This has been very relevant lately. The reason is that the government has been pushing the wealthy universities to spend some of that endowment money to help the students. The result (to quote the article):
"Getting into Harvard is like winning the lottery twice," said Barmak Nassirian, an executive with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers. "You're getting into Harvard, and if you don't have the adequate resources, you're getting into an institution that has the financial resources to package you properly."
So the natural question that comes up for economists are "should these universities have to spend their endowmnets?" and if so, "how does a place like Temple University (without those endowments) compete with the larger wealthy institutions?"
Byoungsoo Lim
ReplyDeleteMWF 10 AM - 10:50 AM
To answer the first quetion, I can think two different perspective. First, since I'm a student right now, the wealthy universities have to spend their endowmnets for students. I think, it is morally right thing to do. But as economist it is production of thier high reputation, technically the earn those money. We don't have any right to make them spend those money.
Therefore, in order to compete with those wealthy institution, Temple need to specialize the major that should be least top 10 in the nation. It is the only way that I can think of. To increase the reputation of school, it will naturally increase the endowmnets.
Katelyn Frueh
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50
I find this topic rather interesting as I myself applied to schools like Columbia and NYU my senior year (alongside Temple, obviously). As I didn't get into Columbia (which I am told would have been the cheapest), the choice came between an expensive New York school, or a cheaper Philly one. My boyfriend is actually a junior at Penn and paying about 2/3 less than what I'm paying at Temple. I've had numerous discussions with him about how colleges spend their money...he said basically, Penn has enough money that it could survive by alumni contributions alone. Of course the University rakes in money from students who have the ability to pay and from other endowments, but technically the University could still run if every student accepted was offered a full ride.
I also found that thought interesting while applying to schools...Schools like Penn that can offer such weighted financial packages don't know the financial needs of the student body it accepts. Columbia could make the claim (which it does) that it "meets 100% of the demonstrated financial need" and that they carry a "no loan policy" as Penn does. I found it interesting to question what would happen if every new student demonstrated 100% need? I imagine the school would still be able to function in the short run, but I can't imagine sustainability in the long run.
But to answer the original question, how does Temple compete with the Ivys...I think the answer is that the two are incomparable and so an accurate comparison cannot be drawn. I think its clear that there are many benefits that the Penn students see that we at Temple do not. Even something as simple as RA allotments are drastically different: Penn RAs are issued a generous allotment per week to spend on floor residents while TU RAs are only issued a small amount per month. But along the same lines, my boyfriend was actually telling me about how their student club activities fund has basically run out due to the fact that they were encouraged to give clubs more money to spend. This has created a problem for other clubs as they must postpone their initiatives until the funding is re-secured. So I don't think the answer is necessarily to spend all of the money just because its there - I'm also not saying that it should be in their scope to hang on to exorbitant amounts. But I do think that its in every Universities best interest to allocate an appropriate amount each year for the necessary costs it commits itself too. I think prospective students need to also understand their school's financial system and evaluate the benefits and costs of attending. Just because Penn is an Ivy League and has a high reputation does not make it a better school for every field.
The bottom line with this argument is that Temple cannot compete with these highly prestigious and wealthy endowed universities like Harvard and other Ivy Leagues. It is because they have so much money and resources that students who cannot afford such tuition costs are covered. A professor of mine told me that 20 years ago Temple got 80% of its budget provided by the state. Now only 20% is covered by the state. I think the bigger issue is the rising cost of college/higher education. It will impact your children as well as mine. Economists should focus on aiming to properly finance a large institution (like Temple).
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
ReplyDeleteCMac
I think that Temple will be able to compete. Harvard can't accept massive amounts of students the way that Temple can. Temple is relatively easy to get into and the tuition is fairly high (especially for out of state students). If Harvard isn't charging its students as much as Temple is and is not accepting as many students then they need the endowment more than Temple does. Temple may not be as financially sound as the Ivies but they have enough funding to continue to expand. If Temple were in any serious financial trouble they wouldn't be building a brand new architecture building or new residence halls.
Ryan McDonald
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
How can poorly funded universities with small endowments compete, it's quite difficult for these universities to match up with these Ivy League schools as well as private institutions. And unless things change, I don't see it happening. There are already problems for state universities with Governor Corbett proposing to raise state college tuition. That should perhaps be taking a front seat to this issue, because maybe this wouldn't be such a problem if smaller state colleges did not have to struggle for survival.
I personally picked Temple University because it had an excellent Communication's department and the tuition was affordable. But, with the recent allegations that tuition could drastically jump and the behind the scenes rumors of Temple perhaps attempting to go private things are becoming quite worrysome for those who struggle to afford tuition now. Rumors can cause quite and stir and that's not what I'm trying to do, I'm just pointing out what has been out there with all these possible ramifications of the economy and such. I'm not sure what these smaller universities should do, but whatever it is they better make a decision fast. Becasue Heather Marcus' words could hit close to home sooner or later. It is a shame that students are now being told to apply to at least 10 schools to make sure you can get in somewhere.
Kyree Lewis
ReplyDeleteMWF 9:00-9:50
One way for Temple University to compete is to gain more grants to the depts. Temple can use these grants to improve on the quality of materials that the students use in order to gain more and updated materials. When the students have more materials and utilize them Temple University can compete with other universities that receive endowments.
Michelle Zei
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-10:50 am
I think that Ivey League universities should spend some of their endowments on students. The endowments allow students to go to the schools who otherwise would not be able to afford to do so. The schools thus emphasize excellence and not wealth. They want the best students and are willing to finance their education if they can't afford to on their own. Since Ivey League schools are more selective than public universities and have smaller student bodies, it is more reasonable for them to give money away to their students. Public universities like Temple can't compete in providing endowments on the level of Harvard and Columbia. However, since the overall tuition is more affordable to more people than the flat tuition of Ivey League schools, students are still likely to turn toward public universities, especially if they do not get into Ivey League schools. Even if more students are applying to Ivey League schools, the vast majorities of them will get turned down and perhaps end up at a school like Temple where we get less money but also charge less. There will always be a place for public universities because they are more accessable than Ivey League schools in terms of acceptance and cost.
Samantha Anderson
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-9:50
I absolutely believe that wealthy universities should have to spend their endowments. Students with the privilege to go to such fine schools obviously earned their spots through hardwork and dedication. Asking them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (when the universities have money to support them) is just ludicrous.
However, at the end of the day college's are all about making money and not necessarily educating. Schools like Temple depend on families who do have the ability to pay some of their child's tuition. A vast majority of Temple students are from the Philadelphia area, they came to this school because it was the most affordable for them!
The affordabilty of college these days is a major issue that needs to be fixed. However I feel like ivy leagues are a privilege and by going to one you are certainly securing your future but drastically emptying your wallet at the same time.
Kristopher Cramer
ReplyDeleteMWF 9-950
Slowly, Temple is becoming a more respectable school and harder to get into. Temple may not be able to compete with the likes of Harvard, but as Temple becomes more of a respectable school the alumni base will grow. Assuming this happens, the alumni should be able to donate more to the school and allow students money like endowments. Certainly, it is quite a ways a way, but with the way the state is with our budget Temple is being forced to be more competitive. Temple striving to becoming one of the better universities in the city and in the surrounding area.
Josh Willgruber
ReplyDeleteMWF 10-1050
Private ivy-league universities should have to spend their endowments. Penn's dean of admissions, Eric Furda said the '09 no-loan financial-aid policy is the main reason why there has been a 17.5 percent increase in applications for this academic year.Well, no kidding. Penn is one of the "Big 8" ivy-league universities in the country; the funds are there. It makes sense for ivy-league universities to use their endowments to attract more applicants. Sounds like a win-win situation. Princeton came up with this idea in 2001, and it a seems pretty logical one.
Penn is financially stable, hence the alumni conributions are there. It's quite ironic that 2009 was the year Penn implemented this no-loan financial-aid policy. Temple as well as Pitt, Penn State, and Lincoln were cut out of fast Eddie's federal stimulus funding during the same year. Remember, table games were a higher priority on former Gov. Rendell's agenda. So it will be interesting to see what Gov. Corbett does.
To answer the second question: "how does a place like Temple compete with the larger wealthy instituitons," like other students have noted, it's incomparable. Temple is one of the most diverse universities in the country, and we continue to grow because the reputation of particuliar schools, such as our Fox Business School and Communications Field are very legit programs. But the majority of students here @ Temple are made up of commuter students so getting involved in school activities is a little more challenging. That said, making alumni contributions is a daunting task.
But it comes down to where you're from, what you wish to accomplish and what best suits your needs. As Barmak Nassirian said, "you're getting into an institution that has the financial resources to package you properly."
Nicholas Camaioni
ReplyDeleteMWF 9 - 10 AM
I also agree that universities should have to spend their endowments. I myself working for a school district within Bucks County. This district brings in children from cities within New Jersey and is able to give them a better education through the spending of various donations. Colleges should also engage in this activity as it helps bolster their application rates. I too feel that it is a win-win situation for both the students and the colleges.
At the same time, colleges can't be expected to pay for all of their students. If colleges handed out tuition to every student that applied, the college would ultimately go broke. It becomes a fine line for the college to walk when it comes to paying for their students to attend college. While an education benefits both the individual and the society they live within, money is tight for all forms of government and institutions alike. Sacrifices need to be made and not everyone can expect a handout in order to go to school.