Kolek planning to go pro
Yup, and the different in pay for Private college grads vs public grads is even bigger disparity. I get where Hilltopper is going, but I think his comments are more applicable to private schools that don't cut it. This is why, in my opinion, MU has to do everything they can to justify the expense, not have a race to the bottom. If you can provide value, if your graduates are successful and have high earning potential, then bright students will pay the cost to attend because the ROI makes sense. Right now, I'd call MU's ROI a wash, they need to do better and the time is now. For those private schools that are equally expensive, but not churning out productive graduates, the justification to attend those schools (lower ranked, poor earners, etc) is a reality that future students can't ignore.
Students demand both lower tuition and better facilities/programs/faculty. Kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation
Yup, like many goods and services today. We've corrupted an entire generation into thinking that stuff should be free or pennies on the dollar. Good stuff costs real money. You want a good education, with quality professors and facilities, etc, it costs lots of money.
This is as good a topic as any to remember that the universe of students/families that can afford (or are simply willing) to pay tuition that increases at 4-7% a year is dropping to zero in the long run.MU shouldn't expand. They should find ways to educate for less or their long term future (and all private schools) is doomed.
He should have said something about increasing the endowment. It is the only way to support the shiny new things and the students.I thought that this was going to be a major goal in the near future but haven't heard anything about it.
Sometimes I really appreciate your input on topics. Sometimes I can't stand it.
I agree it is vital to get the endowment up significantly. My guess is that they will announce a big capital campaign soon.
Yup, and the difference in pay for Private college grads vs public grads is an even bigger disparity. I get where Hilltopper is going, but I think his comments are more applicable to private schools that don't cut it. This is why, in my opinion, MU has to do everything they can to justify the expense, not have a race to the bottom. If you can provide value, if your graduates are successful and have high earning potential, then bright students will pay the cost to attend because the ROI makes sense. Right now, I'd call MU's ROI a wash, they need to do better and the time is now. For those private schools that are equally expensive, but not churning out productive graduates, the justification to attend those schools (lower ranked, poor earners, etc) is a reality that future students can't ignore.
Hilltopper is making a political post without making it obvious to all. Sneaky.
If you are green, you are growing. Lovell has set a growth agenda from the get go, but also is locking onto these innovation partnerships around town in order to share costs. According to MU's Financial Statements, MU brought in contributions receivables of $81,498M in 2010 and $83,519M in Fr. Wild's last year. Enter Pilarz and the contributions receivables went down to $78,895M in 2012 and $62,897M in 2013 (and the stock market rocketed up).How does one make up for the drop-off in contributions when one fails in leadership? Raise tuition, with gross tuition rising from $306,018M in Wild's last year to $337,783M in Pilarz's Year 2. Fact is, tuition control goes with growth by keeping tuition in line by insisting that a sizeable part of endowment and incubation revenue go toward financial aid. If anyone still thinks the Pilarz regime's problems were all on Buzz Williams, keep drinking. Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning.
If you are green, you are growing. Lovell has set a growth agenda from the get go, but also is locking onto these innovation partnerships around town in order to share costs. According to MU's Financial Statements, MU brought in contributions receivables of $81,498M in 2010 and $83,519M in Fr. Wild's last year. Enter Pilarz and the contributions receivables went down to $78,895M in 2012 and $62,897M in 2013 (and the stock market rocketed up).How does one make up for the drop-off in contributions when one fails in leadership? Raise tuition, with gross tuition rising from $306,018M in Wild's last year to $337,783M in Pilarz's Year 2. Fact is, tuition control goes with growth by keeping tuition in line by insisting that a sizeable part of endowment and incubation revenue go toward financial aid.
If anyone still thinks the Pilarz regime's problems were all on Buzz Williams, keep drinking. Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning.
As you point out, there are different ways to report or interpret financial reports...however, Marquette chooses "Contributions Receivable" which is the term I precisely stated without getting into 50 lines of technocratic terms. Similarly, "gross tuition" represents revenue without the level of discounted revenue (listed separately)...meaning richer students paying full price are paying more than their share of scholarship money, a sign of true financial health of what an institutional n can charge. Thus, these were reported and treated equally all years for comparison purposes.Feel free to debate KMPG. I think we both agree that MU was trending significantly down in donations, while costs were high, and tuition hikes and staff cuts had to be enacted, interpretations aside. http://www.marquette.edu/financeoffice/reports.shtml
Sigh... to be clear, I'm saying i don't believe what a contribution receivable is. Has nothing to do with the annual report or the auditors.
Precisely. Hilltopper is making a political post without making it obvious to all. Sneaky.For an intelligent, hardworking kid with an interest in a relevant field, opportunities are excellent today. Price tag may appear high, but the value is compelling.
Honestly, don't see anything political about it at all. I think he's correct in one sense. Many private schools charge a lot of money but the ROI isn't there. Those schools are in deep crap which is what I think he was saying. Where I would disagree with him is that I don't think MU has to be in that boat. We're a top 80 school today, if the school can get to a top 50 marker, people will pay for the degree. That's where you and I are aligned. Not everyone agrees. I recall Sultan or someone not wanting MU to push for that status, maybe a few others.
Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning.
Um, no, I think you are referring to the Y and the Business Building.
For an intelligent, hardworking kid with an interest in a relevant field, opportunities are excellent today. Price tag may appear high, but the value is compelling.
Some of the threads in the Superbar were talking about the rankings. I want MU to get into the top 50, top 25, whatever. But I don't want them to be gaming the system like Northeastern did. Getting improved rankings through "squirmy" methods isn't my preferred approach
The average student debt upon graduation in 1980 was $3,100. Today it's over $28,000. I understand why students want "stuff" for cheaper.