I appreciated Mr. Loury's perspectives on rigor and standards. One thing I've wondered about a great deal is if some of the challenge we're seeing is also, and perhaps more, tied to the decline in public funding of postsecondary education.
Some of how tuition has moved, I am at a loss to explain. It's been fairly well covered, though, tha…
I appreciated Mr. Loury's perspectives on rigor and standards. One thing I've wondered about a great deal is if some of the challenge we're seeing is also, and perhaps more, tied to the decline in public funding of postsecondary education.
Some of how tuition has moved, I am at a loss to explain. It's been fairly well covered, though, that a big part of the escalating cost has been the decades-long decline in public support for colleges and universities. I think that has its own distortions.
For colleges, they still need to be able to keep the lights on. In past decades, when they enjoyed plentiful support, Mr. Loury would probably had more footing to demand more out of students. The lights would still be on if a student failed, and the low cost of tuition would lower the bar for another student to take the failing student's place. Colleges have to be more careful about people failing, since each one blows a bigger hole in their budgets. The high price of tuition lessens the likelihood of another student taking the failing student's place.
I'd argue, too, that the distortions are being experienced by the students. If the cost of tuition is high, there may be a reluctance to recognize college is a bad fit until later. If you're putting so much money down, at least some students may be reluctant to quit, simply for it to not have been for nothing.
Of course, the biggest distortion is the obvious one that we all experience. We have a particularly fragile and weak set of graduates from the institutions that are supposed to be developing future leaders and professionals. I've already seen these students bring this fragility into the workplace, and it's not pretty. It's complaints from employees that are clearly going to be asked to leave within a year due to performance issues complaining about "cultural appropriation" in some of the corporate artwork. It's young professionals who will let the project fail if it requires a minute over 40 hrs/week. It's receiving calls from former employees' parents (?!) when their child is fired due to being a bad fit.
All the things I just described are things I'm seeing out of new employees of all genders, colors, sexual orientations, and whatever other classification that needs to be foisted onto every discussion of a problem. I appreciate that the new generation does have a level of empathy that's been missing from prior generations. That's good, and will be helpful if it gets properly-channeled again. But I feel like we're all being "awoken" to an age of American mediocrity if something isn't done about this soon, and the only thing egalitarian about it will be that we'll all equally have been robbed of an opportunity to better ourselves.
Nope, there's plenty of money. But the amount spent on admin is crazy at most of these colleges (got to have a 100 person diversity and inclusion department of course).
Look at Purdue, no tuition increase in over 10 years. It's definitely possible.
The root is the dismal education kids are getting in grade, junior high and high schools. Like Baltimore where the average grade average is a D or maybe a D+. Where kids can’t read or do math at grade level. So everything is dumbed down so nobody feels bad.
There is no rigor in the public school systems anymore and this last year when they were all but shut down just sets kids further behind. And God forbid parents complain because as Punk Macauliffe said in the Va gubernatorial debate, parents shouldn’t interfere in schools.
The US is spiraling down and at least half the population doesn’t care.
One major problem has been the growth of administrations at colleges and universities. This article is from 2017, but explains 30 years of administrative growth:
"Put another way, administrative spending comprised just 26% of total educational spending by American colleges in 1980-1981, while instructional spending comprised 41%. Three decades later, the two categories were almost even: administrative spending made up 24% of schools’ total expenditures, while instructional spending made up 29%."
and "Though many groups – students and their parents, faculty, and administrators themselves – bring different perspectives and explanations to the issue, the factors that drive universities to hire more administrators can be boiled down to a few main explanations, often reflecting a shifting landscape in the higher education, including government regulations, competition between schools, and a modern population of students with increasing needs."
This came up on another thread here just yesterday. SUSPECTED, but never got an answer back. "Cain't thanked enuf" for the FACTS of the matter, Rfhirsch.
The report covers 50 colleges and universities. It concludes:
"Tuition increases at public universities far exceeded their losses in state funding; in other words, state disinvestment cannot be the sole cause of rising tuition. Administrators mostly used tuition increases to pay for increased university expenditures.
The total number of administrators and staff grew by roughly 50% between 1987 and 2018, driven by a 94% increase in the “Executives” and “Other Professionals” categories.
Universities devoted increasing amounts of their resources to government relations, marketing, and public relations, at the expense of undergraduate instruction.
"That problem, Martin says, is tied to the fact that colleges aren’t actually incentivized to keep their costs down: a more expensive price tag can actually signal a higher quality school. Especially since college is an 'experience good' - you can’t fully gauge its benefits until you experience it - prices suggesting high quality can be one tantalizing way for colleges to make themselves more appealing."
Like he says.
I can't recall if this was in the Forbes or the NAS one:
“The two big cost drivers are bureaucrats and buildings – obviously neither of those are directly going to the classroom experience,” Zywicki says, referring to gyms and 4-star kitchens. “They’ve actually looked at the classroom experience as a place where they end up conserving money.”
I downloaded the docs to send to the appropriate people, so I'm with You in spirit. Send them out? Can't promise.
Funny. Sometimes instincts/intuitions lead me pretty far astray. But You confirmed this one. It still surprises me though. I'll hafta read the full report this afternoon and see who they're talking about. Public universities, too?
I appreciated Mr. Loury's perspectives on rigor and standards. One thing I've wondered about a great deal is if some of the challenge we're seeing is also, and perhaps more, tied to the decline in public funding of postsecondary education.
Some of how tuition has moved, I am at a loss to explain. It's been fairly well covered, though, that a big part of the escalating cost has been the decades-long decline in public support for colleges and universities. I think that has its own distortions.
For colleges, they still need to be able to keep the lights on. In past decades, when they enjoyed plentiful support, Mr. Loury would probably had more footing to demand more out of students. The lights would still be on if a student failed, and the low cost of tuition would lower the bar for another student to take the failing student's place. Colleges have to be more careful about people failing, since each one blows a bigger hole in their budgets. The high price of tuition lessens the likelihood of another student taking the failing student's place.
I'd argue, too, that the distortions are being experienced by the students. If the cost of tuition is high, there may be a reluctance to recognize college is a bad fit until later. If you're putting so much money down, at least some students may be reluctant to quit, simply for it to not have been for nothing.
Of course, the biggest distortion is the obvious one that we all experience. We have a particularly fragile and weak set of graduates from the institutions that are supposed to be developing future leaders and professionals. I've already seen these students bring this fragility into the workplace, and it's not pretty. It's complaints from employees that are clearly going to be asked to leave within a year due to performance issues complaining about "cultural appropriation" in some of the corporate artwork. It's young professionals who will let the project fail if it requires a minute over 40 hrs/week. It's receiving calls from former employees' parents (?!) when their child is fired due to being a bad fit.
All the things I just described are things I'm seeing out of new employees of all genders, colors, sexual orientations, and whatever other classification that needs to be foisted onto every discussion of a problem. I appreciate that the new generation does have a level of empathy that's been missing from prior generations. That's good, and will be helpful if it gets properly-channeled again. But I feel like we're all being "awoken" to an age of American mediocrity if something isn't done about this soon, and the only thing egalitarian about it will be that we'll all equally have been robbed of an opportunity to better ourselves.
Nope, there's plenty of money. But the amount spent on admin is crazy at most of these colleges (got to have a 100 person diversity and inclusion department of course).
Look at Purdue, no tuition increase in over 10 years. It's definitely possible.
Some of these places have on campus steakhouses and lazy rivers.
The root is the dismal education kids are getting in grade, junior high and high schools. Like Baltimore where the average grade average is a D or maybe a D+. Where kids can’t read or do math at grade level. So everything is dumbed down so nobody feels bad.
There is no rigor in the public school systems anymore and this last year when they were all but shut down just sets kids further behind. And God forbid parents complain because as Punk Macauliffe said in the Va gubernatorial debate, parents shouldn’t interfere in schools.
The US is spiraling down and at least half the population doesn’t care.
One major problem has been the growth of administrations at colleges and universities. This article is from 2017, but explains 30 years of administrative growth:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/?sh=62944dcc456a
"Put another way, administrative spending comprised just 26% of total educational spending by American colleges in 1980-1981, while instructional spending comprised 41%. Three decades later, the two categories were almost even: administrative spending made up 24% of schools’ total expenditures, while instructional spending made up 29%."
and "Though many groups – students and their parents, faculty, and administrators themselves – bring different perspectives and explanations to the issue, the factors that drive universities to hire more administrators can be boiled down to a few main explanations, often reflecting a shifting landscape in the higher education, including government regulations, competition between schools, and a modern population of students with increasing needs."
This came up on another thread here just yesterday. SUSPECTED, but never got an answer back. "Cain't thanked enuf" for the FACTS of the matter, Rfhirsch.
Thanks. Here's a page that links to a longer report: https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/toolkit-encouraging-fiscal-responsibility-in-higher-education
The report covers 50 colleges and universities. It concludes:
"Tuition increases at public universities far exceeded their losses in state funding; in other words, state disinvestment cannot be the sole cause of rising tuition. Administrators mostly used tuition increases to pay for increased university expenditures.
The total number of administrators and staff grew by roughly 50% between 1987 and 2018, driven by a 94% increase in the “Executives” and “Other Professionals” categories.
Universities devoted increasing amounts of their resources to government relations, marketing, and public relations, at the expense of undergraduate instruction.
"That problem, Martin says, is tied to the fact that colleges aren’t actually incentivized to keep their costs down: a more expensive price tag can actually signal a higher quality school. Especially since college is an 'experience good' - you can’t fully gauge its benefits until you experience it - prices suggesting high quality can be one tantalizing way for colleges to make themselves more appealing."
Like he says.
I can't recall if this was in the Forbes or the NAS one:
“The two big cost drivers are bureaucrats and buildings – obviously neither of those are directly going to the classroom experience,” Zywicki says, referring to gyms and 4-star kitchens. “They’ve actually looked at the classroom experience as a place where they end up conserving money.”
I downloaded the docs to send to the appropriate people, so I'm with You in spirit. Send them out? Can't promise.
Funny. Sometimes instincts/intuitions lead me pretty far astray. But You confirmed this one. It still surprises me though. I'll hafta read the full report this afternoon and see who they're talking about. Public universities, too?
In any event, TYTY (thank You) Rfhirsch!
Nice! GLAD You weren't silent this time, M. Bob.