<p>
</p>
<p>Brandeis and Middlebury have been operating under some financial stress for quite some time. Middlebury has been “out of equlibrium” by spending above its endowment spending max ceiling for a several years. The current fiscal year ending in June was the year that they had planned to finally get their endowment spending down to 5%. </p>
<p>Brandeis has always been signficantly under-endowed relative to the schools with which it competes.</p>
<p>Well I must’ve not been part of the final 850 applicants, as a Tufts acceptee with an EFC of 0…!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Middlebury’s President has said on several occasions (as recently as last month) that the target 5% spending rate will be met this year. In addition, Midd’s endowment has greatly outperformed the market for the last several years (earning 22% two years ago), so the fact that they overspent the 5% target endowment rate by a few extra percentage points to finance huge building projects isn’t as doom and gloom as you make it sound. Unlike many peers, Midd has brand new facilities (across the board–from academic to residential to athletic) and won’t have to cancel or postpone many of building projects that its peers are putting on hold until the economy recovers.</p>
<p>The minimum 5% spending rate is the law for non-profits so they can’t exploit the tax-deductibility of the contributions AND the investment profits year after year.</p>
<p>It seems that a large number of schools were violating these IRS rules for years using various loopholes.
Congress recently threatened to take action to close these loopholes and it had as a result Ivies and the rest to follow by offering grants instead of loans (most of them with high interests) to admitted students in need.</p>
<p>An institution with several billion dollars in reserve and offering only 1% or much less of their endowment to assist their existing and incoming students will not cut it any more.
If one third of the donations and of the school’s endowment has been paid with tax deductions then it’s reasonable to expect a school to provide if not as much at least a tenth of it back to society.
If trustees and administrators do not see the fairness side of this argument then they will
definitely be forced to see the legal side…the U.S.A. Congress decided.</p>
<p>Not even half of the schools in gyrhead’s list are really within the letter of the law (5% spending rate) even now after the decrease of their endowments because of financial losses.
They also are either not really need based or not meeting full need.
Asking the parents and the students to take a 100K+ equity loan or pay close to 10 % interest in unsubsidized loans is not what we call meeting full need but rather forcing the parents and the students to meet financial ruin.</p>
<p>Last year we learned of certain illicit ways used by college financial aid officers in steering students and parents to certain “partner” private college loan companies that profited handsomely from high interest rates AND from the government subsidies directly to these companies.
No more of this exploitation!</p>
<p>We understand the efforts of the respected education institutions that try to fulfill their ethical and legal obligations since it takes a couple years to adjust their cash flow to the letter of the Law.
What we don’t understand why a few schools like Tufts believe their gimmicks will work in avoiding their responsibilities, by changing in secret school policy and announcing it after the end of the admission process.</p>
<p>It’s an easy guess what would have happened in Tuft’s application pool if they had announced truthfully the change of their admission policy in the BEGINNING of the admission season and not after all applications had been received?</p>
<p>AP</p>
<p>p.s.
stephansawesome make sure you understand what an EFC of 0 means in terms of how much you and your family will ask to contribute with loans.</p>
<p>The only FA to international students should be for doctoral degree level exceptional candidates when there are not willing and able American students to do the necessary for the country research and teaching. Life is less fair for the international students than the American students but it is as just as possible since the American taxpayer provides the funds.<br>
As a matter of fact foreign and out-of-state students by paying sometimes double the tuition of the in-state students provide the funds for merit or need based aid to eligible in-state students and it seems that’s fine with all parties concerned.</p>
<p>Quote: “Unlike many peers, Midd has brand new facilities (across the board–from academic to residential to athletic) and won’t have to cancel or postpone many of building projects that its peers are putting on hold until the economy recovers.”</p>
<p>Middlebury and the many other institutions that have been on building sprees will still need to meet the increased operating expenses that come with their new facilities as well as service any debt associated with them.</p>
<p>
How many times must it be repeated that Tufts did not advertise its need-blind policy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they will. And specific funds have been set aside for the maintenance of these new facilities. But in the meantime, the students who enroll at Middlebury will be able to take advantage of a new library, science center, center for the humanities, pool, ice hockey rink, biomass plant, three new dorms, and three new dining halls (among other projects)–all built within the past 10 years. Kids who enroll at other schools next year may not see new facilities built during their time in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. “Set aside” in the endowment that is now a former shell of its former size.</p>
<p>Hard to tell for sure since Middlebury is somewhat unique in not posting their financial statements online, but every college I’ve seen paid for their building sprees with bond debt. From other sources, I see that Middlebury currently has $270 million in outstanding debt, with about $55 million in volatile variable rate demand bonds.</p>
<p>this thread is utterly confusing, because “need blind” has been at once defined as absolute by some (interesteddad) and capable of gradation by others. but the purpose of “need blind” admission practices is to alert applicants to the fact that their admission to or rejection by the college was based solely on the strength of their application without consideration of need. under this definition, it is possible to have a class admitted under a “need blind” policy with exceptions for waitlist students, international students, and transfer students. a U.S. first year applicant who is admitted to bowdoin under a putative “need blind” policy can rest assured that they were admitted without regard to need. U.S. first year applicants who were rejected, or put on the waitlist can also rest assured under this policy that need was not a criterion for an accept, waitlist or rejection. the only applicants who have reason to suspect that their financial resources were considered in tandem with their applications are those admitted from the waitlist, those rejected after being placed on the waitlist, any international student, and any transfer student. therefore, it is possible, if the policy is stated clearly, and if the distinctions drawn are not arbitrary, to have need blind admissions that do not result in every member of the class being admitted under the policy. the difference between the bowdoin and tufts policies, which this thread erroneously treats as analogous, is that an applicant to tufts this year will in fact have no idea whether or not their admission was based in part upon need since their need blind policy was suspended before completing the assessment of an applicant group. at bowdoin, this uncertainty exists for admittees from the waitlist, and those rejected from the waitlist, transfer students, and international students, just as it always has.</p>
<p>i’m also unclear about the tone of the thread which is at once indignant and accusatory. this baffles me. the current economic climate is sufficient excuse for any changes made to aid at either tufts, bowdoin, or any school for that matter, and to make those changes public in the way that they have is admirable. the debate is essentially over whether a college can still claim a “need blind” admissions policy when some students who ultimately enroll were considered with respect to need. i think bowdoin, so long as it clearly states that waitlist, international, and transfer admittees are exempt from the policy, can also legitimately claim to utilizing a “need blind” admissions policy for their class. </p>
<p>but it seems suspicious to me that some are heralding this as a change at bowdoin. this is not a change. in the past decade bowdoin has never regarded admission from the waitlist, international applicants, or transfer applicants as subject to their “need blind” policy.</p>
<p>I am not sure that it is true that privates can do whatever they wish. There was a great deal of congressional pressure for many of the selective schools to answer to their tuition increases greatly outpacing inflation and the lack of socio-economic diversity on their campuses. Just because you are not a public institution does not mean that your institution does not receive substantial public moneys. Grants for research are just one example. And certainly many students who are fa candidates have pell grant and state grant money channeled to these institutions.</p>
<p>The pressure from Congress had to do with the fact that the colleges and universities enjoyed tax-exempt status at the same time as their endowments were growing by obscene amounts but they were not using the growth in those endowments to offset the rising cost to students of tuition and fees. That is part of why some of the wealthier institutions moved to loan-free financial aid and to meeting a greater proportion of need for middle-income students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Tufts’s policy was not suspended (there never was a need-blind policy), and no action at all was taken before a complete, need-blind assessment of the entire applicant pool was done. Tuft’s policy, and equally important, its procedure was the same this year as in previous ones. Simplifying only a little: they read the whole RD pool need blind; they selected whom they’d admit if funds were unlimited; they then “peek” at the financial stats for this hypothetical admitted pool to check whether or not the FA budget was going to balance if they admitted them all; this year, when it didn’t, they had to reconsider the decisions of a small sliver of relatively weaker admits on either side of the admit/deny (or waitlist) divide; they shifted a few applications from one side of that divide to the other to balance the budget. </p>
<p>Tufts’s aspirations and their ability to pull off need-blindness for 2 years awakened hope, even expectation for some of this year’s applicants. But anyone who knew their official policy could surmise how their application was going to be treated; it was read in exactly the same way it would be at other need-aware, full-need meeting institution and exactly as Tufts had been reading them for years.</p>
<p>They had no other choice.</p>
<p>lockn, MarathonMan88, Tufts was defacto “need-blind” for the last 3 years and it would have probably continued to be, at least for the RD students this year, if the “administration” had not decided to “invest” at least $20 mil. in the Madoff Ponzi scheme.</p>
<p>Tufts still has about $1 bil. endowment which means it should spend at least $50 mil. a year for financial aid to assist existing and new students.
That still is not close of meeting its students “full need”.</p>
<p>AP
p.s.
The 95% of “need blind” applications is a funny figure since no one can prove that it wasn’t 50%. Why not 99%?</p>
<p>MarathonMan is correct-
“anyone who knew their official policy could surmise how their application was going to be treated; it was read in exactly the same way it would be at other need-aware, full-need meeting institution and exactly as Tufts had been reading them for years.”</p>
<p>It’s pretty simple. Once again… Tufts never claimed to have need-blind admissions. The fact that they read most of them in that respect shows it’s a direction they genuinely want to move in. The fact that they volunteered their methods behind this year’s admissions decisions is a credit to them.</p>
<p>And BTW - they did not invest with Madoff. They invested with a group who in turn invested with his company. But just curious-- when it comes to the people who lost their money to Madoff-- are you blaming them directly?</p>
<p>
What does this mean? No one can prove it wasn’t zero or 100%.</p>
<p>lsp72 and Tufts administration apologists,
Tufts students themselves believe that there was a “need blind admissions” policy as recently as April.
In Tufts Daily, the student newspaper, on the issue of April 2, 2009 there is an article that repeatedly emphasizes the “need blind” policy at Tufts till near the tail end of the admission process.
The article’s title is “Tufts accepts 26 percent of pool, suspends need-blind admissions”.
If there was not a need-blind admissions policy well known to current and applying students then what Tufts suspend?
A policy that was “need blind” lite?</p>
<p>Was it an admissions policy so ambiguous and confusing to the young students and their parents because Tufts administrators wanted the reputation of a “need based” admission policy and at the same time “covered their own … first and foremost”.</p>
<p>If the students at Tufts believe that there was a suspension of a need-blind admissions policy then why do you expect that the high school students that were not in Tufts had to believe differently?<br>
Ref:<br>
[Tufts</a> Daily - Tufts accepts 26 percent of pool, suspends need-blind admissions](<a href=“http://www.tuftsdaily.com/tufts-accepts-26-percent-of-pool-suspends-need-blind-admissions-1.1639896]Tufts”>http://www.tuftsdaily.com/tufts-accepts-26-percent-of-pool-suspends-need-blind-admissions-1.1639896)</p>
<p>Madoff’s Ponzi scheme victims are not Tufts well paid administrators, finance decision makers and consultants but the students, alumni, donors, government, taxpayers and the school itself.
The people that were paid to be responsible in investing Tufts endowment and lost to Madoff and suspect accessories to the crime $20 mil. didn’t lose any of their money
or their jobs, positions or rich contracts.
Those that benefited with fat bonuses in making such risky investments are not the victims but the derelicts of their fiduciary duty.</p>
<p>Do not give them credit because they announced the admissions policy change in March and not when they found out that they lost $20 million in a single investment of a Ponzi scheme.</p>
<p>By the time students were receiving their rejection letters high school guidance counselors together with their college colleagues in admission offices had start asking questions for some unexpected results of students being admitted or waitlisted in schools like Amherst and rejected by Tufts!</p>
<p>Colleges depend on their very good reputation to attract the best applicants and Tufts admission reputation has been tarnished if not heavily damaged.</p>
<p>In that respect Tufts has to repair as quickly and as effective as possible the school’s reputation.
Ignoring the damage means following the same superficial attitude towards their responsibilities about the school’s business and long term survival.
The same irresponsible attitude followed by certain bankers that led to this mess in Wall Street and the World Economy.</p>
<p>
It was exactly the opposite of this. They ran need-blind for the last two years without advertising the fact.</p>
<p>No apologists needed. lockn and the above posters are right.</p>
<p>Tufts was in . . . ah . . a Tuft position: they were articulating their aspiration to become need-blind as part of a major capital campaign, and no matter how carefully and scrupulously they explained it, the words Tufts and need-blind were going to be used together a lot, creating confusion. If this sowed this much misunderstanding on CC, just imagine how unclear it must be to the average student on the street.</p>