<p>I’m deciding between University of Delaware, Bucknell, Villanova and Tulane. I got a 20K a year scholarship from tulane and I really loved campus, but I’m a little worried about being that far away from home (I live in central PA). I’m not sure I like the preppy atmosphere of Bucknell and Villanova, and they’re both really expensive. I’m so lost and I don’t know how to make a decision. I just really need some advice.</p>
<p>Sounds like you're ready to settle with Tulane. You love the environment and it's more financially feasible for you as opposed to Bucknell and Villanova. Sure, you'll be far from home, but I'm sure once you settle in and get comfortable with the distance you'll wonder how you could have chosen to go elsewhere.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>Good counsel, SeattleSlew ... I mean SeattleBU ... ;)</p>
<p>We've been same boat, trying to shoehorn BU into the picture, but we've concluded their approach, and more so attitude about the process, simply don't work for us. We're too middle class, too plebian. Great school, nice campus, strong repustation, lots of $$, but the stats, anecdotes, and major institutional strategies are revealing that the fundamental approach under President Mitchell's new strategic plan seems to be ...</p>
<ol>
<li>Assume BU will attract and enroll decent, high performing students, most of whom will aspire but fall just short of the top tier schools, and whose parents can and will pay the freight to those places and to BU, even painfully, thus calling for minimal FA. And so far that seems to be a reasonable assumption. So, why invest in FA when this niche of student will come anyway.</li>
</ol>
<p>1A. We will offer substantial FA to the very needy and the very diverse in hopes of altering campus mix. That will not be a generally productive strategy for 2 reasons: a) Lewisburg, Pennsylvania is 3-4 hours from any major metro area and that will not change, and b) EVERY institution in the nation, literally has precisely the same strategy, so in essence, as great as the BU experience may appear, its limitations are too severe and too apparent to make any real impact here. Again, for this niche, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, U. Chicago, Wash U, Johns Hopkins, etc. will win virtually all real battles.</p>
<ol>
<li>BU and the Prexy have clearly determined, "Let's invest the $$ in the faculty, encouraging them to teach LESS, not spend MORE time with students. Evidence: moving from 3-3 teaching load to 3-2. A very costly step as to keep the same student faculty ratio will call for a significant number of new hires and effectively saying ... BU will retain same number of paying students who will now have to fund with their tuition 1/6 more faculty members. Guess who LOVE this strategy?. The result is that most marginal revenues generated from tuition and endowments will go to faculty hires, and not FA. The company line is often ... "well we'll go out and raise the $$ privately in fund-raising" which is really a stretch. Why? Because a $1M endowment only generates approx. $50K/annum in spendable revenue. Thus, run the numbers. Let's assume the current 300 fac members are increased by 1/6 per the plan. That's 50 new bodies to fund, support every year. At approximately $100K/ body for sal, benefits, office space (this is a grossly low figure as 50 new fac members will call for major increase in facilities, space, equip, etc. but let's just use it to be conservative). This totals = $5,000,000 per year ... every year. So, IF this were to be funded by endowment, how much would be needed? Right, $100million in new endowment just to pay the faculty being added. Now, consider that after 150 years of existence, BU's endowment is roughly $600M. Do you think that's feasible? Of course not. But guess where the $$ seemingly can be had. You got it ... the parents. And that is why BU has increased at nearly double the tuition rate (10%/yr) for the past few years and why it's not going to change, perhaps get worse.</li>
</ol>
<p>This of course keeps the faculty happy, pleased; and probably surrenders any notion that BU can attract those marginal Ivy-rejected students, regardless of the U's willingness to invest. But of course what the company line on that might be? Well, if BU has all these new faculty from top Ph.D. programs THEY will attract a stronger, newer breed of student who might otherwise actually be admitted to Princeton vs. simply wishing they could have been there.</p>
<p>Any other insights?</p>
<p>It matters not aside from the perception, and at least our reality, that BU is not as student-focused as we would have hoped. The good news in all of this is there are a great many great schools who have very dramatically different philosophies and views of how to grow a great institution. Obviously, just one interpretation, but seems increasingly clear reading the anecdotes on this site, mostly expressing disappointment with the outcome of the courtship.</p>
<p>whistle pig, those are some rather bold statements.</p>
<p>you seem to have done some homework, but your effort falls short:</p>
<p>1) one of the PRIMARY focii, if not the primary focus, the the universitys current $400MM (yes, $400,000,000) capital campaign is FINANCIAL AID. im not sure what the current issues with financial aid are as i am not privy to everyones packages and financial information (and people happy with their situations arent going to come here to ask how they can get their aid reduced), but you can rest assured that, regardless, the goal is indeed improvement in this area. </p>
<p>further, as it stands bucknell already has fewer full pay students than many of its peers. for example, more than 70% of colgates freshman class is full pay. at bucknell that number is a typical 52%, excluding those receiving merit awards. improvement in financial aid funds will only improve this number, which is already indicative of a relatively economically diverse class.</p>
<p>finally, though you addressed this in your second point, its better suited to be rebutted here. bucknell hasnt increased costs by 10% once in recent history. in fact, bucknell hasnt increased costs by more than 6.5% more than once in recent history. is 6.5% still higher than inflation? yes. but it is also less than the average annual real wealth increases over that time for potential full pay students. and its in line with what EVERY other top college and university is doing (and subsequently charging), as well.</p>
<p>2) yes, the university is investing in faculty. and yes, part of that investment involves a desire to move to a 3-2 teaching load. frankly, this is a move that is ESSENTIAL if bucknell is going to improve as a university because of its impact on the ability to draw top faculty. it has nothing to do with faculty laziness, just as the move toward 2-2 teaching loads at a handful of top lacs has nothing to do with laziness. simply, liberal arts colleges want their faculty to be both scholars and quality teachers. reducing teaching loads frees up more time for research (much of which involves students) AND preparation and involvement with students in the remaining classes. its an expensive move, as you noted, but one that results in the hiring quality faculty who have more time to focus on both research and individual students. </p>
<p>can bucknell pay for this? absolutely. bucknells endowment gained over $70MM last year and, with over $50MM in gifts in the first six months of the capital campaign, will grow by even more this year even in a down market. the current endowment figure is mostly a function of the university not pursuing gifts as much as they should have 100, 50 and even 30 years ago. the current giving climate is robust, however, and as such you will see bucknells total endowment continue to grow rapidly over the next several years.</p>
<p>will either of these improvements make bucknell a more desirable university than princeton? no. but both WILL make bucknell a better and more desirable university, and thats the goal. </p>
<p>but i must ask, what ACTUALLY caused you to believe that bucknell is not student focused? and further, what schools did you find to be more student focused than bucknell? because if its simply a question of financial aid, would you rather have the alternative? $10000 more aid to attend a school that spends $10000 less on each students education? because at all but the wealthiest handful of colleges in the country, that is the either/or decision being made.</p>
<hr>
<p>and emCH, i really cant justify spending $20,000 more to attend bucknell than tulane if money is an issue. however, i also cant imagine attending college that far from home, which is inconvenient and ends up having quite a bit in associated costs, to boot. </p>
<p>at the end of the day, though, it comes down to what a particular education is worth to you, and what it is worth to your parents. it comes down to educational offerings (i would be very careful to look at what is now offered at tulane in this regard, as i know many things have been cut) as well as intangibles like the ability to go home more than once or twice per year. </p>
<p>thats not to say bucknell should come out on top. no undergraduate degree is worth substantial debt. nor is any degree worth putting real strain on the ability of ones parents to retire. but to those who have financial means, it may be 'worth' $20,000 more per year as a luxury purchase. after all, people certainly spend their money on stranger things than a good, desired and geographically convenient education.</p>