Technology is driving down the cost of teaching undergraduates.

Parents Forum
1

<p>So why are tuition bills going up?</p>

<p>So asks Kevin Carey in the recent Washington Monthly, Transformation</a> 101:</p>

<p>
[quote]
...Colleges are perfectly capable of becoming more efficient and productive, in the same way that countless other industries have: through technology. And increasingly, they are. One of the untold stories in higher education is that the cost of teaching is starting to decline, but virtually none of those savings are being passed along to students and parents in the form of lower prices. Instead, colleges are pocketing the difference, even as they continue to jack up tuition bills...

[/quote]
</p>

2

<p><<the ncaa="" recently="" revealed="" that="" among="" 119="" division="" i-a="" universities,="" the="" typical="" athletic="" department="" lost="" $9.3="" million="" in="" 2006.="" that’s="" up="" from="" $6.1="" 2004,="" a="" 50="" percent="" jump="" just="" two="" years.="">></the></p>

<p>then why are athletes recruited and often given a free pass to attend school. Simple solution. STOP doing this. In fact, charge them MORE to play.</p>

3

<p>I can speak from the front lines of this topic. Yes, there are many initiatives to reduce the cost of instruction at colleges and universities. But there is no assurance that growing numbers of students can be found who are able to pay increasing tuition bills. Anything that attracts students is in vogue at the moment, and that includes manicured lawns, attractive academic buildings, comfortable dorms, and yes, sports teams.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]

then why are athletes recruited and often given a free pass to attend school. Simple solution. STOP doing this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Couldn't one say the same about low-income, full-scholarship students? Presumably, if all students were full-pay, wouldn't it be more likely that tuition would come down?</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Couldn't one say the same about low-income, full-scholarship students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now that's not really fair, if they weren't full scholarship they wouldn't be able to go (I will be one of those 'minimum-wage full-scholarship' students). Athletes may have the ability to pay for college.</p>

6

<p>I admit to just skimming this. A couple observations, though: First, It's interesting that the author refers to U of Phoenix towards the end as the alternative if students don't get this kind of "value"--because that's what came to mind when I read this. I definitely don't want to spend my tuition bucks on a warehouse where kids teach themselves; they might's well be sitting at home going to ONline U if that's what I want for them.</p>

<p>Second point--I work at a small private college that is far from Lexus U. It's more like Bus Route U. Our students are low income and ill-prepared, but they still thrive in a non-assembly line education, just like my own kids and all of ours here at CC. It's not a matter of Ivy vs. everyone else, with everyone else meaning a warehouse education.</p>

<p>Third point--Technology, great for many reasons, has *driven *the higher tuition bills, not acted to lower them. Colleges pay for computer labs, software, licensing agreements, and many other peripherals which were not in existence half a generation ago. All this costs money, big money. It does not lead to lower bills.</p>

<p>The author found a few isolated instances, read them through rose-colored glasses, and spun them as the norm. Then set up artificial oppositions.</p>

<p>Just another instance of what is becoming all-too-often bad/lazy/weak journalism at too many mass market venues.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
One of the untold stories in higher education is that the cost of teaching is starting to decline

[/quote]
The author should tell this story; it sounds like nonsense, unless the quality goes down as well.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
Now that's not really fair, if they weren't full scholarship they wouldn't be able to go

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, thats not really fair, if they weren't athletes, they wouldn't be able to go either.</p>

9

<p>Garland is so right. The author extrapolates from a few examples to suggest these cost-efficiencies with technology are commonplace. They aren't at all. Sure you'll find something innovative on every campus involving technology but it is hardly the norm. Moreover, most of these innovations do not reduce costs at all. </p>

<p>I don't know for sure but one explanation for increasing costs are professors. I can speak across the board but if my field is an indication, its indicative. In the late 80s starting salaries in our field were 60-70k. Now they are around 150k. Moreover, our salaries once hired have not stayed flat (someone who was hired in the late 80s would be earning 250-400k now at a top school).</p>

10

<p>I agree w/ NewHope33 that are many in vogue things that attract students. Don't you expect your college to have modern, spacious dorms, a state of the art athletic field house w/ great work-out equipment, technology based classrooms, beautiful grounds, arts centers, etc? These things are very expensive. Schools have come to resemble country clubs.</p>

<p>What about the costs of learning centers to deal with students w/ learning disabilities such as dyslexia and ADD among others? And departments of diversity do not come cheap. </p>

<p>I also agree w/ Garland. Technology, in many ways has driven the cost up. As stated, comp. labs, software, classrooms and a computer/printer on the desk of every employee updated every few years.</p>

<p>U of Phoenix, and the like, are for profit diploma mills. Would you choose a doctor to operate on you/or loved one who graduated w/ a degree from one of these schools? How about crossing a bridge designed by one or their engineers or having them do your taxes? Some grads may be very qualified students. But how do you know who really took the tests, did the work, etc. I know, with very large classes in some universities, you may have the same problems.</p>

<p>Finally, starbright, WHERE did you get your info?? It sure does not equal the info I get on a regular basis. The only professors who make $250k-$400k are the superstars, ie big names at big schools or noble laurates! The norm at most colleges and universities is far lower than what you state. Starting salaries are not $150k for most assistant professors. Maybe for a few fields but not at all schools. There are still many english, history, philosophy, etc. assistant or associated profs earning $45k-65K. And remember, these are folk w/ the equivalent education to MD's, JD's, etc, who earn far larger average salaries.</p>

<p>What is driving the rising tuition cost? Probably many of same things as health care. Big increase in demand, technology, law suits, regulation. (I am not an anti -regulation person, by the way).</p>

11

<p>^ My info is from the fact that I've sat in administrative roles at 4 universities, on hiring and promotion committees for the past 18 years (and also am president of our professional association). Granted I'm in a high paying discipline, but my actual point was not the absolute salary, but the fact that it's gone up so dramatically in the past few decades.</p>

12

<p>I argued this exact point on here about 3 years ago but many disagreed saying that college was different. The only fact that was offered was the increased cost of computer support staff. However, that is true across the board in industry.</p>

<p>With the financial crisis perhaps tuition increases, for once, will not outpace the rate of inflation. I am not holding my breath.</p>

13

<p>Colleges are labor-intensive, and the cost of labor has gone up. Health care costs have gone up primarily because expensive technology has become available and is heavily utilized. Being labor intensive, colleges are especially impacted by increased health care costs. It is likewise expensive for colleges to acquire technology. Doing so does not save money in a labor-intensive enterprise; it enables delivery of a better product.</p>

14

<p>Thanks to the OP for bringing up this issue. In most other human activities, somebody figures out a way (by division of labor) to make a labor-intensive activity more efficient. There don't seem to be (yet) the same incentives on higher education to maximize its efficiency.</p>

15

<p>"somebody figures out a way (by division of labor) to make a labor-intensive activity more efficient"</p>

<p>Divide the labor of a professor? Acquire knowledge, write lecture notes, write lecture, give lecture, lead discussion groups, read essays, grade tests, answer questions during office hours.</p>

<p>"There don't seem to be (yet) the same incentives on higher education to maximize its efficiency."</p>

<p>Incentives aren't the problem; it's resulting loss of teaching quality when efficiency is maximized.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Divide the labor of a professor?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You've heard of graduate teaching assistants, haven't you? I believe most professors also have secretaries, and don't personally write the textbooks they use in class.</p>

17

<p>"You've heard of graduate teaching assistants, haven't you? I believe most professors also have secretaries, and don't personally write the textbooks they use in class."</p>

<p>No need to be offensive. :) These items are already in place at most schools, and costs are still high.</p>

18

<p>What's charged by colleges is still quite high, in large part because most payment for college is third-party payment or deferred payment, and thus the actual shopper doesn't always take a hard look at value. I guess we both agree that colleges have advanced in efficiency from the days when most college teachers were factotums in their own classrooms, and I think the OP's point is well taken that there are perhaps more efficiencies yet to be gained.</p>

19

<p>OK, a Chronicle of Higher Ed. article on average faculty salaries, based on a survey with 1,386 institutions reporting 2007-08 data, states that the average faculty salary 40-60th percentile for assistant professors (that would be just hired to probably 6 yrs. or so)---
--C1- doctoral institutions $64k- 68.9k
--C2- Master's $53k-56.9k
--C3-Baccalaureate $47k-50k</p>

<p>And for professors-- those tenured folk who have been working at the school for 12-15+ yrs.
C1- $103k-115k
C2- $78k-86k
C3- $67.9k-75.9k</p>

<p>Clearly faculty are not overpaid workers given their education, contribution to society, etc. You can not put the high costs of college education on the backs of faculty. Administrators salaries have gone up at a much higher rate. There are also all the other costs I stated on an earlier post.</p>

<p>No one becomes a teacher, college professor or otherwise, for the money!</p>

20

<p>What's the putative revenue stream into a college from student tuition per professor? </p>

<p>How much does research funding add to that revenue stream?</p>