An F for effort on holding down tuition

<p>"At the University of Minnesota, the number of employees with 'human resources' or 'personnel' in their job titles has grown from 180 to 272 since the 2004-05 academic year. Since 2006, the university has spent $10 million on consultants for a vast new housing development that is decades from completion. It employs 139 people for marketing, promotions and communications. Some 81 administrators make $200,000 per year or more.</p>

<p>In the past decade, Minnesota’s administrative payroll has gone up three times as fast as the teaching payroll, and twice as fast as student enrollment." ...</p>

<p>I'm guessing that this is not an isolated example.</p>

<p>Charles</a> Lane: Big bloat on campus - The Washington Post</p>

<p>Wow thats sad but other universities are doing this also, right?</p>

<p>Meanwhile, many private companies have slashed their Human resource staffs.</p>

<p>I don’t doubt that this is a problem nationwide, but it seems strange to single out UMN, as it is keeping cost of attendance far lower than its peers. The average tuition at “four-year public colleges” isn’t really a fair comparator. Most of those aren’t residential research universities. Compared to other major flagships, especially urban ones, it’s a steal.</p>

<p>I also wonder how critically the authors looked at these data. “The school employs 353 people earning more than $200,000 a year.” Well, it has a medical school with a major teaching hospital, in an urban area. How many of those high earners are clinicians? What kind of professor of cardiology can you get for $190,000? Add in the kind of lawyers that keep the ground from being sued out from under the doctors. UMN has a top-20 law school, too, which means that entry-level professors make $100k+, never mind the big guns on the faculty.</p>

<p>I really think this was the wrong school to pick on. Illinois charges double UMN’s tuition, both in and out of state, despite a much less expensive location.</p>

<p>Ironic that this writer should single out the University of Minnesota for criticism on this score. These trends–rising salaries for top administrators and a proliferation of administrative and non-faculty staff positions, at a time of generally stagnant faculty salaries, little or no growth in faculty positions, and cost-cutting in the instructional area by shifting more of the teaching load to low-paid, part-time adjuncts so as to necessitate fewer full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty–are not new, and are generally observable throughout academia. According to US News, Minnesota ranks a middling #42 in “financial resources,” i.e., spending per student. </p>

<p>Which schools spend the most per student? According to US News, among research universities that would be Caltech, Yale, and Harvard, #1, #2, and #3 respectively—all private schools with tuition approximately triple Minnesota’s rate. (In fairness, several other high-priced private schools tie Harvard for the #3 spot). And that’s something US News actually rewards them for: other things equal, higher spending per student only drives their US News rankings higher, with that factor accounting for 10% of their overall US News ranking. My observation would be that it’s elite private colleges and universities that are driving the spending race; public universities like Minnesota are generally far behind, trying desperately to keep up but in reality mostly falling farther behind.</p>

<p>Is Minnesota some kind of outlier among public universities, then? Well, not really; quite a few public universities spend more per student, including #22 UCLA, #24 UC San Diego, #31 University of Washington, #32 UNC Chapel Hill, #37 UC Berkeley, and #39 Michigan, while a slew of others (#50 Georgia Tech, #53 UVA, #53 Wisconsin) are at a pretty similar level.</p>

<p>Yes, all top privates spend multples of what the typical large state flagship spends per student. These reports are usually so gross in their analysis as to be useless. UMinn is a very complex institution operating in many spheres form the Ag county agent to advanced research of every type. Centralization is not always the best answer to real efficiency. I’m just glad they decided to pick on Minn rather than a nearby state U. We have enough problems with the higher ed hating pols and locals.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Good point, Hanna. As a public institution, the University of Minnesota’s salaries are public information. A quick look-up reveals that the 10 highest-paid people are, in order, men’s basketball coach Tubby Smith, head football coach Jerry Kill, the president, the head of clinical services in the medical school, a leading cancer researcher and surgeon who is also chair of the medical school’s department of surgery, women’s basketball coach Pam Borton, the head of a major cancer research institute in the medical school, the head of the University of Minnesota Foundation (in charge of managing endowment assets), the former president of the university, and the dean of the business school. Next 15 are mostly professors in the medical school, dean of the law school, two law professors, and a business school professor, along with 2 or 3 administrators. I imagine it goes on like that.</p>

<p>As long as universities are in a position to turn away students who can pay, either on their own or through loans, there will be absolutely be no serious attempt to control costs. This applies to people, for profits or non-profits, government, you name it.</p>