Let's Be Accurate as to Why the Costs of Higher Education are High
So, here we have another person chiming in on the rising costs of higher education. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html
This time, the piece was written by a law professor, so I took extra note since I, too, was a tenured law professor for two decades. Professor Campos asserts that the rises in college costs are attributable not to declines in state funding but to administrative bloat and the high salaries of administrators. To use his own terminology from the Clinton era and his work on obesity, the administrative costs of colleges/universities are "zaftig" -- the Yiddish word to refer to someone who is, politely stated, plump.
As an aside, Professor Campos might want to peruse the rising costs and falling demand for law schools -- his own academic home -- where the situation is dire in some institutions.
First, Professor Campos makes a common mistake. He misses the distinction between retail and wholesale prices in higher education. Many institutions discount tuition and many students use grants -- whether Pell or other subsidies. So, what matters is net tuition. Those are the numbers that should serve as the starting point of any cost analysis.
Second, referencing some high administrative salaries and then suggesting that all presidents and cabinet members are overpaid is faulty inductive reasoning. There are some college/university presidents whose salaries are, to be sure, hard to fathom. But, why not focus on the many presidents who are not paid excessive high wages? And, if one is going to look at high priced folks within institutions, look at coaches in major sports, law professors, med school professors and business school professors. Compare the salary of a humanities professor at most institutions with that of a similarly experienced law school or business school professor. Market forces are at work.
Looking at data from his own institution, a music faculty member makes around $67,000 in academic year 2014 -- 2015. Law professors appear to make more than double that on average. I am not objecting to how we determine faculty salaries. I am simply noting that the proffered cost assessment misses the mark. See: https://www.cusys.edu/budget/cusalaries/14.html?appSession=888136891676501&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&CPIpage=400&cbJumpTo=500.
Third and finally, there has been administrative growth -- of that there is no question. Perhaps we have too many non-professors working in institutions. Perhaps we have administrators overseeing administrators.
But, here are some things these administrators work on -- and we can assess the value of their labor in dollars and cents and contribution to the community later: overseeing campus residential life; running a transportation system to get students to and from classes and games and community events; running community engagement programs; handling student discipline; overseeing programming and student groups; handling financial aid packaging; providing health services (both physical and psychological); maintaining facilities; overseeing mail in and out; handling technology in and outside the classroom; working on alum relations and fundraising; addressing legal issues including labor agreements, Title IX and local zoning and tax issues.
Hum.
I get that higher ed is expensive. I get that prices have risen. I get the challenges facing vulnerable students and their families, particularly at high priced institutions with little discounting, no scholarships and no academic quality. But, we need to talk about this based on what is occurring on most campuses. The $3 million dollar leader is not the norm. Neither is the $2 million dollar leader.
Let me try another Yiddish word that may describe the way to think about all this. We don't need more yentas (kvetchers?) -- complainers. Instead we need constructive critics -- looking at the truth and divining solutions that make sense. Reality based problem solving informed by relevant data. That's the way to approach college costs.
Follow: KarenGrossEdu
Senior Portfolio Manager at Columbia Threadneedle
9 年What jumps out at me from this discussion is the idea of looking at net cost of attendance. Thinking of pricing that way from an individual school's perspective may be a marketing and political mistake. Like it or not, we live in an era where various internet lists and rankings which focus more on gross cost dominate the consumer's college selection process. If you go on the web to buy an airline ticket, the price shown is probably bare bones. Your bag, preferred seat, food and itinerary change will cost you more. Many colleges today will offer scholarships to attractive applicants coming in over the transom, when those applicants didn't apply for these scholarships and don't need them from a financial aid perspective. Every time I fly on business these days the plane is full. Meanwhile, we're starting to see some colleges close their doors because the classrooms are empty. College administrators should consider this before deciding that everything is okay if their pricing is "attractive" on a net basis. That will only be a successful marketing strategy if it is true and the target consumer knows.
Retired
9 年You all make valid points. Now can we talk about the misuse of Yiddish? "Yenta" = "busybody" or "gossiper" -- not "complainer."
Brand Builder, Connector, Professor, and Mentor
9 年Professor Gross, a former college president, is right on many levels. Her observation of market forces at work may offend some people, but that doesn't make it wrong. And the distinction she draws between wholesale and retail costs is particularly apt; it speaks directly to her most poignant point - her penultimate sentence. We truly need more "reality based problem solving informed by relevant data." Well said Karen!
RCC graduate
9 年How about more of that online learning, Stephen? That which is bemoaned by the recording industry can work to the advantage of instructors looking to propagate their products.