Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Higher Tuition and Higher Education
He who enters a university walks on hallowed ground.
—James Bryant Conant, Notes on the Harvard Tercentenary [1936]
The increasing cost of obtaining an education was highlighted when President Obama revealed his latest budget on February 13, 2012. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in recent years college tuition has gone up at roughly twice the rate of inflation. Addressing this issue in a speech at the University of Michigan on the Friday before he released his budget the President said: “You can’t assume you’ll just jack up tuition every single year. If you can’t stop tuition going up, your funding from taxpayers will go down.” Among other parts of his proposals vis a vis tuition issues, the President suggested tying the amount the federal government gives to universities to their tuition policies. Of course, tuition policies vary from institution to institution but it can be useful to examine how at least one state university has responded to the decreasing support from the state legislature and increasing tuition costs.
In the past four years in-state tuition at the University of Colorado has increased between 8.8 and 9.3 percent each year. For the upcoming year the university administration proposes a $1,203 increase of in-state full-time student tuition which would be an increase of almost 16% from the preceding academic year. The tuition increases are undoubtedly necessary given the increase in the decrease of support the university receives from the state legislature. Nonetheless, as a result of the tuition increases some students may be forced to leave the university because of their inability to pay the increased tuition costs. There is one group at the university who will not be forced to leave because of the university’s difficult financial circumstances-the Chancellor and a number of other top administrators.
In early February it was reported by the Boulder Daily Camera how funds from the 9.3% tuition hike that was put in place the preceding year were spent. When the tuition rise was announced it was described as being used to fund a merit-based salary pool for faculty and staff to provide 3% raises. As a result of the 2010-2011-tuition increase the university received approximately $36 million in revenue. The regents said they understood that of that amount $11.8 million would go into compensation for top faculty, staff and administrators. In a memorandum to faculty and staff the Chancellor said that those meeting or exceeding expectations would receive a one time pay increase from what he called a “3 percent merit pool.” What he neglected to point out was that some people got to swim in the deep end of the pool whereas others were in the very shallow end. Those in the deep end included the author of the memorandum who received a 14% pay raise increasing his salary from $350,000 to $389,000. Swimming in the deep pool with the Chancellor was the chief human resources officer whose salary went from $210,000 to $240,000. These are only representative increases. Several other high level administrators including chancellors at the two other campuses received increases that were significantly larger than 3%. According to the paper’s report, considerably more administrators than faculty had access to the deep end of the pool. Whereas 51 percent of faculty members received raises (having had none for the preceding 3 years,) 71 percent of eligible professional staff members received raises. The president of the university explained why the salaries went disproportionally to high-level administrators. He said: I’ve got to pay for good people. I want quality. You’re not going to have quality if you don’t have quality people working for you.”
Within days after the distribution of increases in pay was publicly disclosed it was learned that the university had discovered a way to save money. It pertains to tuition waiver benefits for eligible faculty and staff dependents. The plan to implement the new plan was announced in 2011 and the hope was that it could be implemented by the summer of 2012. It permits employees to transfer their eligibility for free tuition to children and spouses. The plan had been recommended by the university’s faculty council and its adoption was announced in early February 2011. As finally promulgated, however, a minor concession was made to the realities of tough fiscal times. That was to take away most of the benefit from faculty and staff dependents at the home campus of the university in Boulder (but not other campuses). Those faculty and staff dependents will only be able to transfer their tuition waivers for summer courses and not those offered during the normal academic year. As Ken McConnellogue, a university spokesman explained, “the goal of the overall program is to be cost neutral in a down economy. What cost neutral translated to for the Boulder campus was to offer summer courses only.”
Mr. McConnellogue did not say how the increase in administrative salaries was cost neutral in a down economy. He did not explain why increasing pay for administrators so they would not leave the university for other places was more important than doing the same for faculty. Perhaps no one asked.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllEnrollment at CCAC, (Community College Allegheny County) in academic transfer programs is up. Where in the past students would transfer out as soon as they could, students now try to accumulate as many credits as they can before they have to transfer to the much more expensive 4 year school. The advertising for CCAC says, "You desevre an education, not a lifetime of student loans." Meanwhile downtown in Mellon Green, I doubt that Occupy Pittsburgh movement would have half the support it now does if it weren't for profoundly disaffected young adults who have crushing student debt, and no reasonable prospect of employment to pay them off.
"He said: I’ve got to pay for good people. I want quality."
I'd venture he's overpaying for "quality". And it's not "cost neutral". He "wants"? I am guessing like most of the 01% he's used to getting what he wants.
"You're not going to have quality if you don't have quality people working for you."
Duh! But paying people more doesn't necessarily equal quality.
They say the same thing on Wall Street. The banks getting bailouts defended giving large salaries and bonuses to the people who did their best to destroy the economy by saying they needed to retain quality people.
At universities, the ones in the deep end of the pool are the ones who bring in large government grants. In addition to money for salaires, the grants provide overhead funds for the schools, which the administrators covet. The more you bring in, the more the school gives you. It is a modern version of the "Matthew Effect"
On the other hand, the system makes sense. As long as state governments keep cutting the money given to state schools, the administrators have to make up the difference somehow. Cutting their own salaries is, of course, not an option.
Refuse to pay the higher tuition fees! Instead, head out to your local H. Depot and purchase the longest ladder your pocket book will allow; then, climb to the top of the ladder to read King Lear, Northrop Frye – The Educated Imagination or Roland the Minstrel Pig, or (….). When finished, descend back down to solid ground, hoping the views will prevail in letting you make your degree and not the other way around. Lab work for the latter has already been proven.
I liked what Joan Baez said in responding to critics by associating her as a folk singer: I’m a citizen of planet earth first, a humanitarian second, and then I’m a folk singer.
If she was offering a course on higher learning I would attend; even though it would probably not require a ladder as a learning text.
For American Information
More than 40 years ago, the province of Ontario added a Grade 13 to their public school system. They taught the core subjects of first year college. Two options were presented to graduates. They could enter university and complete a Bachelor of Arts in 3 years. OR - they could register for a 4-year degree called an Honours B.A. This completion would require a scholarly piece of writing, not necessarily a thesis.
Whether this program is still in effect I do not know. The point is that some Canadians thought outside-the-box and experimented.
Trylon
What you've described is basically the English + Welsh system. Hardly anything special, hardly "thinking out of the box".
I take it you know this from living in England and Wales, so have experienced this educational system first hand. What choices did your children make?
I raised 2 children in Canada.
Trylon
Yes - administrators at many universities are paid way too much. College presidents are especially overpaid. Check out this group:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/the-10-highest-paid-priva_n_1129192.html
And, here are some figures, indicating the actual percentage of private college expenditure that goes toward paying the president:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/the-14-private-college-pr_n_1131349.html
It's such a shame, given the fact that some of them are horrible at their jobs, to begin with. Also, how many of these schools don't let staff unionize, in order to keep staff pay down? What a contrast in treatment.
To say that they are horrible at their jobs is not enough. You need to note that their real job is to raise money for the school. They are like politicians, in that they have to spend a lot of time each day talking to potential donors.
There's one president I heard about who also spent time each day talking to prostitutes and missing faculty meetings as a result - one of the highest paid college presidents in this country, who managed to screw over his university financially and destroy that university's strongest alliance (with another institution). The rumor among faculty is that he was *only* ousted when the local paper discovered that this "family man" had relationships with prostitutes and had hinted at publishing about it - the Board of Trustees was originally going to keep him on, in spite of his poor financial and political decisions (which dragged the school down in ranking, significantly), mostly because he was good friends with many of the members of the Board (who are all wealthy types, btw). Funny how that works - it wasn't his poor leadership skills that forced the resignation in the end, it was his personal life. The university bought out his contract, and hired him on as a consultant after his resignation. How's that for a slap on the wrist?!
As for the slap on the wrist, the same thing happens in large corporations. When a CEO is replaced, he gets a golden handshake by the board which hired him. If they did anything else it would reflect on their judgement when they hired him in the first place. And all of them expect the same treatment from their boards if the need should arise.
Not surprising that the treatment is the same - a lot of the Board members for this particular university (and many other universities) are corporate types (CEOs, company owners/founders, or their offspring).
State universities rely upon governor-appointment of almost all of their members of their Board of Trustees (except for their student and faculty representatives), which I suppose is the first step to screwing over those institutions... particularly in states with Republican governors. Who is the governor going to appoint? His "buddies" - the people who give his campaign nice-sized contributions. Private universities have different criteria for selecting their Board of Trustees, but those selections are often based upon monetary gifts to the institutions. Anyway, the Board of Trustees have the ultimate say on tenure, whether to fire anyone, and tuition hikes, among other things.
BTW, the guy I was referring to above got many millions of dollars (don't want to say how much, though) from his bought-out contract PLUS the additional salary he received as a "consultant," for his actions. Not a bad deal for screwing up his job.
As in most things, one of the best ways to improve higher education, is to sack some paper pushing managers.
Or, at least, impose an upper limit on upper-level compensations to avoid corruption/abuse of power.
College tuition increases while administrators' salaries increase, decreases in governmental social services while military expenditures increase, significant tax cuts for the 1% rich and corporations and modest tax cuts for the remaining paid for by more debt burden on us and future generations, the social security surplus needed to maintain the same benefits for future retirees is being depleted to fund current retirees (a small tax increase could resolve this)... the country is being plundered on so many fronts that it is a free for all for the plunderers and chaos for the remaining. It is time to vote out the political duopoly responsible for this.
The only problem with that argument is that increased tuition rates isn't so much that the Universities have that much flexibility on what they charge for tuition (they do have some, as this article notes) as it is that the state and Federal governments are reducing funding to Universities and forcing them to make up the lost funding in tuition increases. Until people stop voting for the Dems/Repubs that cut public education funds (or don't restore it when they have power), I'd hate to see students not able to at least borrow to get the education. Another trend is that the number of foreigners going to US colleges has been increasing. I'm not against foreigners going to school here, unless it means that colleges are squeezing out US students in favor of higher paying foreign students (and I don't know if that is the case), and if that is the case, either more accommodation must be made for both US and Foreign students, or foreign students need to be reduced.
There *should* be no student loans at all: people willing to provide the work to get an education that benefits all of us should not be the ones to pay for it as well.
But *should* can be a word with awfully peculiar consequences. I suppose one can lower tuition rates by reducing support to students and relying on the market to do its work. When fewer people can study and schools begin to shut down and lay off people more quickly, tuitions will drop, though in most institutions teaching will again be reduced first. One can cure AIDS similarly: just bury the patient. The virus will perish some time after the host.
Tuition, like universal healthcare, is providen by better nations everywhere.
The costs of everything that cannot be outsourced or mechanized are skyrocketing in Merka. Some Merkans just assume, without any basis, that ekonomic growath must perpetuate infinitely for human survival, some can only care about winning global imperialist "great games" at any/all cost, and some just can't get enough booty in their bank accounts, stealing from and enslaving the people. More more more, bankrupt. Everyone's waiting for it to implode. But busy building the replacement. Obviously, localist economics is sustainable and stable. No growth. No stupidity.
We're through analyzing the mental masturbations of the Merkan coordinators - those white collar workers who sit around creating absolutely irrelevant rationalizations for their bankrupt activities. If the fossil fuel pipeline were cut they would magically come to their senses. But I think the political collapse will happen before that.
As for university education in Merka, we the people are educating ourselves, thank you very much!
The higher education system has trivialized real learning, and is contributing to the class system. Those who are 'papered' are often given preferential treatment based only on 'class' - not hard work or knowledge. Those without degrees are discriminated against. It can be argued that the US educational system from K thru PhD has become a self-perpetuating scam.
I’ve got to pay for good people. I want quality. You’re not going to have quality if you don’t have quality people working for you.
Typical boss talk for paying off his ass-kissing golf buddies.