By Matthew Segal
FORTUNE -- You might be an honor roll student, varsity athlete, and great humanitarian, but if you're not the son or daughter of an affluent person, good luck getting off the wait list. At least that's what George Washington University just confessed by revealing it gives preferential admissions treatment to applicants who need less financial aid. It's the latest in a series of "affirmative action for the wealthy" cases.
For years, GW claimed to be "need blind," in other words, unbiased in factoring one's financial status when deciding between two similarly qualified candidates. But earlier this month it retracted that position despite touting it as recently as the previous weekend in an admissions information session. GW's new status is "need aware," meaning the university can shift applicants from the "admitted" pile to "waitlisted" if they depend on getting financial support.
"I would love to see us become a need-blind institution. As matters stand today, however, we believe that our current practice is the best way to meet the financial need of as many students as possible while recruiting an academically strong and diverse student body," University President Steven Knapp told GW's student newspaper The Hatchet.
The paper also reports that the university's endowment of $1.37 billion "pales in comparison" to peer institutions that are need-blind, citing Northwestern's $7.1 billion endowment. But let's be honest, GW is really part of an unremitting arms race, in which they're vying with competitor schools to entice wealthy students (who can afford to pay face value for their education). Why? Because in the world of college endowments, the size of your proverbial war chest equates to your amount of prestige.
Look no further than the notorious US News & World Report rankings for guidance. The rankings reward colleges on their financial resources per student (in essence how much they spend), and it just so happens that the five top universities on its list all have endowments bigger than $7.5 billion. This is where the interest of colleges and their students are no longer aligned.
For example, GW just built a new $130 million "super dorm" and $33 million textile museum. It is not alone. The University of Pennsylvania's gym recently underwent a $10 million renovation to include an Olympic-sized swimming pool, co-ed sauna, juice bar, golf simulator, and climbing wall. Kenyon College, a liberal arts school, has a $70 million athletic center with similar country club features.
While these amenities are definitely an attractive proposition to prospective students at face value, what they really end up doing is spiking tuition costs, further contributing to America's $1 trillion student loan debt crisis. Additionally, these facilities are inconsistent with the core competency of higher education institutions. To be quite literal about it, the mission of GW is to "commit itself to excellence in the creation, dissemination, and application of knowledge." Are super dorms inherent in this thesis?
To offset the costs of their cozy amenities, colleges are also more dependent than ever before on tuition money, which now accounts for half of public university revenues, up from a quarter 25 years ago. And while tuition costs are rising, federal spending on college aid is decreasing. Researchers at Georgetown University have found that at the most competitive colleges, only 14% of students come from the lower 50% of families by income, a figure that has not increased over more than two decades, which indicates that university pledges to diversify have not materialized.
In light of growing income inequality, it's time for Americans to realize we're all worse off when only the wealthy and privileged can afford a higher education; this is because studies show that college graduates will earn about $1 million more over the course of their lifetimes.
There are some excellent proposals in place to ameliorate our system of college financing, but first, it's important for students to recognize that they also must be smart consumers. President Obama's latest plan to reduce higher education costs calls for a "college scorecard" that will rate colleges based on their debt levels and job placement statistics as opposed to prestige and marketing allure. This is a great first step, but the Administration also said it won't start rating colleges until 2015 and will not hold them accountable until 2018. This is much too late, and who knows whether the next President will implement this plan or whether college lobbyists will ultimately destroy the measure.
It's time for students and their parents to organize in favor of bold measures such as Oregon's Pay It Forward program, which would eliminate tuition at state public colleges and universities in exchange for students paying 3% of their income back to the schools over the course of 24 years after graduating. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which open curriculums to thousands, are another promising measure to lower costs that some colleges are embracing. Approaches like this and Oregon's will help curb the booming business of college, and ultimately end their complicit role in engendering a system that favors the kids of the wealthy.
Matthew Segal is co-founder and president of OurTime.org, a nationwide non-profit organization that leverages online organizing, new media, and popular culture to enhance the political voice of young Americans. He can be followed on Twitter @OurTimeMatthew
Rather than a donation, the small university might have been funding a leveraged buyout that would pay the company's owners more than $2 billion.
By Lauren Silva Laughlin
FORTUNE -- What was Centre College really supposed to get out of its purported $250 million gift? Recently the small university in Kentucky made headlines because it was meant to receive one of the largest payments ever given to a university. But donor A. MORESep 12, 2013 1:28 PM ET
As the price of a four-year degree climbs, nearly half of university presidents in a new survey believe it hasn't become more valuable.
FORTUNE – Despite countless studies that show you're better off with a college degree than without one, only about half of presidents at U.S. universities believe a four-year bachelor's degree is worth more or a lot more in today's job market than it was five years ago, according MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jun 11, 2013 10:09 AM ET
Looking for a corporate feel-good story? UTC's Employee Scholar Program just hit a major milestone.
FORTUNE -- Sometimes big companies do good things for their employees during bad times. And keep on doing it, quietly, without making a fuss. That's the thought that crossed my mind when I heard that United Technologies Corp., a hard-nosed industrial conglomerate that makes things like aircraft engines and elevators and helicopters and is No. 48 MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 2, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Soaring student debt won't likely start another banking crisis, but the problem could slowly drag down future economic growth.
FORTUNE – Ever since U.S. consumers began owing more on their student loans than their credit cards a couple of years ago, economists have kept a closer watch over whether soaring education debt could be America's next bubble to pop.
For Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the issue apparently strikes close to home. MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Mar 6, 2012 11:12 AM ET
A new study shows that investing in a college degree produces better returns than stocks, gold, Treasuries, and even real estate.
FORTUNE -- Unemployed college grad? Living in your parents' basement? Cheer up -- the returns on your investment are coming!
Even in today's very tough job market, a college degree is the best long-term investment – by far, promising higher returns than stocks, bonds, housing, and even gold, according to a MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jun 30, 2011 8:30 AM ET
|Obama wants to expand overtime pay|
|NJ agrees to ban Tesla direct sales|
|Inside the underground sex economy|
|Tesla lashes out at Chris Christie|
|Plug the financial leaks, now!|