The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, act as legal, financial or credit advice; instead, it is for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not be current. This website may contain links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; we do not recommend or endorse the contents of any third-party sites. Readers of this website should contact their attorney, accountant or credit counselor to obtain advice with respect to their particular situation. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or not act on the basis of information on this site. Always seek personal legal, financial or credit advice for your relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney or advisor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client or fiduciary relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website owner, authors, contributors, contributing firms, or their respective employers.
Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them. Compensation is not a factor in the substantive evaluation of any product.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Victor Fleischer, a professor of law at the University of San Diego, raises legitimate concerns regarding one university’s nearly half-a-billion-dollar payment to private equity fund managers for overseeing the investment strategy on a portion of its endowment fund. In particular, he calls into question the extent to which higher-education institutions with significant financial resources are using enough of that money for educational purposes, including easing the financial burdens of students who, left to their own devices, are borrowing increasingly large sums of money to pay for their schooling.
I agree with him, however the scope of the problem isn’t limited to the schools and universities with $100-million-plus bank accounts that Fleischer targets.
Certainly, nary a week or two goes by without word that a significant gift has been made to a prominent university. The much-heralded donations are often earmarked for specific projects, such as a new building, the modernization of an existing structure, the support of a new academic undertaking or, perhaps, the sponsorship of unique research. Less publicized smaller contributions, which are routinely made by parents and alums, may also be held in reserve to fund building projects or targeted academic pursuits, or, as is often the case, to bolster the school’s rainy day fund: the endowment.
A look at the typical not-for-profit school’s annual financial statements, however, suggests a slightly different story: Institutions are increasingly using the investment income (including interest) generated by these endowments (and, sometimes, principal amounts from the fund itself) to offset operational shortfalls.
Said differently, rather than taking steps to address the problems of spiraling administrative expenses, the dubious strategy of meeting enrollment goals by discounting tuition prices for some (which is analogous to marking down an exorbitantly-priced item to the level of “expensive”) and, perhaps, relaxing admission standards for others, school officials have instead chosen to bridge the widening gap between revenues and expenses by compromising the financial generosity that was intended to assure institutional longevity.
Which brings me back to the philanthropic activities on the part of those at the top of the income-earning food chain.
Although I understand the pride that comes from having a building named after an especially generous benefactor, I would argue that a more worthy use of his or her money would be to reduce the cost of tuition across the board. In fact, automatically restricting a meaningful percentage of all donations to that purpose (including the investment income that comes from that) may even inspire boards and administrators to take corrective actions that are long overdue, because fewer freshly-contributed dollars will be available to offset the red ink.
In other words, rather than battling with reluctant managers over how much to draw down existing endowment funds for educational purposes (including tuition assistance), as Fleischer advocates, why not control the flow of money at the source: when the donation checks first arrive in the mail?
The federal government can also help stimulate tuition-specific gift-giving by redirecting a portion of its annual financial aid budget to match the value of these restricted donations, dollar for dollar. It can do even more by incenting colleges and universities within this vastly overbuilt and redundant network of higher-educational facilities to combine.
If policymakers lack the political courage to reconstitute the Department of Education’s entire higher-education budget so tuition-free degrees become a reality for in-state students attending the nation’s public colleges and universities, they should at least agree on a plan to foster tuition-specific public/private partnerships that have the potential to at least get us part of the way there.
This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.
Image: iStock
September 13, 2021
Uncategorized
August 4, 2021
Uncategorized
January 28, 2021
Uncategorized