<p>Gator–If “only” the basketball coach’s salary was a few hundred thousand more: it’s double McRobbie’s salary.</p>
<p>Here’s the figures McRobbie was the third-highest paid IU employee despite the $1.1 million.
IU men’s basketball coach Tom Crean made $2, 758,816 in fiscal year 2013, </p>
<p>You’ve got me on the football coach though: IU football coach Kevin Wilson, who made $1,228,119.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This article dispels the notion that high-paid college presidents lead to “reducing student costs” and focusing on “student’s interest”: <a href=“Student Debt Grows Faster at Universities With Highest-Paid Leaders, Study Finds - The New York Times”>Student Debt Grows Faster at Universities With Highest-Paid Leaders, Study Finds - The New York Times;
<p>The study: <a href=“http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/one_percent_universities”>http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/one_percent_universities</a></p>
<p>I would have no problems paying a ridiculous salary either if it meant that the college was remaining affordable for most students, or that its quality was improving or something. But at OSU the opposite happened. Quite conclusively. </p>
<p>ABSOLUTELY not surprising. Large public Universities are known to be viable lobbying platforms for businesses and politicians. It’s unfortunate, but it’s going to get worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue isn’t about what these people make. I personally would not want to work as a college president, so I can understand that job requires serious compensation. They travel a lot, they get blamed for a lot. They have a lot of responsibility. I don’t think a million sounds completely egregious. </p>
<p>But this isn’t about compensation. It’s about what they’re doing with it and how schools are allocating their resources.</p>
<p>These schools aren’t just paying presidents obscene amounts of money. They are paying an entire administrative class obscene amounts of money while cutting the number of faculty from payrolls, freezing faculty salaries, refusing to hire full-time faculty, and refusing to fund research. At the same time, tuition is going up DESPITE the fact that universities are seeing enrollments go up too. Students are having to borrow more heavily than ever before to sit in large lecture classes with TAs. Why? Why is school costing so much these days?</p>
<p>It’s not costing a lot because of professor salaries or instructional costs. If your student attends a state institution like Indiana or Ohio State, I can guarantee that most of his classes are taught by instructors who make about 20k a year (grad students and contingent instructors, often very ineffective because they are overworked, and beholden to student evaluations, which mean they inflate grades). Even tenure-track professors don’t make very much–in Indiana they’re starting out at about 50k. But schools won’t hire full-time professors because they can save money by paying grad students and lecturers even less. </p>
<p>There is something seriously wrong with a system where students are graduating with more debt than ever before–from STATE schools–and administrators are raking in millions.</p>
<p>So that’s the issue. It’s not the football coach, and it’s not the president’s salary in and of itself. It’s that you’re paying top dollar and borrowing massive amounts of money for a sub-par education. And someone else is profiting from this, even though state universities are non-profits. </p>
<p>The administrative class: <a href=“The Lessons of the Megalomaniac University President | TIME.com”>http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/06/viewpoint-gordon-gee-should-have-gone-long-ago/</a></p>
<p>And to be honest, the president of Indiana really doesn’t have to make a million dollars. The president of Berkeley is getting by with half that, and that part of California is one of the most expensive in the country. And Berkeley is a much better school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? That’s not the case for my kid, as almost all of the lecture courses are taught by facility, with the exception of break out sessions in Calc 1, labs, etc., which are taught by TA’s. But then again, grad students need the learn how to teach, if they want to pursue a career in academics. </p>
<p>I don’t disagree with many of your points, but this statement seems a bit far fetched. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s because only two sports tend to make money: football and men’s b’ball. All other sports run at a loss, with women’s b’ball a big money loser (outside of a few top programs).</p>
<p>The point is that football and basketball (and Saban) funds other sports and enable themTitle IX to exist. (yes, there are a few exceptions) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What, the pay? I admit that the pay I listed there was high. Most adjuncts don’t pull down anywhere close to 20k just from one university. They typically teach one class for about 3k. This is all very well documented. </p>
<p>Links on adjunct pay: <a href=“http://adjunct.chronicle.com/”>http://adjunct.chronicle.com/</a>
You can learn exactly what an adjunct instructor is making at your university. </p>
<p>Your university is using them–that I can guarantee. Nearly SEVENTY percent of all professors teaching college are adjuncts. Your kid is being taught by them, unless he or she happens to be at one of the few really good schools that actually values undergraduate education. (Miami of Ohio comes to mind.) A lot of times, you won’t even know that your kid isn’t being taught by a professor–many adjuncts <em>are</em> professors with PhDs. They’re professors that the university won’t hire full time, and they don’t generally advertise this to students. They’re extremely overworked and underpaid, so they’re teaching suffers. Consequently, your child’s education suffers: <a href=“Local adjunct professors scrape by”>http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/05/18/local-adjunct-professors-scrape/2224208/</a></p>
<p><a href=“Opinion | The New College Campus - The New York Times”>Opinion | The New College Campus - The New York Times;
<p>Very enlightening article about how kids’ educations suffer from the overuse of adjuncts: <a href=“9 Reasons Why Being An Adjunct Faculty Member Is Terrible | HuffPost College”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost; One thing the article mentions: Institutions with a lot of adjuncts do not have a lot of graduates.</p>
<p>I can tell you that it is absolutely true of Ohio State. Less than 45% of course hours are taught by full-time faculty. Four-year graduation rates are low. Student debt is at an all-time high: <a href=“http://www.thenation.com/blog/179920/what-makes-ohio-state-most-unequal-public-university-america”>http://www.thenation.com/blog/179920/what-makes-ohio-state-most-unequal-public-university-america</a></p>
<p>Indeed, grad students do indeed need to learn how to teach, but the undergrad student shouldn’t have to pay top dollar to be the guinea pig. My father went to a large state school–U of Delaware–back in the 70s. He had a lot of grad students … but his tuition was extremely low. That was the trade off: You went to a cheap state school and put up with TAs. Or you paid a little bit more and went to a private school with all professors. But in this day and age a state school is expensive, and people are now spending themselves into debt for an education that is administered primarily by grad students and part-timers. Not good educational practice. </p>
<p>I’m actually not an adjunct myself (despite my name), but I’ve taught at a lot of different institutions. Some of the things that go on at the big state school, you wouldn’t believe. I will not send my child to Ohio State or any comparable school that relishes these practices. </p>
<p><<<
And that’s because only two sports tend to make money: football and men’s b’ball. All other sports run at a loss, with women’s b’ball a big money loser (outside of a few top programs).</p>
<p>The point is that football and basketball (and Saban) funds other sports and enable themTitle IX to exist. (yes, there are a few exceptions)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>exactly. instead of whining about how much football and men’s bball coaches are being paid, whine about the funds being spent on all those money pit sports that a school must field because of title IX</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At Indiana or Ohio State? About 74.4% of faculty at OSU is full time, while 85.9% is full time at IU-Bloomington.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/search1ba.aspx?institutionid=151351,204796”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/search1ba.aspx?institutionid=151351,204796</a></p>
<p>At my DD’s state flagship, it’s 84.3%. Within her college (engineering), they have 264 teaching, tenure-track professors, and 32 teaching, non-tenure-track instructors (of which only 5 are part time). It’s simply enough for me to review who’s teaching her classes and then look up the salary (it’s public information in our state). </p>
<p>I don’t deny the recent trend toward using adjuncts, and OSU has a higher number than most flagships, but you shouldn’t equate the situation at a local CC with a state flagship university. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I’m not talking about how many professors are “full time”; I’m talking about the percentage of undergraduate credit hours taught by full-time instructors. Very different. </p>
<p>And yes, in general more than half of all college professors in the nation are adjuncts. </p>
<p>I can’t speak to Indiana, but the 45% at Ohio State is very well known and even in the report from the board of regents:</p>
<p><a href=“Department of Higher Education”>Department of Higher Education;
<p>To lay out the data (since 2010 they haven’t changed much):</p>
<p>Ohio State: 44%
Miami University: 81%
Ohio University: 69%
University of Cincinnati: 70%</p>
<p>This has also been profiled on Slate:<a href=“Adjuncts in American universities: U.S. News should penalize colleges for using contingent faculty.”>http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/01/adjuncts_in_american_universities_u_s_news_should_penalize_colleges_for.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking at all about CCs. This information is all fully available. Maybe “DD”'s college situation is as rosy as it seems. Eh. I wouldn’t put any money on that. More importantly, it doesn’t change the bottom line: student debt is rising fastest at universities with a high reliance on adjuncts and with bloated administrations. That’s a problem, even if you personally aren’t affected. </p>
<p>The reason public university tuition is going up and is increasingly unaffordable for the middle class is the lack of state support. 30 years ago when I went to college, the state funded most of the expenses of running the university. Now it’s down to 18%. Somehow funding the public universities is no longer a priority of most state governments. Not enough voters there I suppose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true, but the issue is also more complicated than the defunding of higher education by government. It’s one cause. The other causes have to do with increased “marketing costs” (schools have to keep up with the Joneses in order to attract more students–this means building more amenities stuff and hiring people to run that stuff, hence a bloated administration), student loans (the claim is contested, but it’s believed that when students started borrowing more heavily, schools knew they could charge more because people would come to college no matter what the cost), and just good old fashioned greed (schools charge more because that’s what people are willing to pay, a Chivas Regal effect). </p>
<p>This is all disheartening, but none of it is really surprising. What is perhaps most disheartening, however, is the ways that higher education has deprioritized actual learning, actually allocating more funds for the stuff outside the classroom than the stuff inside it. And it’s also disheartening that people have gotten very rich from running what are supposed to be non-profit organizations, all while education grows increasingly out-of-reach for the middle class. When I was a student at a state school (not that long ago–in the 90s), you could use your summer earnings to pay your yearly tuition. Now such a thing would be unthinkable. I run into students all the time who work two and three jobs–sometimes staying up all night and sleeping only on the weekends–just to minimize (not eliminate) their loan debt. And not for a private college but for a state school that should really be available to the middle class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are states truly less supportive of public universities? Or is it a problem of the denominator rising so much faster than the numerator, because of out-of-control spending choices made by university administrators?</p>
<p>I don’t know if this source has a policy slant and no time right now to find out, but it says that state contributions are down in real dollar amounts not just as a percentage of total costs.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3927”>http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3927</a></p>
<p>@saintfan,</p>
<p>From the article you linked, it looks like the perfect storm: numerator went down & denominator went up</p>
<p>Again, speaking from the Stone Ages, 30 years ago when I went to a flagship state university, my tuition was 2 or 300 dollars per semester. We had amenities. A very nice recreation building with indoor swimming pool, racquetball and tennis courts, etc. The food in the dining hall was fine. Dorms were basic, but the same dorms are still there! None of my friends, all from middle class families had student loans. Costs could be paid by parents and by summer jobs. Now tuition at that same university is tens of thousands of dollars per year. </p>
<p>State priorities have changed for the worse for college students.</p>
<p>That’s a lot of money. I wonder how many hours day work a week. If it’s just 40, cut the current pay in half. If it’s 80 or more a week then they probably deserve their pay. </p>
<p>“No. I’m not talking about how many professors are “full time”; I’m talking about the percentage of undergraduate credit hours taught by full-time instructors. Very different.”</p>
<p>This seems like great information to find out an every school one is interested in. Is there a place to get that info?</p>
<p>I think it has to do with a combination of state funding and simple supply and demand. Because federal loans (which act as subsidies in this case) are so abundant, and there is so much demand for higher ed, colleges raise their tuition appropriately. </p>
<p>It hurts to see the few that are rich getting richer and the many that are not rich having to pay more. </p>