<p>According to this article the estimated cost of attending WashU for 2007-2008 is about $47,156. Does it correlate with Washu's escalation in prestige? What are your thoughts about this increase?</p>
<p>thanks. ya i meant to attach that link.</p>
<p>That reflects WashU's failure in endowment performance in last few years.</p>
<p>i see...so WashU is losing money?</p>
<p>I don't think it is necessarily a reflection of poor endowment performace. Keep in mind that WU recruited and hired outstanding and stellar professors for the revamped Econ department, and there are currently 3 major construction projects going on (2 state of the are facilitites being built). Therefore, the rise in tuition is probably to offset some of these costs.</p>
<p>It seems perfectly in line with its average annual tuition hike & in line with many peer institutions. 2 years ago tuition rose 4.7% (<a href="http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2005/01/21/News/Tuition.Tops.31.K-837569.shtml?sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com)%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2005/01/21/News/Tuition.Tops.31.K-837569.shtml?sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com)</a>, and last year it rose 5.5% (<a href="http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2006/01/20/News/Undergraduate.Tuition.Nears.33k-1478815.shtml?sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com)%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2006/01/20/News/Undergraduate.Tuition.Nears.33k-1478815.shtml?sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com)</a>. Last year Carnegie Mellon's tuition rose around 4.4%, and Princeton at 4.9%, with the national average at 5% (<a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/02/07/news/14365.shtml)%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/02/07/news/14365.shtml)</a>. </p>
<p>Adjusted for inflation, the increases are around 2%.</p>
<p>oh that's not bad, so less than 1000 cost increase, which will go to school-wide projects.</p>
<p>The 2006 endowment figures came out, and WashU's increase vs. previous years was weaker than most of the top schools. Anyone know what's going on?</p>
<p>broken link?</p>
<p>The table mentioned this: "Percentage Change" does NOT represent the rate of return on investment for the listed endowment.</p>
<p>Spending more on new buildings, hiring star professors, and lack of huge influx of fresh donations, etc., could contribute a lower % change in endowment for WashU. </p>
<p>It is a delicate balance. If you only want to have more endowment money, then don't spend a penny. However, if you need to improve your reputation and attract more students now, you need to spend on things. Finally, WashU just hired a new Investments Manager last year. Hope she will invest more wisely.</p>
<p>Wash U has taken on at least 3 large construction projects this past year - The building of a new dorm, the demolition of Prince Hall (and construction of a huge underground parking garage in it's place, followed by a new student center on top), and a new Social Sciences/Law building. They also just expanded a parking garage near the athletic center, and finished gutting an old building, and rebuilding the interior from scratch. WashU has been ramping up improvement projects like crazy. This is most likely the reason. Wash U finally hired a Chief Investment Officer to manager their whole endowment, so that should probably help.</p>
<p>People don't realize exactly how much money WU is spending. It amazes me that the endowment hasn't decreased with all the money that is being spent on constrution, or that is allocated for future construction. I mean look at this</p>
<p>Current Projects:
Underground Parking Garage
Univeristy Center
Social Sciences/Law School Building</p>
<p>Projects for the very near future(within next 6 yrs):
-Demolition and Reconstruction of Beaumont House, Lee House, Umrath House, and Ruby House
-Demolition and Reconstruction of the Wohl Center
-3 new engineering school buildings for new engineering complex for dept. expansion</p>
<p>Jeffwun:</p>
<p>Construction projects are not all funded from endowments. Endowments may be used but also resources come from current funds, debt, alumni promised large gifts. That's why builldings are named alumni lol.</p>
<p>hsseniorlooking,</p>
<p>A lot of WU buildings aren't funded by alumni and donors upfront. That is why a lot of new buildings aren't dedicated yet (i.e. Psychology Building, Laboratory Sciences Building, Earth and Planetary Sciences Buildings, etc). WU builds a lot of structures and has people donate money later. For example, Forsyth House as just renamed Dardick House this year because someone paid money for their son to have a house named after them, however the house had been built a in 2003. </p>
<p>The Psych Building has been up since 1995 and it has yet to be dedicated cause no one has paid for it; however, the money for the building had to come from somewhere, and a lot of it came from the endowment.</p>
<p>Remember that WashU just hired a new chief investment officer.</p>
<p>Three buildings cannot be an excuse for poor investment performance. Many peer universities have constructions going on.</p>
<p>
<p>Construction projects are not all funded from endowments. Endowments may be used but also resources come from current funds, debt, alumni promised large gifts. That's why builldings are named alumni lol.
The massive dorm construction project that they're currently working on isn't funded in the traditional "pay us to name the building" style, as the buildings were named years ago. They've pretty much torn down an old dorm and rebuilt it every year for the past 4 years at least.</p>
<p>I've been saying for a while that WashU needs better endowment investment management, but the new chief investment officer may help that. At this point, WashU should at least be matching the market on its investment return.</p>
<p>It seems like buildings and expenses are responsible for the lower increase in the endowment, based on this statement from last year's annual report:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, the endowment had a net total return of 12.9 percent. Domestic equity managers as a group returned 11.4 percent, ahead of the benchmark Russell 3000’s 9.6 percent return.
[/quote]
If the net return was 12.9%, yet the percent increase in the endowment was 9.8%, the discrepancy is related to expenses (as long as I'm reading the annual report correctly).</p>
<p>Jeffwun:</p>
<p>Thanks. I'm sure some came from endowment, but I'm guessing at least 50% was borrowed and WashU has a debt service commitment on this/these buildings. This way the person getting the building named after them only has to contribute money that generates income to pay a portion or all of the debt service for the building.</p>
<p>My dad works in finance at a University. He said they would never get a building built if they had to raise all the money first. </p>
<p>By the way WashU is the prettiest campus I saw during visits. There was alot of construction going on, so you know they are taking care of the infrastructure.</p>
<p>lucifer, this is more than 3 new buildings. This is over 30 new buildings in the last 10 years!</p>