College: The Cost, and the Why

Thank the lord there are so many Christian Universities out there protecting Conservative dogma

"Hate-America Sociology."


De Russy's colleague sent her a copy of a student's exam from an introductory sociology class found lying in a room at an East Coast public college. The professor had given it a perfect score of 100. Here are some of the questions asked and the student's written response:


"Question: How does the United States 'steal' the resources of other (third world) countries?" "Answer: We steal through exploitation. Our multinationals are aware that indigenous people in developing nations have been coaxed off their plots and forced into slums. Because it is lucrative, our multinationals offer them extremely low wage labor that cannot be turned down."


"Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?" "Answer: Some say that it is wrong of the United States to prevent illegal immigration because the same people we are denying entry to, we have exploited for the purpose of keeping the American wheel spinning. …" "Question: What is the interactionist approach to gender? "Answer: The majority of multigender encounters are male-dominated. (F)or example, while involved in conversation, the male is much more likely to interrupt. Most likely because the male believes the female's expressed thoughts are inferior to his own.

"Question: Please briefly explain the matrix of domination." "Answer: The belief that domination has more than one dimension. For example, Males are dominant over females, whites over blacks, and affluent over impoverished."


Out of retaliation fears, de Russy withheld the name and university of her colleague who sent the exam. Teaching students hate-America indoctrination is widespread, as I've documented in the past. A few years ago, according to UCLA's Bruin Standard, Mary Corey, UCLA history professor, instructed her class, "Capitalism isn't a lie on purpose. It's just a lie." She continued, "(Capitalists) are swine. … They're bastard people."


Rod Swanson, a UCLA economics professor, told his class, "The United States of America, backed by facts, is the greediest and most selfish country in the world."


Professor Andrew Hewitt, chairman of UCLA's Department of Germanic Languages, told his class, "Bush is a moron, a simpleton and an idiot." The professor's opinion of the rest of us: "American consumerism is a very unique thing; I don't think anyone else lusts after money in such a greedy fashion."


An English professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey tells his students, "Conservatism champions racism, exploitation and imperialist war."


University officials are aware of this kind of academic rot, but not university trustees who bear the ultimate responsibility for the university's welfare. Trustees are mostly yes-men for the president. Legislators and charitable foundations that pour billions into colleges are unaware as well. Most tragically, parents who cough up thousands in tuition to send their youngsters off to be educated, rather than indoctrinated, are unaware of the academic rot as well.

You say, "Williams, what can be done?" Students should record classroom professorial propaganda and give it wide distribution over the Internet. I've taught for more than 40 years and have routinely invited students to record my lectures so they don't have to be stenographers during class. I have no idea of where those recordings have wound up, but if you find them, you'll hear zero proselytization or discussion of my political and other personal preferences. To do otherwise, I consider to be academic dishonesty.


College and Progressive Professors brainwash our children !! Academic Rot ?


Did you 'teach' that course?

tl;dr

Bet you read the title.....scared you, huh?
 
Increased costs are due to:

Enhanced facilities, such as student unions, gyms (must have a climbing wall, you know), enhanced student housing, grandiose buildings for individuals "schools" (Journalism, Business, etc).

Armies of administrative staff, including counseling centers, campus police, huge legal departments, and so on.

No real restraints on cost growth, as our society of child-coddlers are willing to spare no expense to get that degree for their kids, and pay whatever tuition is demanded. Just as car purchasers in the 60's would have had a heart attack if you suggested that they finance a car for more than 3 years or LEASE a car(!), parents now consider enormous student loans as something to be expected, and until just recently, second mortgages to finance a child's tuition were considered a reasonable way to go.

Here in Pennsylvania we have state-related colleges BRAGGING that this year's tuition increase will only be three or four percent - twice the rate of inflation - as though they had just submitted to a session of potentially lethal bloodletting.

They have no clue what it's like in the real world because they don't have to.

1. The Associated Press
College presidents are getting healthy raises, and a dozen at private universities earn $1 million or more including benefits, according to a new survey published Monday.
Salaries at public universities remain a tier lower but also are on the rise, with eight presidents earning $700,000 or more last year, six more than the year before, according to the annual survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
THE CHRONICLE'S SURVEY: More on what college leaders make
Presidential salaries are facing closer scrutiny at a time when college prices continue to rise well above the rate of inflation.
Salaries of college presidents on the rise - USATODAY.com


2. College presidents' salaries increase: One-third earn over $500K

At least one person on campus has done OK as the economy has declined: public university presidents' salaries climbed 7.6% last year.
Fifteen presidents of public research universities took home at least $700,000 in 2007-2008, up from eight in last year's survey, and nearly one-third now earn over $500,000, according to the annual Chronicle of Higher Education survey out Monday.
College presidents' salaries increase: One-third earn over $500K - USATODAY.com



3. University President Salaries Soar Into the Millions
By Michael Janofsky
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Donald E. Ross turned Lynn University, once a nearly bankrupt two-year Catholic school for women in Boca Raton, Fla., into a thriving four-year liberal arts college. Now, as Mr. Ross nears retirement after 34 years as president, it is apparent how much the board of trustees appreciates his work.
Mr. Ross ranked first in total compensation among the nation’s private university presidents for the 2003-4 academic year with a package worth $5,042,315, according to the latest annual survey of executive compensation by The Chronicle of Higher Education. Data from 2003-4 is the most recent available for private institutions. The results were released publicly last Monday.
For the first time, the survey reported leaders of private universities earning $1 million in a single year. The four others identified were Audrey K. Doberstein, formerly of Wilmington College in Delaware ($1,370,973); E. Gordon Gee of Vanderbilt University ($1,326,786); John R. Silber of Boston University ($1,253,352); and John N. McCardell Jr., formerly of Middlebury College in Vermont ($1,213,141).
University President Salaries Soar Into the Millions - The Tech
 
Still doesn't explain WHY colleges cost so much more

Where does the money go? Professors salaries? Athletics? facilities? Administration?

Don't tell me a Freshman course being taught by an Associate Professor with 150 students paying $3000 each is not making a profit

" Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians. "
Prager, "Still The Best Hope."

Colleges are not targeted by the Democrats, as healthcare is, while increasing in costs as a greater rate.

The reason is that Liberals perceive the university as performing its function. That function is not about learning, thinking, but rather to turn out committed Leftists, those who can reliably be counted on to vote Democrat.

You know, folks like you.

The purpose of univerities was to teach liberalism, to liberate one's mind, or in reality to teach the sons of gentlemen to be gentlemen. Today, many see college not as means to be gentlemen but as a means to enhance their economic well-being. Quite a change for some schools. I would guess the change took place with the first GI bill, 1944, and the admittance of riff-raff into the hallowed halls. The vets went to school, not to go the gentleman route but to make a living. It began a change in education from liberal arts to a form of trade school. A change that is still going on. Imagine the riff-raff discovering they could compete with the sons of gentlemen, and for those sons, and some universities it was not a happy change. Even the former president of my own alma mater said, the GI Bill will convert the universities into hobo jungles.
But the bill changed the purpose of education and now education.
 
Here's a question for the board: Does tuition really mean anything?

Several years ago when my son was looking at colleges, when the question of tuition came up we were assured (at EVERY school) that very few people actually pay that much - most people get one or more forms of student aid and the actual net cost was maybe half of the published tuition for a large percentage of the students.

To our irritation, however, we later found out that two income families such as ours were actually the only fools paying full tuition. And we did.

But in any event, is anyone looking at the amount actually paid by the average student - net of school and third-party assistance - as contrasted with the published tuition rates?

Is that increasing at the same rate as the tuition hikes? Is that number as shocking as the tuition itself - undoubtedly not.
 
Still doesn't explain WHY colleges cost so much more

Where does the money go? Professors salaries? Athletics? facilities? Administration?

Don't tell me a Freshman course being taught by an Associate Professor with 150 students paying $3000 each is not making a profit

" Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians. "
Prager, "Still The Best Hope."

Colleges are not targeted by the Democrats, as healthcare is, while increasing in costs as a greater rate.

The reason is that Liberals perceive the university as performing its function. That function is not about learning, thinking, but rather to turn out committed Leftists, those who can reliably be counted on to vote Democrat.

You know, folks like you.

The purpose of univerities was to teach liberalism, to liberate one's mind, or in reality to teach the sons of gentlemen to be gentlemen. Today, many see college not as means to be gentlemen but as a means to enhance their economic well-being. Quite a change for some schools. I would guess the change took place with the first GI bill, 1944, and the admittance of riff-raff into the hallowed halls. The vets went to school, not to go the gentleman route but to make a living. It began a change in education from liberal arts to a form of trade school. A change that is still going on. Imagine the riff-raff discovering they could compete with the sons of gentlemen, and for those sons, and some universities it was not a happy change. Even the former president of my own alma mater said, the GI Bill will convert the universities into hobo jungles.
But the bill changed the purpose of education and now education.

Clearly you have a practiced misunderstanding of the term 'liberalism,' reggie.
 
" Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians. "
Prager, "Still The Best Hope."

Colleges are not targeted by the Democrats, as healthcare is, while increasing in costs as a greater rate.

The reason is that Liberals perceive the university as performing its function. That function is not about learning, thinking, but rather to turn out committed Leftists, those who can reliably be counted on to vote Democrat.

You know, folks like you.

The purpose of univerities was to teach liberalism, to liberate one's mind, or in reality to teach the sons of gentlemen to be gentlemen. Today, many see college not as means to be gentlemen but as a means to enhance their economic well-being. Quite a change for some schools. I would guess the change took place with the first GI bill, 1944, and the admittance of riff-raff into the hallowed halls. The vets went to school, not to go the gentleman route but to make a living. It began a change in education from liberal arts to a form of trade school. A change that is still going on. Imagine the riff-raff discovering they could compete with the sons of gentlemen, and for those sons, and some universities it was not a happy change. Even the former president of my own alma mater said, the GI Bill will convert the universities into hobo jungles.
But the bill changed the purpose of education and now education.

Clearly you have a practiced misunderstanding of the term 'liberalism,' reggie.

I'm using liberalism and liberal in a dyslogistic sense, but if it makes you uncomfortable I'll try not to do it again.
 
Here's a question for the board: Does tuition really mean anything?

Several years ago when my son was looking at colleges, when the question of tuition came up we were assured (at EVERY school) that very few people actually pay that much - most people get one or more forms of student aid and the actual net cost was maybe half of the published tuition for a large percentage of the students.

To our irritation, however, we later found out that two income families such as ours were actually the only fools paying full tuition. And we did.

But in any event, is anyone looking at the amount actually paid by the average student - net of school and third-party assistance - as contrasted with the published tuition rates?

Is that increasing at the same rate as the tuition hikes? Is that number as shocking as the tuition itself - undoubtedly not.

Tuition means something from the standpoint of a lot of young people and their parents are piling up a heck of a lot of debt. All with no job prospects when they get out
 
The purpose of univerities was to teach liberalism, to liberate one's mind, or in reality to teach the sons of gentlemen to be gentlemen. Today, many see college not as means to be gentlemen but as a means to enhance their economic well-being. Quite a change for some schools. I would guess the change took place with the first GI bill, 1944, and the admittance of riff-raff into the hallowed halls. The vets went to school, not to go the gentleman route but to make a living. It began a change in education from liberal arts to a form of trade school. A change that is still going on. Imagine the riff-raff discovering they could compete with the sons of gentlemen, and for those sons, and some universities it was not a happy change. Even the former president of my own alma mater said, the GI Bill will convert the universities into hobo jungles.
But the bill changed the purpose of education and now education.

Clearly you have a practiced misunderstanding of the term 'liberalism,' reggie.

I'm using liberalism and liberal in a dyslogistic sense, but if it makes you uncomfortable I'll try not to do it again.

Thanks so much....use liberalism this way: "the doctrines of the Devil's spawn."


Could you do that for me?
 
I'm beginning to think that those who can't get a job in the real world teach at universities, thus the overwhelming liberal philosophies that abound in classrooms.
 
I'm beginning to think that those who can't get a job in the real world teach at universities, thus the overwhelming liberal philosophies that abound in classrooms.

I was a liberal too, when I was in university.

A couple years after graduation living and working in the real world I changed to a conservative really fast.
 
I'm beginning to think that those who can't get a job in the real world teach at universities, thus the overwhelming liberal philosophies that abound in classrooms.

I was a liberal too, when I was in university.

A couple years after graduation living and working in the real world I changed to a conservative really fast.

I believe that that is the basis of "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”


In an earlier thread, I wrote that maintaining the miasma was the function of the media...but with the birth of talk radio and the internet and cable....that is changing.
They're going to lose the edge.
 
Maybe the transitition from high school to college is somewhat of a shock to some?
I for one, wanted to hear professor's opinions. To go to class to hear a canned lecture with no opinions, no outrageous views, nothing but a rehash of a textbook was a waste. These professors were supposedly experts in their field, and I wanted to hear some of that expertise. If I didn't agree that was fine, but I had little expectations of going through life relying on all things being objective and fair. Maybe, just maybe, all things are not equal, objective or fair, and worse, maybe some things cannot be explained by a simplistic quote, slogan or chant.
 
Increased costs are due to:

Enhanced facilities, such as student unions, gyms (must have a climbing wall, you know), enhanced student housing, grandiose buildings for individuals "schools" (Journalism, Business, etc).

Armies of administrative staff, including counseling centers, campus police, huge legal departments, and so on.

No real restraints on cost growth, as our society of child-coddlers are willing to spare no expense to get that degree for their kids, and pay whatever tuition is demanded. Just as car purchasers in the 60's would have had a heart attack if you suggested that they finance a car for more than 3 years or LEASE a car(!), parents now consider enormous student loans as something to be expected, and until just recently, second mortgages to finance a child's tuition were considered a reasonable way to go.

Here in Pennsylvania we have state-related colleges BRAGGING that this year's tuition increase will only be three or four percent - twice the rate of inflation - as though they had just submitted to a session of potentially lethal bloodletting.
They have no clue what it's like in the real world because they don't have to.

I get the irony of the state universities bragging about only a three or four percent tuition increase.

I'm anxious to hear their tone after the Sandusky payouts and lawsuits have been settled.
 
Enjoyable thread and informative as well, as a dad who has had to pay a large chunk of this, I suppose back when my daughter was born when we were told to save for college, we did those kinds of things. One aspect of college that up until the Penn State issue that has not been mentioned is that a lot of these Universities have become less known for education and more known for how good the football program is from year to year. While a sports fan myself, in my humble opinion football should not be the reason why these schools exist nor should they be the reason these schools are held in high regard. I would encourage as many young people as possible to get a good education, because our nations future depends on it. Having said this, these Universities should be setting costs on actual education and what it costs to do so, and not for funding multi-million dollar coaching salaries, or tenure not earned, or building stadiums that serve no purpose for the primary mission of that University and thats education. These loans that students depend on now serve to feed this system of greed and if you seek to address just one aspect of cost and that is the loans themselves without addressing the other issues of costs in educating our young people then the opportunity to get a college education becomes out of reach for those young people who really want one. Frankly, I find it sickening than our Education system has become a "profit" center rather than one that produces the future of our nation. In my day one saved for a college education , and there is a lot to be said for the OP's opinion there, and in my honest opinion that these loans are putting a strangle-hold on the ability of these young people to excel in life and their chosen fields as well as our nations. We as a nation need to decide what is more important a University system that educates and is focused on the costs to do so, or one like we have now that is all about how popular they are.
 
Last edited:
Nice post Navy 1960. I am a huge college football fan (Roll Tide) and have come to disregard the relationship between the FB program and mission of the university. I don't know the overall graduation rate of D-I football players, but I would bet that the majority do not graduate.

My son actually made college choices based on sports. My daughter did as well but her path was much different. He was recruited by 4 of the 5 service academies. West Point showed no interest. He also got interest from VMI and similar D-I programs. Coach DeBerry of the Air Force Academy wrote him a letter thanking him for participating in the recruiting process but his acedemics were not up to the other prospects in his position category. He was never interested in the Coast Guard or Merchant Marine Academy and the biggest dissapointment of all, Annapolis dropped him like a hot potato at the last minute. He and I went to USNA home games his senior year and sat on the 50 yard line. We stood on the sidelines during pre-game warm-ups and talked with Coach Johnson. Life was good and attending the Naval Academy was all but a done deal. Due to the timing and the way Navy handled things, he chose the highest caliber D-III team he had visited. He was miserable and transferred after the first semester. That began a series of moves to different schools chasing the dream to play either football or baseball. He finally gave up sports for various reasons and entered a college based on academics.

It eventually worked out for him and he is now a Marine officer. For the majority of the population, choosing a school for its educational record rather than football record is the way to go.
 
Nice post Navy 1960. I am a huge college football fan (Roll Tide) and have come to disregard the relationship between the FB program and mission of the university. I don't know the overall graduation rate of D-I football players, but I would bet that the majority do not graduate.

My son actually made college choices based on sports. My daughter did as well but her path was much different. He was recruited by 4 of the 5 service academies. West Point showed no interest. He also got interest from VMI and similar D-I programs. Coach DeBerry of the Air Force Academy wrote him a letter thanking him for participating in the recruiting process but his acedemics were not up to the other prospects in his position category. He was never interested in the Coast Guard or Merchant Marine Academy and the biggest dissapointment of all, Annapolis dropped him like a hot potato at the last minute. He and I went to USNA home games his senior year and sat on the 50 yard line. We stood on the sidelines during pre-game warm-ups and talked with Coach Johnson. Life was good and attending the Naval Academy was all but a done deal. Due to the timing and the way Navy handled things, he chose the highest caliber D-III team he had visited. He was miserable and transferred after the first semester. That began a series of moves to different schools chasing the dream to play either football or baseball. He finally gave up sports for various reasons and entered a college based on academics.

It eventually worked out for him and he is now a Marine officer. For the majority of the population, choosing a school for its educational record rather than football record is the way to go.

You know Navy, I have great respect for college sports programs, my feelings are though is these young people and society in general need a good dose of reality , in that a University should be there to educate first. The USNA is a good example of a school that is focused on Education first and sports second. My personal feelings are that a lot of these institutions place too much time and money and invest too much in their respective sports programs and deny those on them a good education which is the very reason they are there. As you are well aware as a USNA alum. keeping up your studies was just as important as any athletic contest and I am sure any cadet today would tell you the same. Myself, I am a product of OCS out of NAS Pensacola, but have great admiration and respect for USNA Officers and cadets and find it's academic model one that should be copied by a lot of schools.

All this said, you and your son has mine and my familes thank you and respect for your honorable service to this nation and your son's college journey sounds as if it was one that was a product of a driven young man as well as your daughters and they both need to be shown as a model for other young people to follow.

My own daughter is a a national merit scholar and will soon enter law school and her old man is very proud of her. She earned a scholarship as a result of hard work and no thanks to a educational system that was more focused on numbers than results. I am constantly amazed at her abilities and know that most of that came from her mother, rather than her old dad here. *laughs* Having said all this these Universities and yes banks, as well as Govt. in my humble opinion use Universites as a means for profit making, driving costs up and when you add in things I mentioned on my other post, and the lack of focus on education then you have parents and our kids in debt paying for them . I suppose in the end I would rather pay more to the man or woman teaching my daughter how to build the next Saturn V Rocket than I would the football coach or professor who has done nothing but sit on the news and make a fool of themselves.
 
Maybe the transitition from high school to college is somewhat of a shock to some?
I for one, wanted to hear professor's opinions. To go to class to hear a canned lecture with no opinions, no outrageous views, nothing but a rehash of a textbook was a waste. These professors were supposedly experts in their field, and I wanted to hear some of that expertise. If I didn't agree that was fine, but I had little expectations of going through life relying on all things being objective and fair. Maybe, just maybe, all things are not equal, objective or fair, and worse, maybe some things cannot be explained by a simplistic quote, slogan or chant.

I agree. I thought professors were worse teachers than I had in High School
 
In an ideal world the NCAA would not exist. Colleges and universities would operate for the sole purpose of providing the best education possible for those with superior academic credentials (at most, the top 25% of H.S. graduates).

If the students want to play sports, maybe programs of intramurals could be set up, but paid coaches and trainers would not exist (be prohibited).

For those who want to play sports, but are not good enough for the NBA or the NFL, those organizations could establish MINOR LEAGUES, just like MLB does, and they could PAY FOR THIER OWN player development without co-opting the country's higher education system to provide a free pool of physically mature, totally prepared players for their teams.

For amateurs, I'm sure that most cities and towns could develop "club" sports programs like they do in Europe, where the better young-adult amateurs could have their fill of athletic competition, and the local residents can see and root for teams that represent them (instead of the local college team).

There is no NEED for college sports, but history (and the alumni) demand them. Kids make their choices about what colleges to apply to based on how high-profile their football programs are. Tens of thousands of kids are basing their college aspirations on getting an athletic scholarship. And although people think about football when athletic scholarships are mentioned, the vast majority of actual scholarships are awarded in less popular sports like swimming, soccer, fencing, etc. Again, thanks to Title 9.

My son chose his college based on academics, geography and cost. He never went to a sports event and never missed it. Same as his dad.
 
Most college reputations are built on their sport's program. The public's knowledge of the universties usually come with Saturday's scores, and often consider the team's win loss record as indictative of the education the school provides. The University of Chicago, once a power house in the Big Ten, dropped football in the Forties, the president saying you can't have a good educational program and a good football team.
 
Most college reputations are built on their sport's program. The public's knowledge of the universties usually come with Saturday's scores, and often consider the team's win loss record as indictative of the education the school provides. The University of Chicago, once a power house in the Big Ten, dropped football in the Forties, the president saying you can't have a good educational program and a good football team.

"... the education the school provides."

Was that a figure of speech, or are you saddled with the mistaken belief that education is in the nature of today's secular universities?
 

Forum List

Back
Top