College: Cost too much?

[mskafka]

I would love to go back to college. But I make too much money to qualify for grants, and I don't want to clean out my retirement to do it.

I also have health insurance with my job. I wonder how easy it would be for someone with cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, and probable rheumatoid arthritis (awaiting the test results with glee genetics are cruel) to get private health insurance?!?

Yah, cry me a river, I know. Life's a big turd sandwich, sometimes.

Going back to college probably isn't in the cards.

 

[chanel]

What do you guys think of this idea?

I think we should return to the days when student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy, starting five years after graduation. This will allow graduates who are unable to pay to get out from under what is otherwise a potential lifetime of debt-slavery. If you buy a house to flip, and wind up losing your shirt, we let you go bankrupt, take a credit-rating hit, and scrub the debt away. Why should graduates be forbidden from doing the same? The five-year delay means that you can’t use immediate post-graduation poverty as an excuse (as some medical students used to do), but still provides an out.

But the real incentive-alignment part is this: Put the institutions who issued the degrees on the hook for the money they received. Making them eat the entire loan balance would probably bankrupt a lot of colleges (though that should tell us something about the problem right there), but sticking them with even a small fraction -- say, 10% or 15% -- would be enough to inspire a much greater degree of concern for how much debt students take on while in school, and for how likely they are to find gainful employment after graduation.

Read more: Government inflated the college loan bubble -- but Obama isn’t fixing it - NYPOST.com

 

[editec]

Here's idea whose time will never come for those of us who want market forces driving change?

It is an example of that invisible hand of the market liberated by REAL market forces.

Colleges provide education to be repaid by graduates based on their annual incomes FOR LIFE.


IF a college degree is worth the money it costs, then everyone's a winner.

If it turns out that people with the degree don't have employability value, then those colleges and their graduates are shit out of luck.

Now I promise you that this plan would attract a whole lot of people who have no family fortunes backing them.

How many of the manor born would be willing to play?

My guess is not many.

 

[Skull Pilot]

College tuition has risen right along with professor's salaries. The faculty wants more money, guess what. It has to come from someplace.

Starting salaries for tenure track faculty is very, very piss-poor.

For example, for a chemistry professor starting his/her career as a tenure-track prof, the average salary is $54K. That same chemist could get a job in the private sector for double that. And, at the federal government for at least 60% more than academia.

And, the starting salaries of chemistry professors is much, much higher than that for a professor teaching some liberal art.

No, the professors' salaries are not a significant factor.

Would you really want a guy so fucking stupid as to take a shit paying job instead of making some real money to be the one teaching your kids?

Those that can't do teach.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

College tuition has risen right along with professor's salaries. The faculty wants more money, guess what. It has to come from someplace.

Actually, any Professor making more than $100,000.00 a year isn't costing the students a dime. The unwritten rule at the T1 Research institutions right now is that a professor isn't tenured unless they bring in more grant money (Not tuition money) than the university pays them in salary.

Now, if you want to send your child to a school where the focus for the tenure process is on education instead of research, then you are looking at professors that are paid out of tuition money. However, the professors at those schools aren't making much at all.

Rising tuition costs don't really have much to do with the actual professors.

In addition, new constructions projects on campus are almost always paid for by endowments from alumni. If you don't have wealthy alumni willing to give, you won't be seeing new buildings. Rising tuition isn't related to new construction.

I saw someone in this thread complain about all the starbucks and restaurants on campus. The truth is that those companies are helping keep tuition down by paying rent to the campus for prime locations.

Rising tuition has more to do with the need for up to date labs, computer facilities, and rising health care and retirement costs, which are called unfunded liabilities at the state institutions. They also have something to do with the rising cost of administration, which is related to the need a school has to hire more and more administrators to comply with more and more hoops being forced on them by the Feds.

As far as kids graduating with loans they can't pay off...that's poor parenting and advising right there. If you graduate with a general studies degree, then you shouldn't be surprised if you can't find a job.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

College tuition has risen right along with professor's salaries. The faculty wants more money, guess what. It has to come from someplace.

Starting salaries for tenure track faculty is very, very piss-poor.

For example, for a chemistry professor starting his/her career as a tenure-track prof, the average salary is $54K. That same chemist could get a job in the private sector for double that. And, at the federal government for at least 60% more than academia.

And, the starting salaries of chemistry professors is much, much higher than that for a professor teaching some liberal art.

No, the professors' salaries are not a significant factor.

Yep. I'm in mathematics, and my first job offer was for the Government. It paid as a starting salary 1.5 times what I make now after 5 years on the job. I could go take a few actuarial exams and double up my salary in the space of about 3 to 6 months.

If you find a professor making a LOT of money, it means that they're raking in the grant money, which means that their salary is actually not costing the students a dime. Professor's salaries aren't the issue.

 

[del]

College tuition has risen right along with professor's salaries. The faculty wants more money, guess what. It has to come from someplace.

Actually, any Professor making more than $100,000.00 a year isn't costing the students a dime. The unwritten rule at the T1 Research institutions right now is that a professor isn't tenured unless they bring in more grant money (Not tuition money) than the university pays them in salary.

Now, if you want to send your child to a school where the focus for the tenure process is on education instead of research, then you are looking at professors that are paid out of tuition money. However, the professors at those schools aren't making much at all.

Rising tuition costs don't really have much to do with the actual professors.

In addition, new constructions projects on campus are almost always paid for by endowments from alumni. If you don't have wealthy alumni willing to give, you won't be seeing new buildings. Rising tuition isn't related to new construction.

I saw someone in this thread complain about all the starbucks and restaurants on campus. The truth is that those companies are helping keep tuition down by paying rent to the campus for prime locations.

Rising tuition has more to do with the need for up to date labs, computer facilities, and rising health care and retirement costs, which are called unfunded liabilities at the state institutions. They also have something to do with the rising cost of administration, which is related to the need a school has to hire more and more administrators to comply with more and more hoops being forced on them by the Feds.

As far as kids graduating with loans they can't pay off...that's poor parenting and advising right there. If you graduate with a general studies degree, then you shouldn't be surprised if you can't find a job.

i very much doubt that any professor making more that 100k interacts with any students except in line at starbucks.

 

[Ropey]

In the established higher centers of learning the professors usually come in to welcome the students and share a bit of themselves early on as well as informing of their correspondent results with his/her work. Then usually the third year students take over helping the professors assistants (pre-PHD).

Usually the study group sessions have a robust following in order to facilitate the learning and often there are credit additions (for honors/grants, etc) to running study sessions with the post-graduates in their professorial studies for challenge.

These professors are far too busy working on proofs, and writing/publishing their results in this established pattern instilled within most of the higher centers of learning. Publish or Perish.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

College tuition has risen right along with professor's salaries. The faculty wants more money, guess what. It has to come from someplace.

Actually, any Professor making more than $100,000.00 a year isn't costing the students a dime. The unwritten rule at the T1 Research institutions right now is that a professor isn't tenured unless they bring in more grant money (Not tuition money) than the university pays them in salary.

Now, if you want to send your child to a school where the focus for the tenure process is on education instead of research, then you are looking at professors that are paid out of tuition money. However, the professors at those schools aren't making much at all.

Rising tuition costs don't really have much to do with the actual professors.

In addition, new constructions projects on campus are almost always paid for by endowments from alumni. If you don't have wealthy alumni willing to give, you won't be seeing new buildings. Rising tuition isn't related to new construction.

I saw someone in this thread complain about all the starbucks and restaurants on campus. The truth is that those companies are helping keep tuition down by paying rent to the campus for prime locations.

Rising tuition has more to do with the need for up to date labs, computer facilities, and rising health care and retirement costs, which are called unfunded liabilities at the state institutions. They also have something to do with the rising cost of administration, which is related to the need a school has to hire more and more administrators to comply with more and more hoops being forced on them by the Feds.

As far as kids graduating with loans they can't pay off...that's poor parenting and advising right there. If you graduate with a general studies degree, then you shouldn't be surprised if you can't find a job.

i very much doubt that any professor making more that 100k interacts with any students except in line at starbucks.

Most of those guys are paying for the salaries of the Teaching Assistants that the students are interacting with via their grant money, so even then, they're saving money.

And for the most part, if you're on a campus you're teaching at least 1 class, even if you have that kind of grant power. The administrators tend to want you in front of a classroom at least once in a while.

Most of the professors I know in that range teach about 2 graduate classes a semester, and occasionally an undergraduate.

 

[chanel]

I can't find the article, but the Star Ledger did an expose a few years ago on salaries at Rutgers. Several dozen were making six figures - and not one professor. It's not the teachers folks. It's the bullshit department heads who are in charge of such nonsense as "Student Life" which of course is a totally different department than "Student Services" or "Residential Services" etc...

Oh and the football team loses several mil a year and they are still soliciting donations for a $100 million stadium.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I can't find the article, but the Star Ledger did an expose a few years ago on salaries at Rutgers. Several dozen were making six figures - and not one professor. It's not the teachers folks. It's the bullshit department heads who are in charge of such nonsense as "Student Life" which of course is a totally different department than "Student Services" or "Residential Services" etc...

Oh and the football team loses several mil a year and they are still soliciting donations for a $100 million stadium.

Yeah, administration is paid pretty well. I'm not a fan of it, but there are few things that help explain how that happened:

1. Most Universities and Colleges are bringing in an enormous amount of cash from their athletics. I know at my school we're making back more from the athletic department than we pay in via salaries and scholarships. Colleges can afford to pay coaches a 6 or 7 figure salary because they'll make much more than that from the teams over the course of the year.
Aside: Welcome to the newest form of slavery.

2. It's actually hard to hire good administrators. The Federal funding comes with some serious restrictions, requirements, and reporting deadlines. Many of the overpaid administrators folks complain about were hired for the express interest of helping the school hold on to Federal and State funds. Its a catch-22, pay an enormous amount of money for an administrator, or risk losing funding that could close your school.
Aside: If you're a fan of arguing that regulation=raised costs, this is a pretty wonderful example.

 

[michaelkervins]

Now a days colleges cost very high fees for education. If a man is poor he can't afford money for getting higher education. Its very bad that our college fees are ten times higher than our schooling fees. There are lots of students who can't get education because of fees dissimilarity.

 

[chanel]

I can't find the article, but the Star Ledger did an expose a few years ago on salaries at Rutgers. Several dozen were making six figures - and not one professor. It's not the teachers folks. It's the bullshit department heads who are in charge of such nonsense as "Student Life" which of course is a totally different department than "Student Services" or "Residential Services" etc...

Oh and the football team loses several mil a year and they are still soliciting donations for a $100 million stadium.

Yeah, administration is paid pretty well. I'm not a fan of it, but there are few things that help explain how that happened:

1. Most Universities and Colleges are bringing in an enormous amount of cash from their athletics. I know at my school we're making back more from the athletic department than we pay in via salaries and scholarships. Colleges can afford to pay coaches a 6 or 7 figure salary because they'll make much more than that from the teams over the course of the year.
Aside: Welcome to the newest form of slavery.

2. It's actually hard to hire good administrators. The Federal funding comes with some serious restrictions, requirements, and reporting deadlines. Many of the overpaid administrators folks complain about were hired for the express interest of helping the school hold on to Federal and State funds. Its a catch-22, pay an enormous amount of money for an administrator, or risk losing funding that could close your school.
Aside: If you're a fan of arguing that regulation=raised costs, this is a pretty wonderful example.

I'll do more research later, but I believe that is a wive's tale. Certainly big schools like Notre Dame and Penn State have "branded" themselves and make a lot of money for the school. But I believe they are the exceptoion, not the rule. And I'm not concerned about coaches making "six figure Rutgers coaches make 7.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now a days colleges cost very high fees for education. If a man is poor he can't afford money for getting higher education. Its very bad that our college fees are ten times higher than our schooling fees. There are lots of students who can't get education because of fees dissimilarity.

Do you actually believe that one cannot be educated sans college???

"Some of today's most successful people don't have a college degree. But what they lack in academic credentials, they make up for in tenacity, brains, guts and strong business sense."
Success without a college degree - CNN.com

(the article goes on to list a number of folks who have done quite well....)

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll do more research later, but I believe that is a wive's tale. Certainly big schools like Notre Dame and Penn State have "branded" themselves and make a lot of money for the school. But I believe they are the exceptoion, not the rule. And I'm not concerned about coaches making "six figure Rutgers coaches make 7.

I'd believed that too, but now I'm actually in academia I know that even at a school like mine where the athletic program isn't hugely popular the athletic programs are still fairly profitable. It'd be hard to track down general numbers though, as the schools are opaque on that issue intentionally and not all of the profits come from season tickets or merchandising. Some of the money comes from scheduling, and that's really hard to nail down figures for.

I know that in Louisiana we've faced massive budget cuts in higher ed, but I've yet to hear of any serious cuts to athletics. When pressed for why that's the case, it's almost always because the athletic program is bringing in more money than it takes out of the budget.

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe we should have colleges and universities like they do in China. Completely free. There are no fluffy courses. No social study programs, just hard core education. And, you do not get to fail. Failure is not an option. There is no partying, no drinking, no sex, no drugs. Fun seekers and failures have a different employment for them. After all, you don't think anyone really applies for those factory jobs, do you?

And, admissions? Does everyone go?

Yes. Everyone who wants to go, goes!

The entire state of education there is different. Parents do not give their own children the option of failing. Bad grades are always the child's fault. There's a book about the Chinese Tiger Moms and how they raise their children.

Once in college, the government pays, for everything. They won't hand that value away for nothing. A student caught drunk, or having sex, or partying, has disrespected the gift. They are transferred to one of the factories. They live in dormitories, essentially as slaves. They make all the cheap stuff you buy at Wal Mart.

It's a good system.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe we should have colleges and universities like they do in China. Completely free. There are no fluffy courses. No social study programs, just hard core education. And, you do not get to fail. Failure is not an option. There is no partying, no drinking, no sex, no drugs. Fun seekers and failures have a different employment for them. After all, you don't think anyone really applies for those factory jobs, do you?

And, admissions? Does everyone go?

Yes. Everyone who wants to go, goes!

The entire state of education there is different. Parents do not give their own children the option of failing. Bad grades are always the child's fault. There's a book about the Chinese Tiger Moms and how they raise their children.

Once in college, the government pays, for everything. They won't hand that value away for nothing. A student caught drunk, or having sex, or partying, has disrespected the gift. They are transferred to one of the factories. They live in dormitories, essentially as slaves. They make all the cheap stuff you buy at Wal Mart.

It's a good system.

It's an entertaining story, but it is not reality.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe we should have colleges and universities like they do in China. Completely free. There are no fluffy courses. No social study programs, just hard core education. And, you do not get to fail. Failure is not an option. There is no partying, no drinking, no sex, no drugs. Fun seekers and failures have a different employment for them. After all, you don't think anyone really applies for those factory jobs, do you?

Universities in China are not free, there are liberal arts programs, you can fail, the kids drink, have sex, and to a certain extent do drugs. And yes, people do apply for factory jobs.

...................................................

 

[chanel]

I'll do more research later, but I believe that is a wive's tale. Certainly big schools like Notre Dame and Penn State have "branded" themselves and make a lot of money for the school. But I believe they are the exceptoion, not the rule. And I'm not concerned about coaches making "six figure Rutgers coaches make 7.

I'd believed that too, but now I'm actually in academia I know that even at a school like mine where the athletic program isn't hugely popular the athletic programs are still fairly profitable. It'd be hard to track down general numbers though, as the schools are opaque on that issue intentionally and not all of the profits come from season tickets or merchandising. Some of the money comes from scheduling, and that's really hard to nail down figures for.

I know that in Louisiana we've faced massive budget cuts in higher ed, but I've yet to hear of any serious cuts to athletics. When pressed for why that's the case, it's almost always because the athletic program is bringing in more money than it takes out of the budget.

Check this out. I knew I had read this some where.

Big-time college sports — particularly big-time college football — is now an arms race in a world with no nonproliferation treaty. As confirmed by a series of reports from the National Collegiate Athletic Association, most college athletic programs lose money, and almost none of them makes money consistently. No wonder, then, that Rutgers President Richard McCormick acknowledges the athletic program will probably never make money.

Rutgers football: Big costs, few benefits | NJ.com

 

[chanel]

Great editorial on the rising costs of the "diversity bureaucracy" in our universities.

Do not think that the exploding diversity bureaucracy is confined to public universities. In 2005, Harvard created a new Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development, responsible for $50 million in diversity funding, and six new diversity deanships. Whereas Harvard’s previous diversity bureaucrats collected mere diversity data about faculty hiring and promotions, the new SVP for D and FD would be collecting “diversity metrics.” Yale already has 14 Title IX coordinators (not enough to stave off a specious Title IX investigation by the Office of Civil Rights in the federal Education Department), but it nevertheless recently put a Deputy Provost in charge of assessing the “campus climate” with respect to gender and overseeing the 14 Title IX coordinators. All these new bureaucrats in campuses across the country — nearly 72,000 non-teaching positions added from 2006 to 2009 — cost $3.6 billion, estimated Harvey Silverglate in Minding the Campus earlier this year.

Just where do the OWS-ish student protesters think that their tuition money is going? In the vast majority of colleges and universities, there are no greedy shareholders sucking their profits from the livelihoods of workers or other “community stakeholders.” Rather, rising tuitions funnel straight into the preposterously unnecessary diversity bureaucracy and the rest of the burgeoning student-services infrastructure, as well as into the salaries of professors who teach one course a semester, the arms race of ever more sybaritic dorms and social centers, and the absolute monarchies of the football and basketball programs. It is particularly amusing to see New York University’s Andrew Ross spearheading a campaign against the student-loan industry; we may safely assume that Ross’s princely salary as Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis (achieved when NYU outbid Princeton for his services) was impervious to what should have been Ross’s reputation-destroying unwitting publication of a hoax parody of cultural-studies gibberish in his journal, Social Text, in 1996.

If students think that they are paying too much for college — and either they or taxpayers most surely are — they should take up the matter with their college president and her retinue of deans, provosts, and vice chancellors, not to mention with the federal government, whose easy loans allow colleges to jack up their tuition even further. The problem lies not with the lenders but with the institutions whose undisciplined appetite for bureaucratic growth and for hiring trendy academic superstars, no matter the speciousness of their scholarship, makes such loans necessary.

Pepper-Spraying Taxpayers - National Review Online