A Response to Forbes: The Criticism of GWU as the Site of Obama’s Debt Speech Based on Fuzzy Forbes Facts

Forbes Magazine today condemned President Barack Obama for his choice of a location for his speech on national debt: George Washington University. Staff writer David Whelan objects that the school is the most expensive college in the nation but Forbes ranks it only as the 291st best college. While I agree that tuition at this school and other schools is too high, the ranking by Forbes is absurd and is not followed, as far as I can tell, by anyone other than Forbes staff writers.

I have long been a critic of the increasing tuition rates at national universities. Having said that, most national university are now extremely expensive. While a few thousand dollars may divide schools in a straight ranking of costs, the most competitive schools are well over $30,000. Those costs are due not just to competitive markets for academic talent but also greater demands from students, who expect much more luxurious dorm rooms as well as other accommodations. Students today are given world class fitness facilities, laboratories, and entertainment. To stay competitive, universities have been expanding and building to meet the expectations of today’s students as well as faculty.

Let me be clear. I opposed the tuition hike by former President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg. While Trachtenberg did some many good things for the school, he had continual tension with the faculty. He raised the tuition after the faculty turned down one of his worst ideas. He wanted to add a whole additional class to the University to basically crank out more diplomas all year around. Despite his promise to the faculty to pay us all more in exchange for the additional class, the faculty stood hard on the principle of academic excellence and refused to allow for the expansion. It would have, in my opinion, turned the school into a factory operation. Trachtenberg’s final salvo was to make the school the most expensive college in the country — a move widely criticized by the faculty. Trachtenberg has insisted that, absent the willingness of the faculty to increase the number of students, the revenue for the rising costs (due in part to a major building campaign) of the university had to come from tuition.

What I considered most out of line was the use of the Forbes ranking. It is true that U.S. News and World Report ranks GW as 51st — a ranking that rankles many at the university. This is only the ranking for the college. The individual graduate schools do much better — particularly the law school which is ranked in the top 20 and the top three in intellectual property in the nation. (The Elliot School for international affairs has been ranked 10th among undergraduate programs and seventh among graduate programs). The ranking puts the GW tuition at $41,242 tuition and fees as compared to other schools at the same ranking like Tulane at $41,884 tuition and fees. My undergraduate, University of Chicago, is ranked 9th with a tuition of $41,091 tuition and fees in the same report. Georgetown nearby is ranked 20th and lists a tuition of $40,203 tuition and fees. The point is that many of the top 50 or so schools are within a few thousand dollars of each other — something Whelan omits to mention.

The magazine also does not account for the significant level of scholarships meted out at GW.

The Forbes ranking puts a heavy weight on tuition. This is an important criteria for students. However, it is not the measure of the quality of the school. Moreover, it does not account for scholarship rates. More than 60 percent of our undergraduate students receive financial aid from GW. Moreover, GW boasts a “no surprises tuition guarantee” that ensures no tuition increase for returning undergraduate students and limiting the increase for incoming undergraduates.

With the highly skewed ranking, Forbes ends up with a ridiculous ranking of schools if you are looking purely at quality. West Point is put in the top four since tuition is zero but no one would rank the school so highly in terms of quality. (The Air Force academy comes in at 11th). The “top 25 schools” for Forbes also include Whitman College and Centre College. They are higher ranked than Middlebury, Dartmouth, Pennsylvania, Bowdoin, Duke and others. Brown University is ranked 45th and Georgetown is ranked 52nd. Berkeley (65th) is ranked behind Bates College and DePauw, according to Forbes.

Whalen notes “GW is ranked down near other expensive schools like the University of Miami and Syracuse University. Forbes ranks it below solid, small, and inexpensive places to get your bachelors, like Grove City College and Fisk University.” That is the type of comparison that drives academicians to distraction. Obviously, you can get cheaper deals on education if the issue is only receiving a diploma. However, Whalen is using (as does his magazine) a cost-driven measure of excellence. Education is not so easily quantifiable and, with all due respect to those schools, no one I know would say that those schools offer the same opportunities and ranking as GWU.

What I do not understand is why consumers pay a newsstand price of $130 for 26 editions of Forbes when there are other magazines at a fraction of the cost. After all, in a ranking of the top 50 magazines, Forbes does not even make the cut. Instead, the study noted on 15th ranked Business Week that it is “consistently the best business magazine, more timely than the biweeklies Forbes and Fortune. One strength is international reporting, as in the cover story on India and outsourcing. If it is all about price, shouldn’t consumers buy Wooden Boat magazine (37th) or Martha Stewart Weddings (33rd)? Some of the top 50 magazines are a fraction of the cost of Forbes. However, I would be the first to say that the measure of quality is not the newstand price but the content of the magazine and how it is viewed by other journalists.

Then there is the fuzzy math problem of Forbes being accused of counting ghost subscribers. It would seem that circulation alone is not a reliable measure and I am sure that staff writers would insist that you cannot rank a magazine on sales as opposed to the quality of their writing — the same point as academics.

While many academics are critics of the U.S. News and World Report ranking, I am not. However, students look for a mix of opportunities and departmental offerings — as well as scholarships and standing. The report, for example, notes that GW’s college has “56.2 percent of its classes with fewer than 20 students, and the student-faculty ratio at George Washington University is 13:1.” Because of our location (two blocks from the White House), this tends to be an expensive location but also a place with a great deal of opportunities not present with other schools.

It is also important to note that the top 50 schools can be highly misleading. In a nation filled with world-class schools, the top 50 schools are a pretty competitive group. Consider the fact that 25-50 includes the following schools: Georgetown, UCLA, Virginia, Tufts, Michigan, William and Mary, Boston College, NYU, Brandeis, Texas, Wisconsin, and other schools. GWU is ranked just behind schools like Illinois and Texas. Even at state schools like Texas charge $31,218 out-of-state tuition.

I do not want this to sound defensive, because I have been critical of tuition rates. However, the use of the widely criticized Forbes ranking is telling example of fuzzy stats used to make the point driving that Whalen so desperately wants to make in the piece. The column seems to follow the old adage among some journalists that “some facts are too good to check.”

I realize that Whelan wanted a way to poke fun at Obama — even for the mere location of his remarks. However, the figures that he uses seem to suffer from the same creative bookkeeping as the various austerity plans and projections. The desired point seems to have gotten a bit far ahead of the supporting data. Forbes has been previously accused of anti-Obama articles that strained credulity.

Whalen adds: “Did President Obama see the irony of appearing at George Washington University to discuss how to cut spending? Probably not.” I would agree because anyone familiar with these schools would fail to see the irony. Indeed, Forbes often espouses market-driven analysis of problems and yet fails to see the irony in analyzing this issue without a true comparison to the other schools or the fact that many tuition rates are within ten percent of each other. These schools are in a highly specialized competitive market. They set tuition with an eye to other schools while maintaining the best possible educational “product.” All Whalen can offer is that you can get a degree from some schools at a lower price — citing the Forbes ranking of schools which is heavily weighted on tuition figures. This produces a circular logic. GWU is supposedly a bad deal because it costs too much and is ranked 291st in a ranking driven by the same tuition figure.

George Washington was a logical choice for President Obama. It is not only located virtually next to the White House, it is one of the nation’s oldest universities. The charter of this school was paid for by George Washington himself who wanted a great university founded in our Capitol. He got one. It was established after Washington’s death by congressional act and signed President James Monroe on Feb. 9, 1821 as the Columbian College in the District of Columbia. That school later became George Washington University.

I fail to see the “irony” in the honor of being selected by President Obama for this speech.

Original article: Forbes

Jonathan Turley

26 thoughts on “A Response to Forbes: The Criticism of GWU as the Site of Obama’s Debt Speech Based on Fuzzy Forbes Facts

  1. “The point is that many of the top 50 or so schools are within a few thousand dollars of each other — something Whelan omits to mention.”

    To do so wouldn’t have given Mr. Whelan much to get his panties in a wad over. Mustn’t let those pesky facts get in the way of a good nitpicking.

    Additionally, Mr. Whelan’s criticism of the president’s choosing GWU to give his speech says to me that there wasn’t anything of substance in the speech itself that he can criticize.

    Pffft … I never thought much of Forbes magazine anyway.

  2. JT:

    I think you accorded that foolish remark by David Whelan way too much credence. Sniping criticism of Obama’s choice of venue to make his speech is like blaming Lincoln for delivering the Gettysburg Address at a cemetery. What better place than GW to announce the debt reduction than before many of those who will lead the effort after undergraduate and graduate school graduation to implement it.

    As for ranking schools, your defense of your employer is honorable. Ranking schools is a lot like ranking wheat fields. You judge by the quality of the harvest. I think by that standard GW does just fine, and any marginal difference between GW and say, William & Mary or Virginia, is akin to deciphering just how many angels fit on the head of that famous pin.

  3. I did a masters at one of Trachtenberg’s former institutions. He jacked up the prices there, too. Luckily, I had tuition waivers for the last year of the masters when the 40% hike occurred. I think he felt he could push costs off onto loans, etc. There wasn’t a big endowment to provide scholarships.

    It wasn’t a great institution, although it had a couple highly respected schools. I was happy to get into a very good PhD program and forget my experience there as much as possible. He was not well liked by students or faculty and seemed to be prexy as salesman. The institution had been on a slow upward climb, which has continued, but he definitely went for “factory” offerings like a bridge program in nursing (basically getting more students for science survey courses) and business classes for local employers (a similar strategy) and fluff taught in the summers. he also ought other institutions’ credible efforts at developing new graduate programs.

  4. Probably GW has to pay more to all employees from janitors to deans and professors because the cost of living is high in Washington DC and there is a high local income tax. I think the feds pay about 15% more to employees who are located in D.C. then it does to people doing the exact same job located elsewhere. Many GW enrollees probably have parents located in the metro area who are making more money than people doing similar work elsewhere.

    There must be special advantages to a law school associated with being located in D.C. — faculty with more insight because of government work, more opportunities to clerk with federal judges because there are more federal judges in D.C. per capita than in other areas, opportunities to work with the U.S. patent office, etc. D.C. is also a beautiful city with a great public transportation system that allows students to save money by not having automobiles and not paying for gas. Many federal government jobs seem really interesting and it must be easier for a GW grad to get them by using contacts and to keep them while still keeping their college friends and lovers thereby having a better overall quality of life.

    It seems that government jobs had high social status in the 1960s but lost status in the decades since then. I knew a Yale Law grad who got a job as a lawyer for the EPA in the 70s and all his friends thought that sounded really interesting and important. With the changing economy and general pendulum effect of values, I think that federal jobs social status is increasing and that should help GW law school enrollment.

  5. i’m not exactly obama’s biggest fan but if he jumped in front of a truck to save a baby and a box of puppies some in media would criticize him for disrupting traffic.

  6. pete 1, April 14, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    i’m not exactly obama’s biggest fan but if he jumped in front of a truck to save a baby and a box of puppies some in media would criticize him for disrupting traffic.
    ———————
    hahahaha!

    Pete, you have an interesting way of putting things….
    and I think you’re right…

  7. According to friends of mine who prefer Business Week to Forbes, the reasoning seems to run along the lines, “BW is consistently complete while Forbes is often fragmented.”

    Ordinarily speeches on national debt are praised or criticized for their content and delivery. Perhaps Mr. Whalen is a frustrated fashion reporter who missed the overall sweep and design of the gown because he concentrated too much on the placement of an accessory. Thus his story was fragmented and worth little to those who were seeking an insightful critique of the whole.

    Also, one could suggest that even his obsession with the accessory was flawed in that he falsely represented a solid 18k gold piece as merely gold-plated.

  8. kay, George Washington Law is ranked at 20. The rankings were for undergrad only. GWU costs only a little more than Georgetown.

  9. Mike Appleton,

    “Imagine what the reaction would have been had the President given his address at Howard.”

    Lafayette Park would have been loaded with torches and pitchforks …

  10. Who the f cares where Obama gave his speech. If one has an opinion on the speech and its contents then speak up. Grasping at straws, trying so hard to find a reason to attack the President that you resort to finding fault with the location of the venue is childish.

    As far as it being priced too high – bull. It is priced exactly where it should be. If it was priced too high no one would be attending and they would either lower their price or go out of business. Since they are doing fine you can’t say they are price too high no more than you could say Starbucks is priced too high.

  11. My School’s better than your school….My Schools better than yours….NO 1 (BBA Account), NO 5 (Marketing) and NO 11 or 12(I think) (JD)….

  12. There needs to be more of this. Ivy’s and Baby Ivy’s need consistently bad rankings and there is a good reason for it. The students from these schools form the legions of troublmakers around the country and the world who are ruining our lives. This includes lawyers and politicians especially.

    Outside of that: defund them all. No federal dollars should go to any college in the form of loans or grants.

    Having these totalitarian fascists in the Fed involved in the economic end of things corrupts the whole system. The “market” value is unable to find its natural “price” level because the government just prints money to pay the colleges the loan money and the students just keep applying for them. Now they have no choice unless they can go it alone.

    And of course, academic “freedom” is impossible when the Soviet comrades in DC are footing the bill. You shall not have ideas that are contrary to the communist directorate in the loan department.

    This kills intellectual curiousity (particularly in the social scienes) and the dissemination of truth at the academic level.

    The social sciences are now just courses on leftist government political propaganda.

  13. Fox News Reports That GWU Student’s Suicide ‘Tragically Coincides’ With Obama Visit
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/fox-news-reports-that-gwu_n_849314.html

    Excerpt:
    UPDATE: As of 4:30 p.m. EST, Fox has apparently pulled the article in question from their site. The GW Hatchet reports that Fox took the story down “due to the student and university reaction, even though nothing in the story was factually inaccurate.” Scroll down for a screenshot of the original story.

    ORIGINAL POST:
    George Washington University students are making their anger known over a Fox News story that reported a student’s suicide alongside President Obama’s visit to the school.

    The story, titled ‘GWU Suicide Tragically Coincides With Obama Speech,’ appeared on Fox’s America Election HQ blog Wednesday and called the unidentified student’s death a “tragic coincidence.” The story was taken down sometime Thursday afternoon.

    In response, GWU students are targeting Fox News and the post’s author, Kelly Chernenkoff, through Facebook. The Facebook group HOLD CHERNENKOFF AND FOX NEWS ACCOUNTABLE has more than 600 members and counting, many of whom are openly questioning Fox’s news judgment.

    “[Fox is] making a connection between two unrelated events just to push their political agenda,” one poster wrote on the group’s wall. “It’s disgusting of Fox news to devalue someone’s death like this.”

    According to the GW Hatchet, Fox News changed the article from its original iteration. Danny Leimberg, creator of the above-mentioned Facebook group, grabbed a screenshot of the original story.

    **********

    You can see a screenshot of the original story at the link provided above.

  14. About Fox:

    In a recent talk to a group of college students, Carl Rove said “that Fox News does a good job being objective.” One audience member reportedly laughed loudly. The rest of “the crowd” of 300 must have been Rove (and Fox) supporters.

  15. Good post, prof. That Forbes article is whack. I don’t love sky-high tuition, but it’s insane to pretend that it’s isolated to GW. I’m always disturbed by how several well-known “public” law schools have out-of-state tuition exceeding GW’s. Maybe if our higher education system was restructured we wouldn’t have to borrow tens of thousands of dollars from the government in order to attend school. The government should be thanking GW for the interest on my student loans.

  16. “This kills intellectual curiousity (particularly in the social scienes) and the dissemination of truth at the academic level.”

    Lol … Taliban Tootie attempts to school us on intellectual curiousity …

  17. Stamford,

    She’s curious, she wonders how anyone could possibly be as vile, deceitful, hate filled, prejudiced, lazy, and efficient at destroying all that is good in the word as the big scarey left.

Comments are closed.