It seems to me that a university education is the one area where it is considered a good thing to be less efficient. Universities seem to be in a race to reduce the student per faculty number. In nearly every other industry a measure of efficiency is reducing the man hours necessary to produce a product. This is especially true if we want to continue to increase the wages of the people who work for us. As we require more faculty and the cost of those faculty increase (ie. medical and retirement costs) is it any wonder the cost of education far outstrips inflation in most other areas. Human capital is worth it so long as the value of that human capital increases. I believe we are nearing a point where something will have to give. Either we do more with the human capital we have or only those with the means necessary will be able to afford the product offered, an education.
Although the two issue are connected, I am more upset about the annual increase than the price. In my state, the rates have gone up significantly for instate tuition. For example -
http://oirp.ncsu.edu/univ/hist/tuition-fees-history
What’s more amazing is that our state constitution actually has the words “The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.”
When I went to college I found a certain utility to having buildings.
Well there are online schools and such that are racing in the other direction.
But teaching isn’t widget-building and having more attention from a teacher is something many people value and look for in a school.
Efficiency for producing well educated citizens isn’t the same as for producing vegetable cans. If you want to be efficient in producing good writers,you need very small classes that allow drafting and redrafting. If you want good scientists, you need up to date labs and enough lab space so that each student performs experiments and can write up lab reports. In order to learn students need get involved with the subject matter and with others.
Otherwise, why not have secondary and primary classrooms with 100 pupils like in some developing countries? Why not sit hundreds of students in front of a large screen, have them take notes, then simply regurgitate these notes and call that “learning”?
As for per-student funding: yes, there are studies that show that states have heavily disinvested from their public universities.
As for cuts resulting in better efficiency as in less administration, I’d like to hear of a university where a funding cut didn’t lead to cutting administrative assistants rather than the Deans’ paycheck.
^^Then we just accept that the cost of an education is going to continue to increase at 4 times the rate of inflation? Wouldn’t that mean only the wealthy will be able to afford an education?
Maybe you didn’t realize that substantial effort and expense is put into making sure that kids who haven’t had as much privilege can go to college, too.
So the solution to that problem is to put thousands of middle class students who in the past could afford an education into massive debt? That is wiser than making education more efficient and controlling costs?
@JustOneDad - It would better if schools lowered the cost of attending school for everyone instead of targeting whichever groups the social justice warriors in the administration want to favor this year.
But @Zinhead, if you lower tuition across the board you’re giving a subsidy to higher-income folks—so it’s the same problem you ascribe to other approaches, just with different beneficiaries.
Other countries’ selective universities do it for a helluva lot less than what US selective private universities are SPENDING per student.
I doubt OxBridge spends 100k/student per year.
I just wonder how many countries have their own versions of the USNews rankings that incentivise selective private colleges to spend as much money as they possibly can per student? Things have gotten so bad in the race to find ways to pad budgets that even Harvard now accepts the industry-wide practice of listing how much they DON’T charge in tuition as a separate line item. They call it “financial aid” which is sort of like a car dealership writing off as a charitable donation every time they come down on the sticker price.
This discussion has been had before. The “higher income” dfb, as defined by colleges, is the same in the midwest as in Manhattan and yet the income that would make one wealthy in Kansas would make one middle class or less in NYC or in suburbs within reasonable commuting district. There is no distinction made by a college between one family who has a middle class income but will receive two full pensions in the future and a family with the same income that has to rely on 401K or IRAs to fund their retirement beyond social security. Not every college meets full need. If a kid is not Ivy material, most colleges gap. It is not just the “wealthy” who are full pay at many colleges.
^So, when people refer to income inequality, they’re not just talking about the rich and the poor, but about the rich and the middle-class also?
Our city’s public K-12 school system costs ~$21K/student. That’s total annual expenditure divided by the number of students. With that as a reference, I think the cost of most state universities is reasonable.
“^So, when people refer to income inequality, they’re not just talking about the rich and the poor, but about the rich and the middle-class also?”
I am, anyway.
I’m not contesting that there are upper/middle wealth and college-cost gaps. However, if more upper-end folks paid more, then the financial aid gaps for the middle group(s) could come down, since they could be subsidized as well (while now they’re not, with the subsidy going to the high end).
Somewhere, there was a set of slides about the cost to the school of providing education (not including room, board, etc.) at UMN. For the TC campus, the amounts were something like $11k to $17k per student per year depending on division (business was the highest).
Now, the $90k+ per student per year at some privates is all inclusive, so one has to estimate and deduct room, board, etc. to get a comparable number. But even that may be very much higher.
There is no question that college tuition is soaring. What is sad to me is the increase in tuition at state colleges and universities. Assuming the $9000 public versus $31000 private average costs, it is especially disheartening to me that the average cost of an education at a public school whose mission is providing quality higher education to state residents at most income levels is a third that of private schools who are more likely to serve families at higher income levels. If you attend an elite school, I think it is reasonable to pay an elite price or receive the financial aid needed to get you and keep you there without imprisoning you financially for life.
My remarks are from someone who was faculty and administration at several state schools over a 25+ year career. Salaries represent a large percentage of budgets. Yet, faculty aren’t doing particularly well financially. After those years with excellent credentials and teaching evaluations, merit pay for exemplary performance and so on, I peeked at $54,000. At this salary, exactly how many children could I send to college, even a state school? What do teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, med techs, store managers, many independent contractors, and others do to pay tuition?
Of course, faculty in areas such as engineering where graduates receive higher salaries make more than most faculty. Nevertheless, raises are modest to zip and benefits are drying up. Dorms, classrooms, restrooms and grounds are lacking some care and amenities from deferred maintenance. Certainly new buildings are going up because of funding from private individuals such as alumni and from building drives. Yet publics lack the cache such as yards of ivy of private schools.
In years past, public universities were the pride of a state and its citizens whether or not residents sent their children to public or private institutions. Public institutions played a critical role in social and economic advancement of students from lower income households. Twenty or more years ago, state legislatures started allocating less money/percentage of institutional budgets to public institutions. Citizens were also duly proud of neighborhood public schools.
Public institutions now depend on increased tuition, financial contributions of sports and other revenue streams, and research (pays percentage of the faculty researcher’s salary, equipment, graduate assistants) paid for externally through grants. Two areas 1) institutional revenue streams and 2) research provide dedicated financial assistance, although the school does receive some secondary financial and other benefits. Money goes up and down with the number of grants and their “expiration” dates as well as the quality of the team. Public institutions continue to do a remarkable job of educating students despite dwindling resources. I encourage use through our state representatives to increase funding of our public schools.
Back in the olden days, the government provided students with grants and other financial aid available through public and private schools. Some students took out student loans, but not the percentage and no where near the level that students do now. Smart kids across SES could attend public and private schools. Modest income students became greater contributors to taxes as they became professionals. I do understand that it is frustrating when a clerk depends on a register to know how much total change and what bills and coins. I think we may indeed be getting what we are willing to pay for.
I’m failing to see the subsidy to a full pay. When the school says it spends $100 per year per student but charges $60, That $100 is an average that includes non educational items in the budget, like athletics, grad school, fundraising. Plus, it is FA to other students.
I do not believe in any way that a school spends $100k a year educationg a freshman college kid.