jenesaislaw wrote:I understand the logical hole you found, but my point wasn't about whether they could be doing something different, it was that they were spending marginal tuition revenue on scholarships. Yes, a dollar is a dollar, but budgetary planning means that new dollars spent must come from somewhere, and they're traced even if indistinguishable.
One large point of that section on aid is that, no, it's not a good thing any way you look at it. Samara defended this point well, so I'll leave it at that.
Well if we expand on what pedestrian said earlier:
pedestrian wrote:Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.
we should be able to prove that at least a substantial amount of aid is not coming from additional burdens on other students (even if those additional burdens are less than most peer schools).
So first if we're increasing all 811 full time students
tuition by 3%, that gives us new revenue of 811*53,468*.03 = $1,300,876.44
Then the lost revenue from cutting class size 20-25 people (we'll use 22): (NPV of c/o 2016 students calculated using 3% annual growth and 4% risk-free rate) =22*157,339.03 = $3,461,458.74
Scholarship expense is a lot harder to guess, so these numbers are likely off... but assuming half the students get some form of scholarship, and the average scholarship is 45,000 total (41,626.37 NPV), that would mean NU should have spent approximately 41,626.37 * 265 / 2 = $5.515M
Increasing that by 25% next year would be an additional $1.379M
So we have a net loss of 1.3M - 3.5M - 1.38M = -$3.58M
So even if we assume 100% of the increased tuition did pay for these new expenses (and in the shared pot accounting I mentioned, we might as well), we can still say 73% of the cost to NU did not come from raising tuition. The K&E gift
was $5M spread over 5 years, so that still leaves $2.58M of additional cost for this year alone. The school is clearly jumping through hoops to make these changes with minimal burden to students.
My point was it is misleading for you to argue that because some scholarships are funded by other students' tuition, that the reader should be worried that in fact this new scholarship $ would come at other students' expense. Fundamentally I don't understand how a school can follow your advice from LST so accurately and still have their actions attacked by you. I understand that you'll say you're being objective and providing transparency, but I think you have been misleading enough to call that into question.
jenesaislaw wrote:As somebody said, they are both. And I do not dismiss the predictive power of LSAT/GPA. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
I based this on you saying LSAT/GPA are predicative of performance in LS, then immediately saying the real reason for pursuing students with higher numbers was to further the USNWR charade. I know you value the predictive power of them, I was merely pointing out how you conveniently forgot the merit of #s when you wanted to make a point that was weakened by that fact.
jenesaislaw wrote:This is not true how you mean it. However, I know how I respond to certain actions taken by schools, so it probably would be pretty easy to predict what I did write because it is consistent with what I've been saying for years.
I was alluding to the fact that despite everything in the dean's letter being in agreement with everything you say at LST, you decided before you read it that you would expose their "lies", and attacked an article you should have praised as proof of LST's effectiveness of spreading its message. I really appreciate your site and think you've fought the good fight, you're just seeming to border on fighting for the sake of fighting instead of fighting for change when you aren't receptive to changes that further your own goals. Also, thanks for responding.