Today, GW Not For Profit launched a year-long education and advocacy campaign to continue to bring attention to this issue that is facing too many students.
Click here to read more and to learn how to get involved!
GW Not For Profit |
|
As many rising juniors and seniors explore off-campus housing options for next Fall, it is becoming even more apparent that next year's housing rate increases continue to far outpace off-campus market options.
Today, GW Not For Profit launched a year-long education and advocacy campaign to continue to bring attention to this issue that is facing too many students. Click here to read more and to learn how to get involved!
3 Comments
BY JORDAN STEPHEN To many GW students, the notion of financial independence and the stress that accompanies it are reserved for the mythical time that comes after graduation. Long work nights and monthly bill payments seem like foreboding alternatives to internships and facile weekend jobs.
Unfortunately for Emily Thompson, a 20 year-old sophomore from Wichita, Kansas, most of her time and energy is put into figuring out how she will cover the costs of the university that she loves. “It's just really difficult,” Thompson said. “It's always money money money money, and it's really stressful.” Thompson, an honors student pursuing a degree in Speech and Hearing Science, receives a substantial amount of money from scholarships, need-based financial aid, and student loans. But between herself and her single mother, paying the cost that is not covered by supplemental sources puts a strain on her family. “[Freshman] year, it covered all but $9,000,” Thompson recalled. “But to my family, $9,000 is still a lot of money.” Thompson, who describes herself as a “traditional 4.0 student,” graduated at the top of her high school class back in Kansas. She was one of the few students from Buhler High School who pursued a post-secondary education out of state. With her mind adamantly set on a Political Communications degree, Thompson knew GW would be the perfect place to pursue her passion. “I knew GW was my dream school,” she said. “It was where I wanted to come... It was GW or bust.” But reality quickly set in when Thompson and her family were confronted by GW's costs. Thompson's mother, who had been unemployed since 2011, was not able to contribute much to her daughter's education, but they managed to get by. The mandatory freshman J-Street deposit and the growing cost of housing were two payments that were “more expensive than [they] were expecting.” Fortunately, Thompson's mom was able to find a job in October of 2012. The unforeseen consequence, however, was that the new source of income would affect the amount of aid Thompson received. “Now that she has a job, FAFSA is not so great,” she said. “It has bumped me into that value where she has a good job, but it's not enough to make up the whole difference. That right there is why I am unsure if I can stay.” Making her financial burden even heavier is an additional $9,000 in hospital bills that Thompson must pay because of several visits during her freshman year. This amounts to roughly $400 a month, something the struggling student can barely afford. Thompson has had to take on a second job to come up with the money. Between 17 credit hours of class, 30 hours of work per week, and the responsibilities that come with executive board membership in both the GW Roosevelt Institute and the National Student Speech Language Hearing Association, Thompson is simply “wiped out.” “I don't get home until midnight and I go to bed around 3 or 4 a.m. most days and it makes having time to study and just doing homework really difficult,” Thompson said. “Last semester I didn't do so hot in some classes I should have done well in because I was always working.” Living her life according to a work schedule makes it difficult for Thompson to fully enjoy her time as a college student. “It's always an issue of 'I'm at work and I don't get off until midnight' so I have to forcibly carve time out of my schedule to have a social life, which sucks,” she lamented. Sometimes the frustration just become too much. “I have a job and I'm working my ass off and I make money, but my bank account never reflects that,” Thompson said. “That's the shittiest part.” After several semesters of long hours and little sleep, Thompson believes it may be time to leave GW and enroll at a school that is less of a financial drain. Following an exhaustive search to find an affordable alternative, University of Kansas appears to be the best choice. She is just waiting to see how much aid money KU will offer her, but she expects a significant amount considering her instate residence status. For Thompson, GW simply cannot offer her an aid package that will make staying in Foggy Bottom a sustainable option. “To them (GW Financial Aid) three or four thousand dollars is not a lot,” she said. “But to me that is a lot...Finances are everything.” If you or someone you know will be leaving or has already left campus for financial reasons, please contact us at [email protected] if interested in being featured in a blog profile. We want to ensure that no member of our university community who is leaving for financial reasons is forgotten. BY LAURA ZILLMAN In January, President Steven Knapp joined 100 other college leaders at the White House, pledging to expand college access in order to shrink income inequality. Now, organizers in student organizations across GW’s campus are calling for Knapp to keep his promises.
GW Not for Profit is proud to join the Progressive Student Union, the GW Roosevelt Institute, DC Jobs with Justice, the College Democrats, Fossil Free GW, and the Feminist Student Union, as we ask the University to disclose the details of its agreements with banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions. You can read the full text of the coalition's letter on our website. Financial institutions paid $83 million in 2009 to universities, encouraging them to market their companies’ student loan, credit, debit, and checking products to students. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently released a report, outlining the concerns that these agreements may not always serve student best interests. The student letter, signed by GWNFP, cites the advice of Richard Cordray, CFPB’s Director, who contended in December that: “[S]tudents and their families should know if their school, whether well-intentioned or not, is being compensated to encourage students to use a specific account or card product. When financial institutions secretly give kickbacks to schools, they are engaging in risky practices.” The only such disclosures GW is required to make are those pertaining to college credit cards, as per the terms of the CARD Act, so it’s important to note that GW has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of any other compensation from financial institutions. The National Association of College and University Business Officers, of which GW is a member, has also suggested that its member universities publicly release details of their compensation from banks. We believe in the importance of financial transparency at every level of GW’s operation, and that includes agreements with credit card companies. One of the jobs of a college is to give students a firm foundation upon which to base their future. Putting a nineteen-year-old at a financial disadvantage right from the start—simply because they didn’t realize that opening a particular banking account or using a certain debit card dumps higher fees upon them while rewarding the university who peddled it—runs completely counter to that. A college may be run on the tuition dollars of its students, but an institution of higher learning should not also run on hidden fees. If GW has any such partnerships, we ask that their details be made publicly known, so students can make the most informed decisions possible. In light of the University’s requirement that students will live on campus for three years beginning with the class of 2018, the Student Association correctly made housing costs a priority.
SA President Julia Susuni made it clear to the University’s Board of Trustees last October students are paying more for less. The SA crunched the numbers: It’s simply more expensive to live in University housing. For two- and four-resident accommodations, the savings are significant for students who move into a popular off-campus apartment: $2,645 and $3,360 respectively. GW Housing released price tags for the 2014-2015 academic year last month. Excluding a few residence halls, those price tags are slated to increase by approximately 3 percent, on average. A quad in Munson Hall, once among the cheapest housing options for sophomores, increased by 3.6 percent. The fact of the matter is that most housing options are increasing in price next year by about the same percentage as in years past. These price increases are not exactly in line with Washington, D.C.’s real estate market. Washington has thousands of newly completed apartments, making the supply large enough that existing properties have actually cut rents in an attempt to hold onto residents, according to the Washington Post. The University argues that students derive benefits from on-campus housing that make the extra price worth it. Several administrators told The GW Hatchet in August that cost increases are merely a response to increased student expectations. Because students find value in upgraded furnishings, house staff, resident advisors, and hall programming, continued price increases are necessary to keep up. However, students should still be offered on-campus housing options that are reasonably priced. And continued increases only continue to make our education inaccessible to low- and moderate-income students. Having a few housing options becoming cheaper next year is undoubtedly an improvement. However, most are still becoming more expensive every year, making the issue something we must continue working on. BY JORDAN STEPHEN The federal government made $41.3 billion in profits from student loans last year, enough to award 7.3 million college students maximum-level Pell Grants of $5,645.
This puts the financial yield from the loan program in third place when compared to all corporations worldwide, behind only Exxon Mobil, which made $44.9 billion in 2012, and Apple Inc., which made $41.7 billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects that student loan payments will provide the federal government with $175 billion in profit by 2023 if it aims to keep the subsidy rate at negative 20%. This would mean that the program takes in 20% more than it administers. Student loan debt is already at a disconcerting level, and the weight of the post-graduate debt yolk is only getting heavier. In the past decade, the amount of debt related to education has nearly tripled, going from $364 billion in 2005, to an estimated $1.08 trillion by the end of 2013. At GW, students graduate with an average of $33,398 in loans, higher than the national average of nearly $27,000. The biggest culprit for the rising debt rate is the ever-growing cost of attendance for most major colleges in the United States. The average price of a college tuition has risen almost four times more than average income has in the last 30 years, making it necessary for the majority of college students to borrow money from the federal government in order to obtain their degree. If the federal government wants to keep college affordable for the average citizen, then it should avoid policies that are complacent with the cost-ballooning strategies of many of today's top schools. The focus should instead be on keeping education costs in line with income so that a post-secondary degree is a practical investment, not one that will haunt you monetarily for rest of your life. The federal government should be more concerned with the unemployment line than the bottom line. BY LAURA ZILLMAN It’s one of the most-repeated “fun facts” on any GW campus tour: We are the second-largest landowner in the District of Columbia, behind only the federal government. On February 19th, it was announced that our campus footprint will expand even further to include the Corcoran College of Art and Design: both the building on 17th Street near the White House, and a secondary Georgetown location. The $2 billion art collection will, under the supervision of the National Gallery, be partly preserved here in DC, and partly scattered to other museums across the country.
Students on campus, and especially the often-overlooked Department of Fine Arts and Art History, will benefit immensely from the deal. The new campus spaces will provide new academic facilities and cultural experiences that will only enrich campus life. There is no doubt that this deal is great news for our university. But, what’s the catch? As part of the deal, GW will pay nothing for the Corcoran facility itself. In exchange, the University will shoulder nearly all of the renovation costs, which could range from tens of millions to as high as $130 million. Add into the mix the additional cost of temporarily relocating the college and artwork during renovations, and hiring new employees beyond their extended one-year contracts, GW could be looking at an incredible sum, adding pressure to existing fundraising efforts. Current campus construction projects already include a $275 million Science and Engineering Hall, $130 million Superdorm residence hall, $75 million School of Public Health and Health Services, and a yet-to-be released pricetag for the demolishing and rebuilding of Square 75A, a commercial office space on Pennsylvania Avenue. The University already has $1.4 billion in debt and is expected to pay $60 million in loan interest this year alone. These many campus construction projects have continued alongside increases in student costs of attendance. In the past 10 years, the University’s tuition sticker price has climbed 20 percent from $39,260 to $47,343, adjusted for inflation, and continues to be one of the most expensive in the country. The undergraduate financial aid budget reduced by $2 million last year, despite growing concerns from students about how they will pay off an average of $33,399 in college loan debt. Although new fundraising efforts could perhaps pique the interest of new donors interested in the fine arts, the Corcoran saw a 50 percent drop in fundraising over the last seven years, coupled with a 60 percent drop in visitor flow. Counting on renewed interest, now that many feel the spirit of the Corcoran will be lost in the merger, is risky—and future GW students may end up footing the bill. It would be ideal if a single or group of large donors will cover the costs of this expansion. Let’s hope a sizeable donation will emerge, much like the $25 million gift from an anonymous donor that is helping fund the new GW Museum and Textile Museum. However, this is, of course, easier said than done. While the Corcoran expansion will no doubt enrich our campus culture, the large upgrade costs should come from private donors, not further unsustainable tuition increases. With an April 7th deadline set to finalize the details of the Corcoran collaboration, we’ll be waiting to see what the University decides to do. BY JACOB QUIROZ From free printing to lowering tuition, GW students at this semester’s Organization Fair voiced their opinions about the university’s budget priorities. Each respondent answered the following question: “How would you change GW’s spending priorities?”
Of the nearly 30 responses, a third of students pointed to the cost of living as the most important issue. Given recent attention to pricey dorms in comparison with local apartment options and the new junior housing requirement, this makes sense. Many students believed their dorms were overpriced and that there needs to be more affordable options. Similarly, respondents noted the lack of reasonably priced food options on campus. Closely following, other students cited concerns with perceived large administrative expenses and a lack of transparency in university operations. In fact, recent media attention has turned to this issue. For every $1 spent on instruction, universities across the country spent $1.82 on academic support, student services, institutional support, and other categories in 2011 Stay tuned for a GWNFP blog analysis of this phenomena on campus. Although some of the responses may seem negative, a larger portion turned their frustrations into opportunities for change and offered their solutions. Some chose to address GW’s responsibility to the community by writing “community investment in DC” and “directly hiring workers.” Others simply wrote “more transparency,” “more student services,” and “less construction, more on teachers” as other solutions. Student voices matter and this project was just a portion of the many initiatives our organization is working on to make sure our voices are heard in budget discussions. Here is a list of the responses we received: Financial Affordability "Lower tuition" "More financial aid" "More scholarships" "More need-based scholarships" "Less merit scholarships for those who can already afford GW tuition" Academic "Smaller class sizes" "Less construction, more on teachers" "Less/quicker construction" "Free printing" Service "Community investment in DC" "Revolving loan funds" Administrative Issues and Increased Transparency "Smaller administrative/managerial salaries" "Investing in making better websites" "Less contracting to irresponsible companies" "Use of art students for graphic design projects" "Directly hiring all workers (no Sodexo, Bravo, etc)" "Zero tolerance policy on mismanagement of funds" "Higher endowment" "More transparency!" Housing and Dining "Cheaper food costs" "Cheaper housing" "Cleaner dorms" "Better-looking buildings" "Better City Hall gym" "Less-sensitive smoke detectors" "Not the Superdorm" "Cheaper food costs" "Better J Street food" "More student services" Note: The above sample is by no means a scientific study. GW Not For Profit created this survey to better understand the priorities of students present at the Org Fair. We hope you find it interesting. BY LAURA ZILLMAN One trillion dollars is a lot of money. To put it into perspective, one trillion dollars would pay the average salaries of all 535 members of Congress for ten thousand years.
One trillion dollars is also a sobering number: the amount of student debt in the United States at the end of 2011. The average American college student graduates with $27,000 in debt—and the average GW student with more than $32,000. These numbers are nowhere in the minds of most freshly-minted college freshmen, who gladly sign loan agreements without a second thought. The problem? That’s exactly what student loan lenders are counting on. Adjusted for inflation, the average sticker price for tuition, room and board, and fees at private universities has increased 3.9% per year since 2002, but recent evidence finds that much of college spending has focused on non-academic purposes. Colleges now compete in an increasingly-cutthroat environment, luring students with luxurious dorms, amenities, and other perks. Students who believe that they are getting their money’s worth will pay the price—and for what they don’t have, they will take out loans and expect to pay them back after graduation. They are never told that one in ten graduates will default on their loans, or that that defaulting could prevent them from buying a house, car, or starting a business one day. Declaring bankruptcy is not an option for most student loans, and horror stories of student debt ruining once-optimistic students’ lives are becoming all too common. In a world where college degrees are deemed essential, and virtually any eighteen-year-old can borrow ever-larger sums of money to pay for ever-ballooning college costs, it is appalling that most of the time we don’t even know what we’re paying for. And far too often, we don’t get to participate in discussions of how our tuition dollars are spent. It’s tough to argue that education is a social good when it’s used to ensnare our students, who are, quite literally, paying dearly for it. Today, GW Not For Profit launched an online, user-friendly University Data Library that is the first student-run website providing comprehensive financial information for students, faculty, alumni, and the surrounding community.
The website contains links to annual Financial Reports, Rating Agency Reports, Strategic Planning documents, Department of Education resources, and GW-affiliated websites in one central place. The Data Library is only one of many projects the organization is working on to promote financial transparency. Since September 2013, GW Not For Profit has had weekly meetings with the GW Finance Division to create a Financial Dashboard with infographics that make already-public information more comprehensible for students and other stakeholders. Final release is expected in upcoming weeks. We believe that greater financial transparency is necessary to address many student budgetary concerns on campus. The Data Library released today is an important first-step towards making the institution more transparent and accessible to all. If you have questions or have suggestions on documents to add to the Library, please contact us directly. BY JACOB QUIROZ The past year was a big year for higher education. Out-of-control student debt figures made headlines this summer with congressional action on federal loans. GW's need-aware policy transparency created a national debate about college access and affordability. Here are what we think are the Top 10 higher education reads that you should read from 2013:
1. When Students Are Rejected For Being Poor: George Washington University and the Roots of a Troubled System by Josh Freedman. GW received national attention after increased transparency about changes to its need-blind financial aid policy. Freedman writes that the high-tuition, high-aid higher education model relies on attracting for full-paying students to subsidize increased spending and financial aid. Wider systemic changes are needed to make universities more accessible for all. 2. Student Debt Nearly Tripled in 8 Years, New York Federal Reserve Reports by Tyler Kingkade. According to the New York Federal Reserve, the total student debt has tripled over the past eight years. The effects are more tragic than past due loan payments. More and more graduates are unable to buy homes and participate in the economy than previous generations because of high college debt. 3. Undermining Pell: How Colleges Compete for Wealthy Students and Leave the Poor Behind by Stephen Burd. This report by the New America Foundation finds that even with federal Pell Grants, many private universities’ high net sticker prices are preventing low-income students from attending their institutions. Colleges seek to build their prestige by attracting wealthier students through construction and merit aid. Burd specifically cites GW as a “low Pell, high cost” school that “remains among the 30 least socioeconomically diverse private colleges in the nation.” GW’s lowest-income students pay an average $15,000 per year, often larger than their family income, and graduate with an average debt of about $33,000. The report pins blame on former University President Trachtenberg who raised the school’s position on college rankings through a “building spree” in the early 2000s, but left many low-income students behind with the high tuition that paid for these new amenities. 4. The Tuition Is Too Damn High Series (Part III/Part VI) by Dylan Matthews. A five part segment describing the main barriers to entry in higher education. The article cites “the Bowen theory” which says universities seek to maximize potential revenue, spend all they can possible raise and avoid cutting costs. Suggesting universities are most likely spending too much, the author argues that colleges can reduce costs without affecting educational quality. He cites that infrastructure and non-faculty staffing costs are predominantly to blame for large increases in tuition that began in the early 2000s. Matthews makes an important point: because most universities are nonprofit institutions, they often cannot save money using traditional methods used by private businesses. He also argues that since the value of college degrees is difficult to measure, universities can exploit students by raising tuition without increasing the quality of the education provided. 5. Many Young Americans Blame Colleges for Rising College Debt by Tyler Kingkade. A recent poll by the Harvard University Institute of Politics finds that the majority of students blame their universities for rising tuition and student debt. Across the U.S., private and public colleges are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new gym equipment, dorms and other amenities. The article also blames the federal government and the lack of attention to state legislatures for the increase of student debt. 6. Colleges’ Debt Falls on Students After Construction Binges by Andrew Martin. In recent years, colleges have tried to attract more students to their campuses by building and renovating dormitories and recreational facilitates. With a slow economy, popular college ranking systems and frugal state governments, colleges are forced to raise tuition and take out large loans to remain competitive and boost their perceived prestige. The article shows that these tuition hikes are requiring even more financial aid. The article also suggests universities should reinvent themselves and simply stop their unsustainable pursuit of construction projects. 7. How Spending More on Academics Can Actually Hurt College Enrollment by Brad Tuttle. The author shows a new trend in less selective private colleges: providing more campus amenities instead of higher-quality instruction and an overall better education. The article cites a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research which claims second-tier private schools focus more on campus amenities because their students will appreciate it more and are less attracted to campuses that focus more on academic quality. It even states doing the opposite especially when attendance is low would be harmful to the university’s stability. 8. How Student Debt Reduces Lifetime Wealth by Robert Hiltonsmith. This interactive report follows the accumulated wealth of two households: one with student debt and one without. Current research shows students of color and from low-income families graduate with the highest levels of debt. The research finds that approximately each dollar borrowed equals 4 dollars of total wealth loss throughout a household’s lifetime, resulting in lower retirement savings, mortgage interest rates and future home values. 9. Student Debt Slows Economic Growth as Young Spend Less by Annie Lowrey. Although many college graduates are better off than non-degree holders, they still face many problems. The article follows Shane Gill, a 33-year-old teacher, who is a bachelor and does not own a car or a home. He lives a life like many graduates in their 20s and 30s who have to delay larger purchases like cars, houses and other expensive luxuries due to their debt. 10. Why American Colleges Are Becoming a Force for Inequality by Josh Freedman. In theory, colleges offer students, especially from low-income backgrounds, better opportunities to succeed in life. Today, most colleges fail to promote social mobility because they follow an unsustainable business model dependent on raising tuition prices, enrolling full-paying students to offset prices, and investing in luxurious amenities. The article suggests that since most universities do not have large endowments and continue to try to outspend each other on non-educational projects, governments should fund more public universities, make more grants, and reform the college loan system. What were your favorite higher-education reads of the year? Comment on this post to share your views! Please note that the above opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of GW Not For Profit or its members. |