<p>
[quote]
At the 25 public universities with the highest-paid presidents, both student debt and the use of part-time adjunct faculty grew far faster than at the average state university from 2005 to 2012, according to a new study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning Washington research group.</p>
<p>The study, “The One Percent at State U: How University Presidents Profit from Rising Student Debt and Low-Wage Faculty Labor,” examined the relationship between executive pay, student debt and low-wage faculty labor at the 25 top-paying public universities.
<p>The data is interesting, but keep in mind that IPS has an agenda, in this case it’s winning support for unionizing adjuncts and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bill. (Unionizing, and 4 other items are listed as possible solutions in the report, see page 13).</p>
<p>{delete some stuff, need to do more research}</p>
<p>And I bet that universities with top-heavy executive spending also have more flavors of ice cream in the dining hall, more gluten free entrees, and fluffier towels in the football training rooms.</p>
<p>blossom nails it - the reason college is so expensive in the US is that we put such a huge emphasis on the “college experience” which means amazing dining halls, dorms, recreation facilities, student centers etc… (non-academic programs and buildings) How do schools pay for the maintenance and construction of these facilities that attract students to come? Through your wallet. I don’t think many colleges in other countries have the same facilities that colleges in the US have</p>
<p>Our two state flagships are on that list of executive pay. They are also on the list of largest % tuition increase because our state legislature cut the amount of state funding provided and gave the universities the power to set tuition rates without interference. Our state has no predictable scholarship program like HOPE for high achieving students either so more students are on the hook for more $$$ in the past several years.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty clear that the folks who did the study WEREN’T arguing that the high pay of the top administrators directly CAUSED the student debt problem. But it does speak to institutional priorities, and clearly the students aren’t at the top.</p>
<p>And circumstantial evidence will sometimes get you convicted in a court of law. Even if one could reasonably argue that the high pay of the top CEOs has NOTHING to do with heavy debt load carried by a significant portion of the student body, it really doesn’t pass the ‘whiff test’ in the court of public opinion. It makes those schools seem completely out of touch with the students and families they claim to serve as administrators of PUBLIC institutions. This Wikipedia quote seems particularly apt:</p>