<p>I did, and I am one. I think it varies a huge amount by school and field, but in my field (a professional one), we are ridiculously overpaid, imho (and most of my colleagues privately agree). Just another market. We do a ton of work, but doesn’t everybody? Our STARTING salaries look like the numbers he is quoting. My colleagues at the elites are in the 400-500k annual salary range, along with life time employment, and other income vis a vis consulting, books, speaking engagements.</p>
<p>More importantly our salaries- again can only speak for my world of academics, not say someone teaching in English where they have 100 PhDs for every spot or say those at non-elite schools- have gone up SHARPLY in the past twenty years. We never dreamed of this kind of income! Right along with tuition increases. I really DO think faculty costs play a giant role and wonder how it will play out in the long run.</p>
<p>DocT, I’m sure you didn’t mean to sound that way. The author of that article is from NY, and did his stint at Barnard, which may pay tenured profs $150K base. I haven’t researched this, but obviously faculty pay varies based on many factors. Suffice to say that faculty pay is not the problem with tuition costs, no?</p>
<p>To respond to givings, I do not think faculty salaries, on average, are particularly impressive. They are very high though at the top colleges. When I look at the aggregate averages in the Chronicle of Higher Ed…I have NO IDEA where they get those low numbers from. I’ve never met someone earning that low-- even when they state the average ‘in my field’. Then again there are 4000 colleges in the US, and most I have not heard of. </p>
<p>Only a subset of faculty are well known in their field for their publication record, and only a subset of schools are hotbeds for what they produce, and only a subset of schools are considered ‘elite’ by the general public. The elite schools can and do pay very high faculty salaries on average (though the amount varies by field) and they set the tuition rate…and my guess is everyone else is influenced by that tuition.</p>
<p>State schools: Dad and I did a little computation the other day. Dad was a research technician making a modest salary. Way back when, tuition+fees+room and board at my alma mater state flagship were 6.75 times my dad’s salary. Today, with undergrad tuition+fees+room and board costing (current year) around $26K, the same factor would equate to a salary of about $175K. It costs A LOT more to go to school today and IMO the middle class is getting squeezed out, badly.</p>
<p>I think there are a couple of faulty assumptions by the author.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the preparation provided by the elite institutions is all that unique unless getting connected into the alumni network constitutes a sizable portion of that preparation. There are a large number of non-elite institutions that provide excellent preparation in a variety of areas including liberal arts. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what Mr. Manshel means by “elite.” It would have been helpful if he had provided a working definition rather than leave it up to each reader to decide. Mr. Manshel inadvertently bolsters demand for these elite colleges and universities by implying they alone offer something other colleges cannot.</p>
<p>In the end the author can do no more than lament that our most prestigious colleges and universities should be something other than what they are.
What higher social obligations? I suppose those are “providing opportunity to the talented regardless of means, enhancing social mobility and fostering the production of knowledge.” But haven’t the same elites led the way in these areas? Why does the fact that the can do more mean they must do more? What claim does Mr. Manshel have on these institution’s mission or money?</p>
<p>Standrews, for the first quote, I think the key words were “generally believed.” I think the author was trying to imply that it is a false claim by putting those words in, at least that’s how I read it.</p>
<p>yeah the last paragraph sounded like BS to me too. Why should these billion dollar institutions do what the author suggests? What’s in it for them? Nothing that I can see. Better off sending a bunch of kids to Jabip on a Build for Humanity trip. That’s pretty much what they do. </p>
<p>That said these elite institutions can do a lot more for kids than most other colleges - they have tons of money to spend on internships, research projects, foreign adventures etc. That stuff can be important. I’m assuming also that these elites have connections that “get you in” - Hey just look at Clarence Thomas, supreme court guy, where else could he have gotten a job!</p>
<p>"DocT, I’m sure you didn’t mean to sound that way. The author of that article is from NY, and did his stint at Barnard, which may pay tenured profs $150K base. I haven’t researched this, but obviously faculty pay varies based on many factors. Suffice to say that faculty pay is not the problem with tuition costs, no? "</p>
<p>No I meant it exactly as it was said. I’m very familiar with salaries. I doubt that here in CT the salaries are that much higher than NY. Fully tenured professors which typically including profs with 17 years in, make a lot more than 55k. For that matter, most elementary school teachers with 17 years make 55k or greater.</p>
<p>This article rings true to our experience regarding tuition and tuition “discounting”. Schools know how to price their cost relative to the demographics they are trying to attract.</p>
<p>Because I like crunching numbers, I made a spreadsheet of “sticker price”, discounted COA (after merit scholarship), and median SAT scores (all privates).</p>
<p>The “sticker price” data was somewhat correlated to SAT scores, but quite scattered. Low and behold, the discounted data fell on a very nice curve, with the discounts kicking in about 50 pts higher than S2’s SAT’s. There are a few schools above and below the curve - probably because SAT is an imperfect measure of “elitism”.</p>
<p>The challenge is to not use this kind of data to go for either the “best bargain” or the “most elite”. Like many of the colleges, my son is trying to figure out the “best fit”.</p>
<p>I’m curious if others have gone through a similar exercise.</p>
<p>starbright is in an area of business as an academic field, if I recall correctly. I’m at a large public university in the Midwest. AAU, Carnegie 1 research institution, etc. Here, the incoming assistant professors in business are offered more than the median salary of our full professors in physics, math, and chemistry, and probably close to twice the median salary in history. Even the deans don’t make $400,000 a year. I think the numbers in the Chronicle of Higher Ed are correct. They look like the cross-institutional data I’ve seen from other sources. starbright’s experiences are not general to the professoriate.</p>
<p>Also, I can add that the tuition dollars generated by our Department are now twice our entire general fund budget from the University. Our research $ and overhead come in on top of that. So the tuition funds are going elsewhere (not faculty salaries). It’s quite difficult to find out exactly where that is. (Maybe it’s to the College of Business.)</p>
<p>Treetopleaf - For the “median” SAT score, I used the average of the middle 50% range (R+M) published either by the school, or the College Board.</p>
<p>speedo - I doubt this method applies for the “elite” colleges that have large amounts of need-based aid. My understanding of the “tippy top” schools is that once you’re in, they meet your demonstrated need, regadless of academic merit. Most, if not all, of their aid is focused on need (which I think is a good thing for these top schools).</p>
<p>We do not qualify for need-based aid, so all the scholarships are merit, which are really tuition “discounts” for kids who fall in the upper half of the class profile. My chart method applies to the “lower ranked” LAC’s that offered merit scholarships in order to attract kids away from the top schools. At the “high” end of the chart, either my son was denied, or accepted with no merit $. The discounts kick in as the SAT scores and/or rank decline. </p>
<p>My point is that the so-called “yield managers” at these institutions have extremely well calibrated tables to help them figure out what to offer families.</p>
<p>mom2sons, Your graph reminds me of a brochure (from a real no-name college) my son got last year. It showed how their merit-based scholarships go up as the student’s SAT scores increased.</p>
<p>limabeans and speedo - yes, that’s exactly what my graph illustrates, except for one student at different schools, rather than to other way around. </p>
<p>For S1 I did not know about these FA methods. For S2, we really targeted a good set of schools where he was offered a range of merit aid. We are now in the classic decision making mode - the higher ranked school with no merit $, or one with some merit $?</p>
<p>But many parents do not understand how all this works. Thanks to CC, I learned a lot!</p>