoke about how social media is changing the ways in which we recruit students, engage alumni and communicate with one another.  I issued a caution about that, urging us to be substantive in our messaging while retaining the “fun” aspect of the medium.  But the challenges of communicating in 140 characters or less pale in comparison to the substantive challenges created by the “culture of more” that has infiltrated higher education with a vengeance.

Since 1983, higher education has watched as popular rankings took hold and began to influence our behavior.  We try to influence reputation by flooding presidential mailboxes with expensive publications touting our college’s excellence, we generate more applications so we can become more selective, we hire more faculty so we can lower the student/faculty ratio, we care about alumni participation in the annual fund as much as the dollars we raise because that is a measurement of alumni satisfaction, and we spend more money on academic and social facilities to remain competitive and attract more students and donors.  One could certainly argue that colleges and universities ought to be doing these things anyway — that strong institutions want to get stronger.  But one consequence of the “culture of more” is that it drives up costs and thus price.  And today, everyone from the President to the working class parent is complaining about the high cost of higher education.  Indeed, today’s four year degree costs more than it did twenty years ago not only because of labor costs, technology, and general inflation, but because we are providing more to students — more services, more labs, more study abroad, more field trips, more internships, more research opportunities, more facilities, more choices for food….more, more, more.

So far, parents have been demanding more and willing to pay, at least for some of what we offer.  For years, the “solution” to a high price tag has been to — somehow — provide more financial aid.  That is still part of the answer.  But the basic dilemma of “more” needs to be addressed.  When we add, what can we subtract?  I do not have an answer to this question, but in 25 years as a senior administrator at three institutions, I have found it to be a question seldom asked and never really answered.

The rise of on-line education and the increasing example outside of higher education for  “unbundling services” threaten the traditional four-year, residential education model.  I will not get into this issue here, other than to say that “unbundling” could pose a threat to some colleges and universities that have not made a strong case for the value of what they offer.  While taking just what one needs to meet the minimum requirements for a credential will always cost less than the full package toward a degree, I believe from my own experience that what we learn from one another in direct class and out-of-class interaction adds great value that will make a huge difference in career and in personal satisfaction over a lifetime.

What’s next?

As I begin by fifth decade in higher education, I am humbled by my experiences, but not ready to hang out a shingle just yet. I have accepted an invitation from Lafayette to help raise a total of $400 million in a capital campaign that will be launched in New York City on November 21, 2014 — one day before Lafayette and Lehigh will meet for the 150th time on the gridiron with Yankee Stadium serving as the venue for this historic game.  If those two events were the only backdrop, it would be an exciting time to be active and engaged in my profession.  But there is much more of course, as we discussed above.

The most obvious is that I will be learning a new system. While I am no stranger to building the relationships that would be required for effective fund raising, I will be learning new skills and systems that are necessary in order to manage prospective donors efficiently and effectively and to contribute to the success of Lafayette’s campaign.  A life without learning is not really a life at all, so I am looking forward to being teachable and to “doing” something new.

A last comment

With all of the changes I have seen over forty years — from how we promote ourselves, to how we interact, to the programs and services we provide — one thing has remained constant as I moved from Colgate to Union to Hopkins to Dickinson and now to Lafayette.  The educational experience of the student is at the core of what we do and my administrative colleagues and I remain committed to supporting the faculty in their work to prepare our students to make important contributions to our world, and to helping the many other campus professionals who teach students leadership and responsibility in their daily lives.  As he accepted the position of Commissioner of Education in the Carter administration, Ernest Boyer simply said, “Education is still the most important activity of life.”  I have kept that quote on my office wall since it was said.  And that is one other thing that has not changed over the past forty years.