Higher Education Will Struggle Through the Recession

Over the past few months, college presidents from across the country have founded a unique literary genre. Writing separate but nearly identical letters to their respective communities, countless presidents have hailed the virtues of a liberal arts education and the inherent strength of their institutions. They have lauded their resilience and their hope for the future. And then, mixed in there somewhere, they slip in another little detail: "We're out of money."

One cliché employed by all of these presidents is that the ivory tower is not immune to the economic recession. Indeed, colleges and universities--private and public, large and small--have quite a bit to worry about these days. With the declining markets, they are seeing higher costs of borrowing, an impact on the size and quantity of donations, and sinking endowment revenue. Revenue from endowments often account for a sizable chunk of operating budgets, often covering about one-third of annual expenses. Many colleges and universities have set records in the last couple decades for generating unprecedented returns from an asset-allocation mix that looks very different from what most individuals typically maintain. Many of the wealthiest institutions tend to be light on blue chip stocks and treasury securities, and heavy on illiquid assets, such as private-equity, hedge funds and real estate and commodity holdings. This means that returns are heavily correlated with market performance; when times are good, their endowments swell. But nowadays, not so much.

Colleges who promise need-based financial aid will also see unpredictable rises in spending as individual families find it increasingly difficult to pay steep tuitions. Compound all of this with the escalating costs of energy--the energy required to heat countless dormitories and academic buildings through a cold winter--and you begin to see a bleak future for America's colleges and universities.

In some ways, the financial crisis is more difficult for these non-profit educational institutions than for businesses. Colleges are held to higher moral standards than businesses--perhaps rightfully so. Students and faculty are hesitant to apply corporate models to their beloved institutions. Many view universities as havens from the world of fiscal concerns, where the life of the mind and the lives of students are protected above all else. They are even more uncomfortable with the traditional corporate solutions to balance budgets: increase prices, cut programs and layoff workers.

College administrators are thus faced with some difficult decisions. Even Harvard University, with an endowment greater than the GDP of some small countries, is facing the largest budget shortfall in its 372-year history. Harvard College will have to trim its 2009-10 operating budget significantly, to the tune of $100 million, freezing salaries and postponing searches for most tenure-track faculty.

Similar concerns exist at smaller liberal arts schools. At Vassar College, I am Editor-in-Chief of The Miscellany News, the campus newspaper since 1866 (www.miscellanynews.com). Vassar has lost about $250 million from its endowment over the past few months, and like many comparable institutions (Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan) it will need to trim next year's operating budget accordingly.

This is the difficult part.

Conversations about budget cuts almost always create sharp divides between a college's constituencies. Faculty members suddenly distrust administrators, administrators begin to fear alumnae/i reactions, and students may begin to resent their alma mata for cutting a particular office or program.

Despite student protest and complaints, Arizona State University will unceremoniously end contracts with more than 200 adjunct instructors. At Williams College, athletes are worried that budget cuts would affect their equipment and travel costs. Bowdoin College plans to freeze non-essential campus construction beginning next year. At Wesleyan University, the administration has made a controversial proposal to increase its enrollment by about 120 students over four years in order to take in an additional $3.9 million in revenue. Many students and alumnae/i fear that this will mean larger class sizes and a diminished quality of education.

Vassar, too, has been forced to make controversial budgetary decisions. Last week for example, some alumnae/i and students questioned a plan to not renew the contracts of two adjunct professors in the English Department. These professors were liked by students, and specialized in the popular area of creative writing. The elimination of these two positions, the College has said, is part of larger need to reduce spending on faculty salaries by about $750,000 in 2009-10. While some have complained that the move will harm the creative writing program, administrators maintain that the staffing plans will only mean a reduction in 70-80 courses out of the 1,200 or more that Vassar offers, and that this move is necessary to balance the budget.

After interviewing students, staff, administrators, faculty and alumnae/i, I find myself at somewhat of an emotional crossroads on the issue. On the one hand, I see students rightfully indignant when the economy threatens their favorite professors or programming. "Why would they cut something so essential? Why can't they cut something else, anything else?" Part of me starts to get angry right along with them.

A few hours later, I'll interview an administrator, chomping at the bit to ask them pressing questions. Then I'll notice their slumped posture--visibly exhausted and anxious, bags under their eyes and coffee cups overflowing their trash bins. They are, I quickly realize, working themselves as hard as they can to ensure the financial future of the College, often staying late hours and weekends. Suddenly I become empathetic. After all, aren't these administrators being asked to do the impossible, to balance budgets that cannot possibly be balanced?

Everyone has watched the news for the past few months, but somehow few people expect national events to affect students' experiences in America's colleges, or students' ability to afford those colleges. Tufts University has not only given up construction of new sports and laboratory facilities, but its chief financial officers are considering eliminating the school's need-based admissions policy. "The target of being need-blind is our highest priority," Tufts president Lawrence Bacow told The New York Times in November. "But with what's happening in the larger economy, we expect that the incoming class is going to be needier. That's the real uncertainty." The University's latest prediction is that the financial aid budget will need to rise by about $4 million next year. Students have been up in arms about revoking financial aid, but the administration feels like it has its hands tied. "Everyone is going to have to sacrifice," Bacow told the school's concerned student government. Schools of all sizes will almost certainly have to become more need-sensitive in their admissions this year, and will likely be offering smaller aid packages. Tuition will likely increase at many schools too, making it increasingly difficult for many to achieve a college education.

Kalyani Phansalkar, a sophomore at William & Mary College, knows that first hand. Phansalkar was unable to register for spring semester classes because the College was quickly forced to raise tuition as the economy sank. "My parent's budget is still tailored to the former tuition," she wrote in her college newspaper. "The difference between the two prices remains outstanding."

Her sense of hopelessness was matched only by that of William and Mary's President Taylor Reveley. "No other college or university in America has had to overcome more adversity than William & Mary," he wrote in his community letter, as if trying to reassure himself as much as the students and faculty. "We will be fine."

Higher education will be hurt by the economy. Students will receive less aid, non-tenured faculty will be let go, and support staffs will shrink. But the key to mitigating these truly unfortunate financial realities will be communication and discussion between administrators, employees, graduates and students. One letter from the president bemoaning the loss of the endowment--along with vague predictions of budget cuts--is not enough. College administrators should make sure to be as transparent as possible. Despite the crippling decline of Wesleyan's endowment, their president Michael Roth has met with the student government multiple times in the past few months, and issued information through blogs, letters and even Web site dedicated to the financial situation with an informational video. Wesleyan will be forced to make extensive budget cuts, but at least no one will be kept in the dark.

Seeing the early effects of the financial crisis on the macro and micro levels, I'm reminded of a lecture I saw at Vassar in 2006 by Williams College economist Gordon Winston, discussing research on the economics of higher education that he completed with Vassar president Catharine Bond Hill, argued that colleges are "part church and part car dealer." (The more technical term is donative commercial non-profits). On the one hand, colleges are businesses that charge prices for their services and operate under financial constraints. On the other hand, they are charitable institutions that receive donations and subsidies from individuals and the government. Though they charge a price for their product, that price (tuition) is heavily subsidized and does not nearly cover the production costs (hiring the faculty, heating the buildings, etc.) Fundraising professionals will frequently remind students that although the sticker price of an education might be between $30,000 and $40,000, the actual cost of delivering that education is closer to $60,000 or $70,000.

As Winston implied, institutions of higher education do not, and should not, emulate a corporate economic model. Colleges and universities not only are driven by financial concerns; these institutions are driven by idealism. Dedication to financial aid, to public service, and to ideas--all of these attributed strengthen education in America, even if they don't necessarily benefit colleges' bottom lines. While hastily announced price increases or layoffs might be acceptable in the corporate world, they do not apply so neatly to the realm of higher education. Even in a time of economic peril, liberal arts education demands discussion and debate. Difficult choices will certainly have to be made, but administrators across the country should remember to balance their role as church and car dealer.

These lofty moral standards demanded by students, faculty and the public are costly to institutions, but they ultimately help college administrators set priorities in a time of fiscal crisis--because unlike AIG, Lehman Brothers or General Motors, America's colleges cannot afford to fail.

Comments

[greaterlaker]

Get rid of tenure and we will solve most of higher education's financial problems - especially at the Harvards, Amhersts, Vassars and Yales of the world where they have tons of older (though admittedly brilliant) professors. They command high salaries, and similar teaching could be done for probably 25% less with adjunct teachers.

[Oxonian2001]

Even the idea of "brilliance" is questionable too. I remember having a discussion with my thesis adviser in England when I was a first year student about a well known Ivy English professor whose work had always bothered me with its crazy misinterpretations and downright wrong facts. I used to think is it just me being a humble neophyte or does this woman understand anything she writes about? My adviser answered "her work is complete rubbish. You can tell she hasn't read any of the novels she discusses!" The more I heard from other faculty and students alike, the more I realized that my advisor--and my instincts--were not wrong: this Ivy professor was far short of brilliant.

All of this was revealed painfully when she participated at a round table and gave a plenary speech. No one asked her questions and many walked out halfway through her speech.

Anytime I hear that someone is "brilliant", I take it with a considerable grain of salt,

[jt4825]

A sensible explanation for the situation that has befallen higher education. Appreciate it. It will be interesting indeed to see whether administrators move closer to churches or car dealers in the coming months...

[NewHavenMan]

I am an adjunct professor for a liberal arts school in Connecticut, and I am sure that people in my tier will feel the worst of this recession.

This is actually a really good opportunity to talk about the tenure system. Why should I be fired simply because I'm contracted on a yearly basis if I'm a better teacher than some older guy with tenure? It's worse for the students and worse for the institution.

College and university administrators should see this economic crisis as an opportunity to end the ridiculous practice of granting lifetime tenure.

[Oxonian2001]

I completely agree: especially when there are quite a few who shouldn't even have become tenured-- much less keep it. I can't tell you how many senior faculty I know who can't string a sentence together without sounding like a high school student. Or those who honestly do not know how to teach. (Hello, teaching is not all about standing at a lectern and lecturing from stale sheets of paper!)

But then, we're moving onto the separate issue of hiring which is a different can of worms. When I was a graduate student and organizing a conference, I turned down two papers by dept chairs because they were so poorly argued and structured. (How did these people get hired and promoted in the first place??) I also have a friend in the publishing business who is always complaining about the generally poor level of writing and research amongst some senior English and comparative lit professors. Let's face it, cronyism is as alive and well in academe as it is in the corporate world. Sadly, because academe is viewed as an ivory tower, no one realizes the extent of corruption within.

[cincyr]

For awhile now, colleges and universities have been getting rid of full-time positions and replacing them with adjuncts to cut costs. I am just hoping that they will not use the financial crisis to get rid of even more full-time positions.

The effect of adjuncts who are stressed out trying to piece together a full-time schedule to support their families while not receiving health or retirement benefits is not good for students or faculty.

[johnarts]

Oxonian2001, do you really see that many professors wearing mink coats? I really doubt that professors' compensation is so excessively high. More likely, colleges will need to cut back on frivolities, but not on compensation.

Perhaps this would be a good time for schools to readjust their curricula, however. More business classes, more Chinese, more hard sciences. Less literature, less philosophy, less anthropology. We no longer have the luxury to study frivolous subjects.

[Oxonian2001]

I have seen enough professors wearing fashionable furs at the Modern Language Association and other literature/history conferences to be leery--and heard enough of some of those folks buying 5,000 sq. ft houses.

Frankly, I think education needs to be revamped from bottom up, starting from primary school. It's the means of learning rather than the actual subjects that are important. Students need to be taught how to read, comprehend, and analyze (skills which have dropped considerab­ly)--wheth­er it's Shakespeare or quantum mechanics. Btw, learning to analyze literature is an important skill: this is by no means a frivolous pursuit (even if some nutty literary theorists give literary scholarship a bad name). Maybe people will learn how to recognize media and political rubbish and excuses for what they are? Even then, no humanities prof is worth $150K a year.

[lisakaz2]

Who are you to say what is frivolous? The problem I see is students cannot read very well or comprehend readings and their writing abilities are rather poor. Is that frivolous to you that college students cannot do these things? How are they to be scientists if they cannot convey meaning nor grasp research that's written down?

And at my institution the budget was cut during the year; we are not supposed to use the photocopier for much of anything (I cannot give hardcopies of a syllabus) and between various job searches being cancelled and faculty cut backs, I am looking at being unemployed next summer. Lots of fun.

[orangesublime]

But I wonder: do you think we should pay faculty less overall? Might that scare them off into the for-profit sector? Suddenly all of our scientists would work for the drug companies and there would be no one with high qualifications left to teach our college students. Perhaps this fear of flight is not so high for the humanities, but for professors with lots of training in the social sciences and sciences, they might have more options. Paying them less might do the country long-term harm.

[Oxonian2001]

When you see professors wearing minks and furs at conferences or writing vapid articles like "The Professor wore Prada" (addressing the "guilt" of being a well-dressed academic), you have to wonder a bit at the justice of faculty compensation.

[lisakaz2]

You got any examples? I'm guessing you're talking out your tushie. I've been to those conferences, like one in Chicago where I wore a coat a senior professor mistook for mink. It was rabbit and it dated back over 10 years when I was an undergrad in that area. I'm guessing he misread a few barespots as to look secondhand but the fact that he couldn't see it wasn't mink shows he doesn't know that type of coat well enough to recognize one.

[Oxonian2001]

We might even have been to the same conference in Chicago if it was back in 1999. There were definitely a few Ivy professors who were wearing mink--and btw, some of us can distinguish mink from rabbit (the nap is very different) even if we don't care to acquire one.

As for that "Professor wore Prada," I believe in appeared in either Vogue or Allure back in the late 90s. It was so ridiculous it caught my eye.

[orangesublime]

This article highlights a really important point: the public expects a great deal more resiliency and immunity from colleges during a recession than we do from for-profit businesses. We expect corruption in the corporate world, but not at America's colleges; we expect higher prices in the corporate world, but not from America's colleges; we expect hard times to hit the corporate world, but not America's colleges. But as the piece says, it's crucial that we DO have these high expectations and standards. That's what pushes them to keep a step above corporate America.

[johnarts]

Dear "timmo," the commenter below: I worked for some years at Barnard College in their fundraising office and I can absolutely confirm that, like the author of this piece correctly says, the cost of a college education is highly subsidized. At Barnard tuition covers only about 70% of the total cost. The rest is made up through donations and the endowment. All students, even those paying full tuition, receive a subsidy. You comment about the cost of secondary education, while this article is about higher education. You really can't compare the two.

Why is that the case? The simplest answer is compensation. Unless you want a college level biophysics professor to be paid the same as a high school level biology teacher, the level of compensation will be very different. Their knowledge bases are different - PhD's are worth far more than BS's or MA's. Beyond community colleges, professors are expected or required to have PhD's. As a result, they are paid approximately (depending on the institution of course), in the ballpark of $40,000 as a starting salary in their late 20s. But by the time that professor receives tenure, publishes books, and is well-regarded in their research, they can receive upwards of $70-$100,000 for the majority of their career. In other words, most college's spend most of their money on compensation; we surely did. But this ensures that the faculty are the best and the brightest, as they should be at the college level.

[Oxonian2001]

As a Ph.D. from a well-known English university, I couldn't agree more that Ph.D.'s are worth more than BS's and Ma's. (Heck, I would add other professional degrees as well!) It's no minor feat to have to jump through hurdles year after year and submitting a book length dissertation with internal and external examiners.

That said, I believe there should be appropriate limits on compensation. Frankly, I don't object to professors in the hard sciences earning 70-100K. or even up to $150K. What I do object to are grossly overpaid senior faculty in literature, history, and music (i.e., non-performance). And just for the record, I teach literature myself.

Now, this is not to deny the importance of the humanities in any way. Let's face it, they are as crucial to the acquisition of critical thinking skills as the sciences. But let's also be honest, the bulk of those teaching the humanities (with the possible exceptions of anthropologists and sociologists) don't have lab work and aren't required to sit and direct a number of students at any one time. Moreover, timing is not as requisite.

[lisakaz2]

Then trade places with me because I am overworked AND underpaid (and have lyme disease).

[timm0]

johnarts - some more information for you. My school district pays kids out of college $38,000 per year to start. Math and science teachers get more. When they retire (usually in their 50s), most have acquired at least a Masters degree - paid 100% by our taxes - and are making between $65,000 and $90,000. The superintendent makes approximately $140,000.

I'm sure the fundraising office is told what they need to be told to motivate you to work hard to bring in money. I doubt they'd share information that would make anyone question the priorities of the institution and the wisdom of their application of the funds. I'll bet that you wouldn't be allowed to see the school's accounting ledgers if you asked - am I right?

Besides, I think it's easily argued that it is harder work to educate elementary, middle, and high school students than college students. Classes are often much larger than those in public schools (at least they frequently were when I went to college 21 years ago), college profs don't need to worry about teaching kids with special needs, and profs can treat kids as adults, lessening the need to give individual attention to those struggling. Teachers teach 2/3 of the day - can the same be said for college professors??

Still not buying it...

[lisakaz2]

I've had special needs students and this fall had 150+ students in one class. Don't tell me it's easy. And I made $32K WITH a PhD.

[Oxonian2001]

I don't know what happened to my last post....

The sad fact of the matter is that academe has been going the way of the corporate world, in the shape of inflated salaries for college presidents (some of whom earn more than the US president) and so-called "stars." The fact is--not unlike overpriced designers goods, their goods are far overestimated for what they are.

It does little for university morale when top "stars" are paid exorbitant salaries to teach one class a year--that's if they even bother to show up. It also does little when universities retain unproductive faculty who barely publish once a year. (Mind you, this is not to say that too much is good either as it detracts from good teaching.) And it bodes poorly for universities which retain patently dishonest faculty who plagiarize. If plagiarizing students get the boot, why not plagiarizing faculty?

And frankly, a lot could be done to trim unnecessary expenses. Is it really all that imperative to discuss undergraduate curricula over a swank dinner costing over $100 a person? (There are seminar rooms, no?)

The fact is there is just as much cronyism in the academic world that no one wants to acknowledge. How easy it is to cut adjunct and lecturer positions because the powers that be would rather protect their senior friends? How easy it is to say corners must be cut?

End of lecture.

[greaterlaker]

Amen. I agree with this piece totally. The lofty moral standards that we place on our colleges for financial aid and for excellence in education would never fly in the corporate world. But in higher education, there is some flexibility for bring a church as well as a car dealer, as the writer eloquently put it. I do think there is enough non-educational fat in many of America's colleges (fancy televisions everywhere, glossy publications, black-tie dinners) that can be cut to make up for much of the deficit left by sinking markets.

[timm0]

While COLA had been rising by about 3-4% per year, the studies on the only information about college finances we outsiders can actually see, tuition, showed increases in double digits. We're told by our suburban public school district that it costs about $14,000 to $18,000 per child to educate them. They have sports, theater, almost continuous facility expansion/­renovation­, paid aides for physically and emotionally handicapped kids, security guards, dances, teacher's masters degrees paid for in full, much of the Summers off, and bus transportation between 7 locations in a 140 square mile area. And you will demand that we accept your contention that it costs $60 or $70,000 for college education?

OK, we will blindly chug down your heart-wrenching ode to a troubled and tattered industry - one with its books open and practices gleaming from highly polished self-righteousness. We accept it because we can't challenge the efficiency of colleges. Because we can't analyze the cost-effectiveness of their operations, hiring practices, salary schedules, facilities, and housing. Because we have no choice but to take your word on it.

Sir, I wave the BS flag at you.... and I don't mean Bachelor of Science.

[davefoc]

I'd like to agree with this post. Colleges have been riding a wave of good times as their fees have ratcheted ever upwards as the size of available student loans has increased.

Eventually, the good times were going to end. No section of the economy can indefinitely raise fees faster than the rate of inflation.

So now there's pain and crying as colleges are forced to reduce expenses. Welcome to the real world. Maybe it's time to ask whether the huge compensation that college leaders receive is a place where expenses can be cut. Maybe it's a time when the wages of college professors should be reassessed. Maybe it's a time to defer that remodeling of the faculty lounge.

Of course, none of that will happen without great hand wringing. What will happen is colleges all over the country will try to get the government to raise student loan limits so they can restart the good times. Clearly, a government that is struggling with massive debt can not give in to every interest group with their hand out. This is one interest group that the government needs to turn away in my opinion.

[lisakaz2]

When were the good times? I missed 'em and have been around colleges for over 20 yrs.

[highered]

Comparing secondary ed to postsecondary ed is like comparing apples and oranges- both fruit but very, very different. The public school that you describe in your post sounds very much like a school in an affluent suburban area. The reality is that most of the nation's children attend schools in urban or rural areas- they are unlikely to have all of the program offerings, amenities, etc. that you describe above, and the amount spent per pupil is far below $14K. You are also forgetting that kids who attend secondary schools go home at the end of each day. Many colleges and universities have higher operating budgets because they are not just delivering the material in the classroom, but also providing living quarters, dining, workout facilities, support services (including financial aid and admissions counselors), legal services to the college itself, and so on. There has also been an increase in the number of staff positions on college campuses- particularly Research Is- over the last few decades because of increasingly complex regulations such as Institutional Review Boards and FERPA.

Oh, and by the way, there are plenty of studies out there about cost effectiveness, salary trends (which at large public universities do not keep up with the cost of living increase), etc.

[timm0]

Yours is the second post that has said it's an unfair comparison - but I don't think you offer a very compelling case to prove your case.

Are there differences? Of course. Above, I noted where grade and high schools have a TOUGHER time teaching than universities, so I won't repeat them again.

The schools (6 have kitchens) have to provide lunches. Since not all kids buy lunch, they have staff and facilities, but low utilization. Meals are partially subsidized by state and school taxes. Even in my semi-affluent suburb, there are plenty of kids that get free meals at school (and they're probably the only meals some of these kids get!).

So there is overhead in that regard in local public schools, invalidating your implicit contention that college meal provisions are a unique burden to them.

REGARDLESS... I'm not comparing colleges to urban or rural schools. I'm comparing the author's suggestion that the 'real costs' of a college education are more than double the $30k+ tuition to the costs for education in MY school district. My district has known costs (readily available through the state and district). It has almost 5,000 kids. I think that's a reasonable enough basis for a very fair comparison indeed.

I would welcome your posting of links to recommended studies on this subject - provided they aren't self-serving studies inked to help colleges justify or obfuscate their budgets and spending practices.

[jeffrey678]

During the recessions of the 1970's three private colleges closed in my area, the Hudson valley of New York State. This has been going on for a long time.

[planofstudy]

Like the corporate sector, I think we'll see more and more colleges and universities merge to cut costs. It's always been said that there's no such thing as a "safe" job, but at least you could count on a career in academia. Not anymore. Read about what's happening in Georgia. http://planofstudy.blogspot.com/2008/12/georgia-schools-consider-mergers-can-we.html

[medford22]

To zilru492 - As an insider, I have to disagree. The information about Tufts is absolutely true. I work in a University office that deals with financial matters and long-term planning, and though the information has not been made entirely public (although Mr. Bacow has intimated through his communications), financial aid spending will not be able to keep pace. As you can read above, Tufts has been going through some very hard times. Our endowment is down about 25% of its value. That's really crisis mode. Next year, and even more so the year after, students are going to see a less lenient financial aid policy.

[zilru492]

Thank you for the information -- I only have President Bacow's public comments to the Tufts Daily and the TCU Senate to rely on. My problem with what Mr. Farkas wrote is that his only sources seems to be the Times and the Daily (since the Daily's most likely the only place where he would've found the information about President Bacow talking to the senate). If he had cited any sources -- even if it were "an anonymous Huffington Post commenter" -- it would have been different. As he has written it now, it simply looks like Mr. Farkas doesn't know the difference between need-based and need-blind (which is a huge difference!).

I'm not surprised that financial aid would become less generous, because I don't know how one goes about filling a $3 million hole (with additional holes to fill in future years, I would think) *and* not cut into university services too much *and* preserve current funding levels. Your information does concern me, though, because Bacow et al have virtually told the senate not to worry about financial aid. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...

[medford22]

zilru492, I must disagree once again. I think Farkas is 100% correct in his depiction of our financial situation. Also, the news of Tufts sorry financial situation was well-reported in Boston newspapers, as were Mr. Bacow's conversations with the student government. Even the tiny paper in my neighborhood managed to get quotes from student senators about their impressions of their meeting with him.

My experience working for Tufts tells me very assuredly that both need-blind *and* need-based are in jeopardy, as this article correctly implies, because for the most part they come out of the same pot of money. Some of that money is endowed, some is from donors, and some comes from outside grants. But all of it will be less. The policy of need-blind admissions, instituted just a couple years ago, will almost surely have to be reversed in the next year or two. Need-based financial aid will continue over merit-based aid, yes, but the funding levels will tumble (unless we want to start firing people). Remember: the administration will not go public with the sorry pronouncement of financial aid until they absolutely have to; otherwise it scares prospective families from even applying, which makes the university look event worse.