First, federal fin aid policy, while important to all the changes we are seeing and will see over time regarding tuition increases, access, and affordability to higher ed institutions, it was not central to my thinking. What has driven our move–and yes, we may be, right now, alone in doing things with regard to minimizing increases in comp fees — was more simple: we have been, and I believe will be, dangerously pricing too many good prospective students who are neither very needy or very wealthy from applying to Middlebury. One can always claim that fin aid will go up more than CPI + 1 to “cover” the high increases and therefore say “everyone is covered by the increases” since the percentage of students on aid is about 45% of our student body, but one has not addressed the very high increases in comp fee for more than half the student body. That is, what about the other 55% of the student body and their families who do not receive aid, plus what about future students? More and more potential applicants will turn away from places like Middlebury, despite the record applications, and despite the prestige of attending a NESCAC (or even Ivy) institution.

If we plan right, focusing on our core mission and programs, if endowment and gift performances each year better our new conservative projections in our financial model (5% on endowment return, more realistic gift projections), and if we are smart about taking advantage of our leadership in particular areas of the curriculum (languages and culture, environmental sciences/studies, and international studies) to provide additional resources to the College, we can lower comp fees to CPI + 1% point, and not place us at a disadvantage or lose a cohort of applicants (middle class) who have so much to offer places like Middlebury.

I may be wrong, but I believe other private schools will follow our lead, but even if they do not, I still believe we are doing the right thing by at least starting to address a major issue that needed to be addressed in higher ed for some time.

Purely out of curiosity, I was wondering to what degree federal financial aid policy played into this “CPI + 1″ policy decision. I read the following (in a particularly acerbic) Wall Street Journal op-ed:

“Both the House-passed bill and the President’s budget increase Pell Grants and also create automatic future increases, so individual grants will grow faster than inflation every year. Colleges will pocket the money by raising tuition, so we have yet another federal program ensuring that higher education costs continue to rise even faster than health-care spending.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101663745849200.html

I suppose this could mean that our inflation-adjusted financial aid needs would stay flat, as federal policy has built-in reimbursement increases, but perhaps I’m missing something. At any rate, I applaud the willingness to curb higher ed inflation. I’m slightly concerned about competitive disadvantages of unilaterally defecting from what has become the standard financing model for higher ed, but I think that if Middlebury focuses on our truly core missions–our liberal arts teaching quality–and trims the fat elsewhere, the growing pains could be minimal.

In brief, I think it’s a great idea.

If I were a parent/guardian of an enrolled or prospective student, I would take comfort knowing there is a very reasonable limit on how much the comprehensive fee might increase over the years that my student is (or could be) enrolled and that the administration would be expending the funds I am (or could be) funneling in their direction with restraint and, we hope, wisdom.

In contrast to those who think we could be at a disadvantage with respect to our peer/rival colleges, I think it’s far more likely that others will choose to, or be forced to, undertake similar measures.

Thank you for posting about this and asking for our thoughts.

–Arabella