Jim Swartz displayed several overhead transparencies comparing Grinnell College with colleges of comparable reputation and size (such as Macalester, Carleton, Swarthmore).
1. Revenue Analysis
2. Grinnell's Endowment Fluctuations
3. Expenditures per student
4. Comprehensive fee
5. Net tuition revenue
6. Tuition discounting
7. Student population sizes

The overall assessment to be made from the information presented was that in comparison with our cohorts, Grinnell College spends much more from our endowment, our endowment (as of June 1999) is not as large as it once was, our comprehensive fee is the second lowest, our net tuition revenue is on the low end, and our student population is smaller than our competitors.

Eric Staab (filling in for Jim Sumner) handed out the initial list of net revenue improvement ideas as well as the recommended list that was shared with the Trustee Task Force.

Tom Crady shared with the committee that President Osgood agrees with the suggestions CAFA has made regarding net revenue improvements. Likewise, the Board's Financial Aid Committee was comfortable with the suggestions. Tom also informed the committee of his recent trip to St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester.

Tom also informed the committee that the members of the Board of Trustees' Financial Aid Committee are apprehensive of increasing the student body given the current housing constraints on campus. They also do not feel that a need sensitive approach to admission is appropriate for Grinnell at this time.

Eric handed out the college promotional video to interested committee members and reminded them to return them to the Office of Admission once they have viewed the videos.

Minutes by Eric Staab

Return to Admission & Financial Aid Committee | Return to Academic Affairs