Universities compete for students by spending a ton of money on non-teaching perks like fitness centers and stadiums. Like it or not, prospective students ARE attracted to schools with new, fancy dorms and climbing walls. Universities HAVE to play this game or they lose enrollment.
As a side point - watch for these sorts of non-academic expenses to rise in k-12 education too, as the voucher/charter/choice movement grows momentum. There are pros and cons to forcing schools to compete for students and it isn’t always pretty.
The poor tend to have fewer college options than the middle class (particularly the “middle class” of these forums).
The middle class may assume that the poor get financial aid full rides, but that is only at a small number of highly selective schools that admit few from poor families, or a small number who get full ride merit scholarships (that non poor students can try for). Even in state public options are limited in states where they are expensive with little financial aid like Pennsylvania. Most private schools do not have good financial aid.
“Don’t you think brand new multi million dorms, student unions, cafeterias, STEM facilities, exercise facilities and stadiums, fancy theatres, etc are adding to the cost?”
It depends on how they are financed. If the money comes from gifts (so free facilities, probably with naming rights giving to the biggest donor), it will not really add to the total cost. In contrast, if too much debt is used, debt service down the road does have potential to raise total cost and per student tuition.
But, on the other hand, the general phenomenon we have seen is whenever a university initiates a signature project, it generally creates excitement for potential students and brings in more applications. Because university costs are largely fixed (at least for the short term), it actually has potential to bring down unit cost (per student cost) if the enrollment increases.
@prof2dad Did you see today’s Chronicle? “The Cost That Holds Back Ed-Tech Innovation”
Basically, it takes a lot of hours to redesign a course to be taught online, and even when the redesign is finished, faculty still have to be hired to teach.
More kids than ever before going to college. Which then places a further premium on securing a seat at a selective school.
Also, the arms race for facilities and increase in administrators is totally understandable. The market for college seats used to be extremely localized. Now due to cheap air travel, internet, Common App, etc., the market for college seats is regional/national/international.
Kids don’t just show up at their hometown/homestate college like they used to. Schools now have to market and brand themselves in extensive ways that were unheard of before. And also discount their prices extensively too, since the model (like it or not) is high price/high discount.
I agree @my2caligirls . there does seem to be a huge supply of kids willing to pay these crazy prices. Just look at the huge jump in applications at many schools. What an eye opener for me to learn how much colleges actually cost after deducting aid. the net prices are astronomical. I was shocked to see how much schools actually expect you to pay on a yearly basis. how they arrive at one being able to spend 50% of gross income on yearly basis was very surprising. I think it is just because there is so much money out there. The economy is booming and people are flush with cash.
"Did you see today’s Chronicle? “The Cost That Holds Back Ed-Tech Innovation”
The single greatest cost of the course redesign that I watched was the faculty instructors (or “subject-matter experts,” as they’re often referred to), who spent hundreds of hours planning and designing all of the new content.
Basically, it takes a lot of hours to redesign a course to be taught online, and even when the redesign is finished, faculty still have to be hired to teach."
The article requires subscription; I do not have the subscription.
It is true that the faculty who owns the online content needs to be hired to teach; otherwise, no one would want to do it at the first place.
Because the delivery method is different, the course surely would be re-designed. This usually takes a lot of time if one wants to do it well.
I thought it supported your argument pretty well. The cost of higher ed, as it is in so many businesses, can be attributed to the cost of people, regardless of the delivery format
“I thought it supported your argument pretty well. The cost of higher ed, as it is in so many businesses, can be attributed to the cost of people, regardless of the delivery format”
This is true. Of course, delivery format also has some implications on overall costs.
Universities put the interests of faculty above those of students. That’s why innovation in education will come at a slow, but inevitable pace.
I would be surprised if any publicly traded companies didn’t own the IP their engineers produced in the course of their employment. Now, if you’re talking about a startup still being run out of someone’s garage, maybe …
@roethlisburger I am glad that Universities are not publicly traded companies, so that professors can continue their research that is often neglected by corporations yet are necessary for the society in general, as well as for the corporations.
“Letting professors own the copyright to their online courses is absolutely ridiculous.”
I know rather little about copyright; so my 2 cents are probably not very useful here.
This is what I think: designing an online course is not that different from writing a textbook. The information contained in a course or a textbook is largely from the existing knowledge; i.e., previously published and known. But regardless of whether we are talking about a course or a textbook, it is really up to the instructor and the author(s) to decide how the known information pieces will be included, excluded, edited, organized, and presented. This involves some degree of arts and thinking. If one agrees that the author(s) of a textbook own the book’s copyright, he/she is likely to agree that an instructor also owns his/her course’s copyright. After all, both deliveries are some forms of publication. In addition, a book is a media, and a selection of video and course materials is also a media. Here, my understanding of media is a means of communication to a group of audience.
Is the professor writing the book on their own time or being paid by the university to write the book? If the latter, the university should own it.
As a practical matter, universities need to focus on cost cutting, where the potential savings is largest. It may be revenue from textbooks is too small for universities to worry about. If you accept the original premise of your post, that the primary driver of tuition increases is teaching salaries, then faculty compensation is too large to ignore.
(1) Most professors do not write a book. I would not say universities pay professors to write books.
(2) I understand your second point is about affordability. This is a tricky issue. Ideally, one would hope that his/her household income increases at a speed higher than inflation so that his/her purchasing power is increasing over time. Our problem today is that over the past 2-3 decades, a typical household’s income does not increase faster than inflation. As a result, the burden for paying stable-productivity services and products becomes an obvious drag. One then may feel the need to adjust spending pattern for consumption on education, healthcare, restaurant foods, concert going, etc. It can be easier done for restaurant foods and concert going, if you wish, because they can be substituted by eating at home or just watching Youtube. But it is much harder to find meaningful substitutes for education and healthcare. This is one of the reasons why these two are the hot-button issues today. If you ask me, I would say this is more of an income and income equality problem, and less of a cost problem (current inflation is near historically low). But this is just my view.
Since I just lumped education and healthcare together, let me get back to your question: “…then faculty compensation is too large to ignore.” My counter question is then “…then medical doctor’s compensation is too large to ignore.” Note that this is just a counter question for the sake of sharing our views. I believe that most medical doctors are compensated fairly.
Affordability issue is tricky. If you ask 100 economists, you may get 101 solutions.
I’ll make this my last post here, before I get a debate society warning. Short answer, I think the supply of potential faculty members, newly minted Phds, greatly exceeds the demand for those Phds in tenure track positions. What are you always saying about supply and demand?
@roethlisburger I think the sharing of different views with good spirits is wonderful.
“I think the supply of potential faculty members, newly minted Phds, greatly exceeds the demand for those Phds in tenure track positions.”
True for many fields.
“What are you always saying about supply and demand?”
Not quite sure about what the question is about. But I will try. When PhDs are over-supplied in a field, it puts downward pressure on the “market” hiring salary for those who are on the job market. But this usually has close-to-zero impacts for those who had been hired in the past because they are no longer on the market. Take law professors as an example, the current incoming assistant professors of law are not paid that well because of oversupply. Their average pay is less than that of an average business new assistant professor. But this is not the case for old law full professors who were hired in the 80’ or 90’ and have been staying with the same schools. Their average pay is still higher than old business full professors who were hired in the 80’ or 90’ and have been staying with the same schools.
In many business schools, the pay for an assistant professor is often higher than that for an associate professor because of the strong demand for new blood; i.e, those who have potential to do good research.