The following was submitted as a comment (and to me as an email) by NYU Spokesman John Beckman, in response to my piece yesterday, Is NYU Squeezing Everyone But Its Neediest Students? My comments are offset in quote form.

I appreciate that Charlie wanted to open a conversation on this topic; however, there are a number of factual errors – some serious, some disappointing — that really need to be corrected.

I’d like to start with the big picture, if I may. Between 2002-03 and 2009-10, cost of attendance rose 40.0%; institutional aid (gift, scholarship, and grant aid provided by NYU) increased by 94.8%. We gave Charlie information for two five-year periods – the one he was using (2002-03 to 2006-07) and the most recent (2005-06 to 2009-10) – and, in each, it showed that the percentage increase in institutional aid exceeded the percentage increase in tuition.

I would have thought this might have been highlighted as the key issue. Or the fact that NYU is providing some $160 million in institutional aid – far more than most other universities.

I did, in fact, include the data Beckman supplied that showed need-based aid has increased substantially over the last five years. But my major points were: 1) that a larger share of the money is being directed to the neediest and 2) that NYU still hasn’t proven that they are trying to make the school more affordable for everyone. I did not mention NYU’s large amount of aggregate aid because I think per capita numbers are the only ones that really matter (as Beckman also points out when people note NYU’s large endowment).

As I mentioned, there were some important errors in Charlie’s post that need to be addressed. Let me outline them.

With regard to paragraph four – on a per student basis, NYU’s endowment is not 148th out of the 522 private universities with the largest endowments, we are 184th. Let me illustrate the importance of being that far down the list: the total cost of attendance at Princeton is about $50,000; the total cost of attendance at NYU is about $54,000. According to the 2008 NACUBO endowment student, NYU’s endowment per student was about $70,398; Princeton’s was approximately $2.26 million per student. The rule of thumb is that – on average – endowments will yield about five percent per year. In Princeton’s case, that’s about $113,000/year; in NYU’s case, that’s about $3,500/year. Although we don’t know exactly how much of the Princeton endowment supports financial aid, this conveys a fairly clear sense that they – and similarly situated schools – have substantially more resources in hand for that purpose.

I fully acknowledge that NYU has a difficult time meeting full need. I explicitly stated that the administration has good arguments on their side and then, in the very next sentence, wrote, “NYU has a huge student population and therefore a small endowment per capita, which makes meeting full financial need impossible.”

In regards to NYU being 184th, not 148th, that was a transcription error. Sorry, it’s fixed.

With regard to the two charts – there is a fundamental flaw and a labeling error. The fundamental flaw with the two charts (which Charlie notes): they use only data for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking freshmen. Our financial aid program serves ALL undergraduates, not just freshmen, so looking at the charts does not really tell the whole story. And there’s another important error: the chart titles do not match up to the data Charlie describes — these charts incorrectly claim to represent aid to “4-year undergraduates.”

There are number of reasons I used the data I did. The first is that they are the publicly available data from the Department of Education. (That is also the reason the charts only go up until 2006-2007. The latest data are not available.) This was the only way I could include Columbia as a comparison. When Beckman told me that the numbers only included first-time, four-year freshman, I considered scrapping the charts. But the numbers still describe the general experience of most students coming from high school and allow for a comparison.

If I had full access to all financial aid data, I would love to create similar charts using the full undergraduate picture. As it is now, it’s comparing apples to oranges. I think there is value both in what I presented and Beckman’s numbers, which I also presented.

The labeling error was caused by my creating the charts before realizing the IPEDS data did not apply to all undergrads. I didn’t catch the mistake on my rewrite. I did, however, specify what the charts represented in the text of the article. The chart titles are fixed.

With regard to paragraph 13 – Charlie is wrong in stating that the increase in institutional aid to those with need began in 2005; I wish he had thought to ask us. During the years on which he is focused – 2002-03 to 2006-07 – the percentage of total institutional aid that went to students with need increased from 84.1% to 87.7%

This is becoming somewhat of an overly technical argument, I think. It is possible that there was a 15% drop in the number of students receiving aid (from 2002-2006) due solely to some students no longer receiving merit aid (though there’s no way to know), but it doesn’t really change my main arguments. I do think it is good (as I wrote yesterday) that NYU is giving more need-based aid in lieu of merit-based aid.

I still think the fact that first-time, four-year undergraduates saw costs significantly outpace aid during the five years I pointed out is concerning. Why are other undergraduates seeing more of the financial aid money?

With regard to paragraph 17 – two errors in this one. 1) Adjusting for inflation would change the percentage figures, but it wouldn’t change the fact that institutional financial aid increased at a faster rate than cost of attendance. However, in response, here are inflation adjusted figures: between 2002-03 and 2006-07: the total cost of attendance increased by 12.6%; total institutional aid increased by 19.0%; institutional aid to students with need increased by 24.1%. 2) Charlie didn’t ask us for the “average institutional aid increase” (by which I assume he means the average institutional aid grant). Had he asked, I would have told him that average institutional aid grant increased from $7,780 in 2002-03 to $9,811 in 2006-07 (for students with need, it increased from $8,338 to $10,416 over that period) (NB: the figures in part 2 are not inflation adjusted)

1) This is good news. Now we have apples to apples. Again I wonder, why are rising high school seniors seeing less so much less of an increase in aid when compared to the full pool of undergrads?

2) I went ahead and adjusted the numbers for inflation. The average institutional aid grant increased 11.2 12.6% from 02-03 to 06-07. The cost of tuition increased 12.8%. This basically confirms my tuition vs. financial aid analysis. The cost of attendance (which includes room and board, books, etc.), however, only increased 8.6%.

With regard to paragraph 23 – Charlie says “average aid packages increased this year by almost $1500. (That is not institutional aid, that is overall aid, which includes student loans. I imagine the large bulk of that increase is in loans, particularly considering this year’s recession.)” That’s incorrect — that increase was in institutional aid. I pointed this out to Charlie already, and he indicated he would be correcting that, but I wanted to make sure that this was clear.

Indeed, I corrected this yesterday. I got this wrong because the WSN article called them “aid packages,” which refers to grants, work study, suggested student loans, etc., and not “institutional grants.”

Having highlighted Charlie’s key specific errors (some of which he will probably correct, but it is important to get them on the record), I’d like to speak generally again for a moment.

NYU is not among the relatively small set of institutions that “meet full need” – meaning that our financial aid resources are not sufficient to fill the gap between the expected family contribution (as determined by FAFSA) and the cost of tuition for all our students. We know that because of this, many students take on debt to attend NYU because they really want to be here. That places a real responsibility on NYU — one we feel keenly and constantly strive to meet – to strike a balance within the resources we have: to make NYU as affordable as possible to as many as possible and at the same time to give our students an education that is manifestly and recognizably excellent, to give them a chance to learn from faculty who are at the forefront of adding knowledge to their disciplines, to create supports that help them succeed academically, to provide them with opportunities that are truly distinctive (such as through our connections to NYC and our extensive international network), and to prepare them well for their lives after they receive an NYU degree, whether that be grad school, professional school, or the workforce.

That’s what we work at every day. That’s why we added extra funds to financial aid this year, that’s why we slowed the rate of increase in cost of attendance to its lowest level in 20 years this year, that’s why non-union employees received no salary increase this year (saving $23 million), that’s why we have been cutting administrative costs (a savings of $53 million annually by the end of this year), that’s why we didn’t look to cuts in academics (even when other major universities did), and that’s why we do fundraising.

– John Beckman, NYU Public Affairs

Certainly I give credit (and I did yesterday) to the things NYU does well. I’m very encouraged by their recent financial aid increases that far outpace tuition increases. I write about this because I think we should all be thinking critically about what exactly NYU is doing to make school “as affordable as possible” and to give us the excellent education we come here to receive. I do think NYU has their intentions in the right place, but there are still big questions about affordability that haven’t yet been resolved.

When you dig down into statistics like John and I have been the last couple of weeks, it is easy to see the same numbers and draw different conclusions. We can both slice and dice numbers to fit our positions. It is important that we don’t get caught up arguing about the numbers when the big picture is far more important.

If NYU feels comfortable with students going into deep debt in order to attend, then so be it. It seems to me that the University would be wiser (and better) if they eased up on the breakneck pace of enrollment and expansion, taking care to lower costs. No doubt, the University has made great strides over the past decade, but this is a better time than ever to slow down, think about the economic fundamentals, and plan accordingly.

2:19  - Corrected inflation calculation discrepancies.

6:45 – Corrected percentage change math error and edited for clarity.