<p>It should be noted that the scholarships mom2collegekids’s Ss accepted are offered to students regardless of residency. They were not specific “in-state” scholarships.</p>
<p>Keilexandra: Thank you. That is exactly my point.</p>
<p>^Oh? Your previous post implies that mom2collegekids was taking unfair advantage of the new in-state flagship. But if she had remained in CA, her Ss would have been awarded the same scholarships (both were “guaranteed” stats-based scholarships, so there’s not even a question of subjective review).</p>
<p>Public schools can award financial aid–or even admissions preference, a la SUNY–to OOS students. Privates can award financial aid to international students. And both decisions can rightfully be complained about or commended.</p>
<p>Post #83: You need to read the prior posts more carefully. For example, try Post #71.
And your second paragraph further supports my position. Thank you again.</p>
<p>Gifford makes some excellent points. The policies at all of these colleges are designed to benefit the college. If a student wants to take the money to bring up the school’s stats, they are totally entitled. Only they can decide if it’s also a good deal for them.</p>
<p>I’ve carefully read every prior post in this thread, as I normally do before posting. My personal position is neutral–hence, “both decisions can rightfully be complained about or commended”–and the second paragraph of post #83 supports that. I have no idea what your overall position is, as you have thus far made statements on only disparate issues.</p>
<p>On one such disparate issue, I will note that like mom2collegekids–with whom I am not in the habit of agreeing–I am aware of anecdotal instances of “hidden” assets (although in my case, the student qualified for domestic FA by hiding family assets with relatives overseas). The source of my information is conversation with someone privy to families’ financial documentation versus the magnitude of openly acknowledged financial aid packages. I don’t necessarily think that this issue of financial accountability–which the colleges are aware of, I’m sure–means that international students should or shouldn’t receive need-based FA grants.</p>
<p>My daughter is a student at Williams on financial aid. She’ll be grandfathered in but I’d like to address the “skin in the game” concept.</p>
<p>She not only helps herself with the student contribution but her summer earnings also go towards her EFC. There are no grand tours, no ski trips, no sping break escapes. Such is life, and we are very grateful for the aid she receives, but “skin in the game” hurts.</p>
<p>I’d like to see some loan cap language from Williams. I permitted my daughter to apply ED because Williams was no-loan and the admissions staff was so encouraging. Without specifics it’s hard to recommend Williams as an ED school for kids with need.</p>
<p>With respect to the issue of whether or not families earning $200,000 a year should be eligible for financial aid, it depends upon individual circumstances & not just on one year’s income statement. Many taxpayers have variable income which can fluctuate significantly from year to year. Other high income earners have demanding obligations depending upon their family situation. For example, a family with two college age dependents might also have a spouse with high medical bills and/or take in dependent children from a deceased relative (car accident, for example). The point is that each situation is unique & an arbitrary cut-off based purely on one year’s income is not warranted, in my opinion. Additionally, a $200,000 income should be viewed in context of the cost of living factors in each location. Cost of living is dramatically higher on Long Island New York & Southern California then it is in central Nebraska or rural Mississippi. City living is more expensive than country living typically, but most jobs & schools are in cities.</p>
<p>I agree about the skin in the game thing. Evidently for kids receiving aid (like mine) the amount of tuition we the parents pay, and the books and the transportation, combined with the fact that my son works long, long hours in the sweltering sun every summer earning his portion of the cost (last year 75% of what he earned went directly to the college), and he also has a work-study job during the school year – all of that is not “skin in the game”? But student loans are?</p>
<p>What about kids whose parents pay full freight? It’s okay, I guess, for them to have not “skin in the game” – but for kids who get FA it’s not. I think my kid has plenty of skin in the game. In fact, one day he may even have skin cancer in the game because of his summer job. :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If board chair Greg Avis, new pres Adam Falk, and interim pres Bill Wagner settled on the details last week during their west coast meetings, they did not announce them. </p>
<p>Inside Higher Education asked Wagner for their article today. He said that details had not been discussed yet but that they would probably be something like the previous policy at Williams: no loans for family incomes up to $40,000 and a four-year loan cap of $13,800:</p>
<p>[News:</a> Pulling Back From ‘No Loans’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/02/williams]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/02/williams)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking of vague, his letter to the campus also included the curious statement that there would be no salary reductions for faculty and staff. What does that mean in context of the previously announced salary freeze for the current year? Has the salary freeze been extended for a second year?</p>
<p>As for other colleges following Williams on no-loan, I expect that many will. I do not, however, expect the three LACs with larger per student endowments – Pomona, Swarthmore, and Amherst – to follow suit. Rather, I expect them to hang Williams out to dry on this one. If Williams wanted them to follow suit, it needed to announce its plans first, not months after the other schools had wrapped up, approved, and announced detailed three year cost cutting blueprints.</p>
<p>Actually, Williams is overdue to present some kind of comprehensive financial plan to the community. Without that context, these cuts make no sense and are going to be increasingly difficult to sell to the various constituent groups.</p>
<p>Yes, I thought something was fishy when the Provost’s Office published a fairly comprehensive financial statement complete with graphs tracing the endowment’s growth over ten years; yet, there was nothing resembling an executive summary to put everything into context. It was a classic “information dump”. That way they could mourn the fact that the endowment had lost 22% of its value in the period ending June, 2009, but, leave everyone free to walk away with the obvious conclusion that Williams was still swimming in money. There was no heads-up that any major construction programs were iminent. In fact, to the contrary, the chief librarian had just finished announcing that the Stetson-Sawyer project was still in mothballs. This is not true “transparency”.</p>
<p>I don’t know that constuction is imminent. The letter announced a goal of resuming the library project (they’ve got a gutted building in mothballs) during “academic year 2011-2012”. Given Berkshire weather, this means the earliest this project could start is spring 2012 – three years from now. As a goal. That’s hardly a firm deal.</p>
<p>Honestly, my read on this (and I could be dead wrong) is that Williams has far more seriousl financial problems than have been evident from its annual financial reports. I can’t think of any other reason to not simply lay out a presentation of here’s where we were, here’s where we need to be, and here’s the list of cuts we intend to phase in over three years to get there. That’s what most colleges are doing and big part of it is a smart strategy of selling the plans to the various constituent groups. I mean Williams just dropped two major bombshells in a Sunday afternoon letter – a headline grabbing reversal of financial aid policy and an incentivized retirement plan to reduce the size of faculty and staff. There’s been no “softening up” of the community at all in advance of these announcments, nor has there been any detail.</p>
<p>I’ve tried to follow it and it’s been just impossible. Their charts claim to have cut spending by $12 million for the current year (2009-2010). But, the endowment spending only drops by $2 million from last year? Those numbers don’t add up. If you’ve actually cut spending by $12 million, then your endowment spending should be significantly reduced (in dollars).</p>
<p>Interesteddad,</p>
<p>I read a recent article from Northwestern saying how Williams rely heavily on endowment for their operating expense, according to the new NU president who just left Williams. I doubt you can tell that from looking at the school’s financials because they aren’t as detailed as goverment financials. Note that endowment is supposed to be a permanent fund for which, only the income, not the principal, may be used.</p>
<p>Also, if I am not mistaken, the $12 million cut is for this fiscal year’s budget. The $2 million cut in endownment was from last fiscal year. That seems to just indicate a smaller budget/less spending this year than last year; the budget cut just happens to involves the no-loan policy. I don’t see anything inconsistent about it.</p>
<p>So many toes exposed, but I don’t want to step on any.</p>
<p>From a marketing point of view, the cutting of the no loan policy is not attractive for Williams since its applications and selectivity numbers were already slipping when compared to its peers.</p>
<p>As for a policy that effect students, it’s already pointed out that those at the bottom of the ladder will not be paying loans. My S will be in the small group that benefits from no loan policy – well actually already is.</p>
<p>D had loans at Barnard (we’re paying), and S does not. I don’t think the small loan amount will be a hardship for middle class students receiving FA, and as mini pointed out on several occasions, it’s better to save the money to educate those who can’t assume any loan debt, national and international students.</p>
<p>I guess because I benefit from the policy it sounds disingenuous to say that it doesn’t disturb me, but so be it.</p>
<p>Williams provides amazing services for FA students, like free books. S swipes his ID card at bookstore and Williams bursar gets billed. This has been a wonderful policy for us.</p>
<p>Winter study has been a serious inquiry for all three years S has done it. I have seen it have enormous benefits, though we sure do miss S at home. In addition, it makes semesters a bit easier, with only 4 courses. Maybe that’s too cushy in the estimation of some, but it has also been beneficial to S, a dedicated Classics student, studying both Latin and Greek. Very time consuming, and the four course policy has been wonderful for him.</p>
<p>S also works in the library. He is fully behind the library project, and not just on esthetic grounds, though he has also been studying architecture. Information technology has been revolutionized in the past 35 - 40. The Sawyer is an eyesore and detracts from what will be the most central grassy area on campus. The trade-off is that the new facility will not be as centrally located.</p>
<p>As for the football culture, S never met a ball or sport he liked, so this doesn’t effect us. I suppose the money that supports football could be cut; I can’t speak intelligently on his subject, so I won’t speak at all.</p>
<p>Sam Lee:</p>
<p>Williams is no more endowment dependent than its peers such as Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, etc. Debt is towards the low end. Cash call committments are towards the low end. Liquidity is good. Endowment spending rates in FY2008 and FY 2009 weren’t quite as low as Grinnell, Swarthmore, and Pomona, but they were well under control at 4.3% and 4.5% respectively. All the financial indicators have been that Williams would be in good shape dealing with the market decline: just a matter of adjusting the operating budget downwards over a period of several years. I had them pegged among the handful of schools in really good financial shape (relatively speaking). Slashing no-loan, a second year of salary freeze, and retirement inducements to cut employment were not among the things I expected to see. I did expect them to cut international aid, just because it is such a huge cost for a relative handful of students.</p>
<p>Their first round of short-term cuts (from FY2009 to the current FY2010) were virtually identical to Swarthmore’s: salary freeze, quasi hiring freeze, defer some maintenance/cut the capital projects budget short-term, and grab the low-hanging fruit of department cuts (like going from a 3 year replacement cycle for campus computers to a 4 year cycle). The one difference is that Swarthmore is pulling $2.75 million from some overflowing reserve accounts (but still leaving them fully funded at $2 million) going forward.</p>
<p>I wish Williams would provide a more comprehenisive budget plan. Not just because I’m interested, but because they’ve got faculty and other stakeholders who are starting to question the priorities. Half the battle is selling the plan so that everyone believes it’s fair.</p>
<p>interestedadd,</p>
<p>Here’s the article I referred to:
[The</a> Daily Northwestern - Northwestern’s endowment rebounds from fall](<a href=“http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/northwestern-s-endowment-rebounds-from-fall-1.2142021]The”>http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/northwestern-s-endowment-rebounds-from-fall-1.2142021)
</p>
<p>But you are right that Williams is no more endowment dependent than some others. In fact, I found that Swarthmore is even more so. But if you compare the 2009 financials between Williams and Swarthmore, you’ll see Willliams was more generous than Swarthmore; student aid/student tuition-board ratio was 0.38 for Williams and 0.30 for Swarthmore. That’s a fairly significant difference. I think a fairer way to assess is to see the budget plan for this year and see what the ratio is. If it’s still above 0.30, Williams is really no worse than Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Sam:</p>
<p>“Generous” is the wrong concept for financial aid. Financial aid is a variable price discount, just like airlines offer. The goal is the same. Fill the seats with the desired mix of passengers, maximizing the revenue by offering each customer the price it will take to sell a seat. In the case of elite colleges, the ideal mix is very high academics, diversity, and filling each of the slots on campus – athletes, artists, singers, physics geeks, philosphers, future investment bankers, and so forth and so on. Swarthmore has slightly higher SAT scores than Williams and significantly higher diversity (it’s one of the most diverse schools on the East Coast). And, they are able to sell their seats at an average price of $32,000 versus $28,000 at Williams. Some LACs are getting $35,000 to $36,000 per seat.</p>
<p>Some of the difference is accounting. Financial aid for study abroad students is included in the numerator for both schools. However, Williams collects no tutition, room, and board for most of their study abroad students – they pay the study abroad program directly. Swarthmore charges all of their study abroad students full tuition, room, and board and then turns around and pays for study abroad. It’s largely a pass through, but it shows up in the financials as higher tuition, room, and board revenues (there’s an offsetting expense item).</p>
<p>Part of the difference is that Williams pays $6.4 million to enroll 7% internationals, Swarthmore pays $2.4 million to enroll 6.6% internationals. There’s no question that Williams net per student revenues needed to be bumped up. They did part of it by increasing their sticker price this year, bringing it up to match. Before they were a little low, which was a perk for full-pay students. I thought they would take an an axe to the international aid budget because it is so out of line with their peers. They are paying an average of $42,000 per year to all but ten of their internationals. I know they can sell some of those seats at higher prices.</p>
<p>
I think an interesting corollary to Sam’s point is the wide variance between high dependent schools and moderately dependent schools in their reliance upon the traditional 12 quarter moving average in determining endowment draw. As a rule, the moderately dependent schools like Wesleyan (17% dependence), Middlebury (22% dependence) and most of the lower Ivies tended to stick with it; whereas, nearly all the highly dependent schools like Amherst, Swarthmore, and Harvard wound up throwing it out the window. Although, their Provost’s Report does not say so explicitly, I’m pretty sure Williams abandoned it, too. The reason is obvious: there’s just less room for error when 50% (or, more in some cases) of your operating budget is tied to swings in the stock market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. I didn’t know. But does Williams adjust your FA while not collecting tuition from you though?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that was a more a case of those that could make the immediate cuts threw away the moving average and those that couldn’t make the immediate cuts kept it. The 12 quarter moving average was designed to smooth cyclical variances; it was obvious early on that this was a structural market correction with no likely “bounce back” as their was following the dot.com bust. The moving average was really designed to slow the growth in budgets following a fluke good year; there is plenty of upward pressure on budgets without forcing spending to rise to meet a windfall increase.</p>
<p>Colleges knew from the start that this was “the big one” and that major structural budget cuts would be required. The sooner those cuts were made, the better because there’s a compounding effect in the outyears. Basically, they saw the 3 year rolling average as self-delusion in this economic environment.</p>
<p>If you can get to 5% spending of the new lower endowment (i.e. throwing out the rolling average), you are better off than phasing it in over three years as the rolling average kicks in. Realistically, however, you would have to have had the cushion of 4% spendiing to start with. That allows you to absorb a 20% endowment decline in its entirety simply by increasing to 5% spending.</p>