The $8 million in cuts are relative to the projected out-year budgets. They take into account assumptions about increases in revenues and expenses.

a) increasing work-study hours from 7.5 to 10 per week

b) increasing expected summer earnings

c) re-instating loans for a subset of financial aid recepients. 30% of financial aid student were always no-loan at Swarthmore. Adding the remaining 70% to the no-loan status cost the college $1.7 million last year. They are now looking to reduce the aid budget by $457,000. The faculty is raising the reasonable question: why should we cut programs when we aren’t even asking aid students from families making $200,000 to take out one red cent in student loans? Everyone knows that going “no-loan” was a middle-class price cut (merit aid for hoity-toity schools).

Will all the averted increases and this decrease come from increases in work study and intro of loans? Doesn’t seem possible to remain need blind without some games.

Depends on what you mean by “on the record.” Reporters from the Record are allowed to attend and report on what happens. That’s how they know what topics were “broached.”

I do not think they are allowed to report specific quotes.

Allowed? By whom? Where is this written? Transparency? Censorship? (Trains)?

The problem I saw twenty years ago was that Record reporters at the time would almost– amerhh, mea culpa if I’m engaging in this blog’s odd voyeuristic tendency to turn current campus life into a replay– almost always print quotes on important issues, which the person quoted did not quite remember saying.

The two ways to solve that are a tape recorder and calling the source to confirm or question your interpretation of what they said.

Mea culpa as well, if I am replaying certain other questions raised on this blog.

As for the faculty meeting, I’m fairly certain those are not on the record.

Depends on what you mean by “on the record.” Reporters from the Record are allowed to attend and report on what happens. That’s how they know what topics were “broached.”

I do not think they are allowed to report specific quotes.

When budget cuts have direct noticeable impacts on student life, the admin is more than transparent. That seems like all we can ask for.

Now that the students are finally engaged in the budget realities (financial aid was the light switch), the College is now having to “sell” the proposals (or at least explain them) to students, starting with a series of meetings and down halls this week as described in this excellent Daily Gazette article today:

The 8 Million Dollar Question

This town hall featured the Acting Dean of the College, the Dean of Admissions/Finanacial Aid, the Financial Aid director, and the Facilities Manager.

An explanation of the proposed financial aid cuts:

The proposed cut that is by far the most controversial among students, however, is to financial aid: the FPG recommended a 2.1% reduction in financial aid, which amounts to $457,000. This would certainly not come from the scholarship component—SFAP members indicated that the College is not about to revoke its policy of meeting full student need—but it might come from an increase in the expected term-time or summer-time contributions for students, or possibly through reintroduction of loans.
Bock also pointed out that the reduction is only 2.1%, while financial aid has increased by 30% in the last two years, due to increased need. “I don’t know of anything else at Swarthmore that’s increased by 30% in these two years,” he said.

In terms of student contributions, Bock said that Swarthmore has “some of the lowest self-help and work expectations of all of [its] peer group.” Raising those expectations could be a significant boon to the budget: going from an expectation of 7.5 hours per week to 10 would fill the full gap, while a hike in the expected summer contribution could also help meet the proposed budget cut. Reinstating some loans in financial aid packages could also bring in a significant amount; as the program costed $1.7 million annually, it would not need to be a full reversion to pre-2007 levels of loans to save enough money to meet the cut demands.

Bock admitted that all of these options have serious consequences attached to them. “It’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “Since it’s harder to find work now than ever before, how can we raise the summer component?” he asked.

I can only imagine what it’s like in the financial planning sessions at schools (unlike Swarthmore and Williams) where the magnitude of the required cuts involves shriking the faculty or ending need-blind admissions.

It also makes me chuckle a bit thinking about the reaction to some of David’s hypothetical cuts to $200,000 programs and how even implementing ten of those would barely put a dent in the systemic cuts that have to be made.