• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Your tuition dollars at work: U of Oregon: Asst. VP for Campus Sexual Assault & Title IX Coordinator, Salary $105-120K Plus Benefits

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
Link: http://jobs.uoregon.edu/unclassified.php?id=5060

An article to elaborate on the problem, for discussion purposes:

ONCE upon a time in America, baby boomers paid for college with the money they made from their summer jobs. Then, over the course of the next few decades, public funding for higher education was slashed. These radical cuts forced universities to raise tuition year after year, which in turn forced the millennial generation to take on crushing educational debt loads, and everyone lived unhappily ever after.

This is the story college administrators like to tell when they’re asked to explain why, over the past 35 years, college tuition at public universities has nearly quadrupled, to $9,139 in 2014 dollars. It is a fairy tale in the worst sense, in that it is not merely false, but rather almost the inverse of the truth.

...

Public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed golden age of public funding in the 1960s. Such spending has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher.

...

As the baby boomers reached college age, state appropriations to higher education skyrocketed, increasing more than fourfold in today’s dollars, from $11.1 billion in 1960 to $48.2 billion in 1975. By 1980, state funding for higher education had increased a mind-boggling 390 percent in real terms over the previous 20 years. This tsunami of public money did not reduce tuition: quite the contrary.

State appropriations reached a record inflation-adjusted high of $86.6 billion in 2009. They declined as a consequence of the Great Recession, but have since risen to $81 billion. And these totals do not include the enormous expansion of the federal Pell Grant program, which has grown, in today’s dollars, to $34.3 billion per year from $10.3 billion in 2000.

It is disingenuous to call a large increase in public spending a “cut,” as some university administrators do, because a huge programmatic expansion features somewhat lower per capita subsidies. Suppose that since 1990 the government had doubled the number of military bases, while spending slightly less per base. A claim that funding for military bases was down, even though in fact such funding had nearly doubled, would properly be met with derision.

Interestingly, increased spending has not been going into the pockets of the typical professor. Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. Moreover, while 45 years ago 78 percent of college and university professors were full time, today half of postsecondary faculty members are lower-paid part-time employees, meaning that the average salaries of the people who do the teaching in American higher education are actually quite a bit lower than they were in 1970.

By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

The rapid increase in college enrollment can be defended by intellectually respectable arguments. Even the explosion in administrative personnel is, at least in theory, defensible. On the other hand, there are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.

What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...ge-tuition-costs-so-much.html?smid=tw-nytimes
 
One of the problems with universities nowadays is that you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a VP.
 
Inelastic demand fueled by other people's money.

What could go wrong?
 
The universities seem to be spending the money on everything but education.

School was pretty Spartan just a few decades ago. Dorms were block and concrete with no AC. Gym was a hole in the wall. The library was huge and well stocked and we were the most wired campus in the country. Now the campus is like a 5 star resort with all the fancy non-academic shit from coffee bars to climbing walls and spiffy looking health clubs. Dorms are plush with lots of bells and whistles. They've removed the entire section of dorms where I lived as a freshman. The admins pat themselves on the back and give themselves a raise every time something new and shiny gets built. They are paid on par with the football coach these days as if that wasn't an overpaid position itself.

Of course the campus has have all the fancy shit to recruit students. You've got to keep up with the place down the road and the coffee bar and 4 story health club sells better than the promise of kick ass coursework.

The loan programs have exacerbated this rampant spending problem. Even when I was looking at schools back in the day the mantra was get into the school you want then worry about figuring out how to pay for it. So price pressure isn't the driving force in deciding where to attend. Glitz sells.
 
Of course the campus has have all the fancy shit to recruit students. You've got to keep up with the place down the road and the coffee bar and 4 story health club sells better than the promise of kick ass coursework.

The loan programs have exacerbated this rampant spending problem. Even when I was looking at schools back in the day the mantra was get into the school you want then worry about figuring out how to pay for it. So price pressure isn't the driving force in deciding where to attend. Glitz sells.
That sums up what I have seen.
 
One of the problems with universities nowadays is that you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a VP.

And why is that a problem? Why should you want to swing a dead cat in the first place???


(Not to say that the excess of VPs isn't a problem. It certainly is.)
 
One of the problems with universities nowadays is that you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a VP.

And why is that a problem? Why should you want to swing a dead cat in the first place???

Do you know a better way to cast a spell which lets you pass your exams? You're not one of those "attend class and study the material" physicalist types are you?
 
Back
Top Bottom