next »

[al_wallace]

The proportion of administrators and staff in higher education have increased about 350% in the last 10-15 years while the proportion of faculty have remained the same. The arms-race of amenities between competing institutions have further supported tuition hikes as we convert the modern campus to the equivalent of an all-inclusive resort or cruise ship. Shiny athletic facilities with shuffleboard on the Ledo deck and student nightclubs on the lower levels. Condo-like spacious dorms are becoming the rule, not the exception and student services have exploded. And, of course state funding spirals downward so state institution make up the difference in a rather obvious way.

[dr_evil]

I never understood why the university had to build a fancy, state-of-the-art recreation center, including indoor climbing wall.  But now it's there - even though there are plenty of places to climb outdoors in the area.

[madhatter]

The proportion of administrators and staff in higher education have increased about 350% in the last 10-15 years while the proportion of faculty have remained the same. The arms-race of amenities between competing institutions have further supported tuition hikes as we convert the modern campus to the equivalent of an all-inclusive resort or cruise ship. Shiny athletic facilities with shuffleboard on the Ledo deck and student nightclubs on the lower levels. Condo-like spacious dorms are becoming the rule, not the exception and student services have exploded. And, of course state funding spirals downward so state institution make up the difference in a rather obvious way.

... and much of the above is technology. Computers for everyone, networks, wi-fi, web pages, web apps, self-serve systems, integration with databases, email accounts galore, podcasts, streaming video, classroom A/V systems... and many, many, many people to develop and support all this technology and the users.

[canadatourismguy]

I will add another point that has not been discussed.  At a certain state school in the sunny south:

10 years ago 30% of its funding came from the state.  5 years ago 25% came from the state.  As of today ~14% of the budget comes from the state.  

In the last 10 years, the school has lost 50% of its state support yet has had increasing demands placed upon to to ensure taxpayer money is protected that has increased costs while cutting budgets.  

Example 1

There was a proposal at this school to set A/C temperatures at the school at 75 from its current 70.  Would have saved the school thousands of dollars but could not do it because government mandates temps set in building be 70.

Example 2

State dictates any purchase over $1000.00 must go though RFP process.  School proposed that since this has not been altered since 1988 when $1000.00 was a greater cost it get raised to $2500.00 to save red tape and increase efficiency in procurement.  State says no.

Yes. there is waste at every school but there a several other variables to consider as well.

[madhatter]

In addition to the dilution of subsidies, the impact of increasing tuition is felt much more keenly by students because of the shift of financial aid from grants to loans, starting in the 1980s.

[mad_doctor]

I will add another point that has not been discussed.  At a certain state school in the sunny south:

10 years ago 30% of its funding came from the state.  5 years ago 25% came from the state.  As of today ~14% of the budget comes from the state.  

In the last 10 years, the school has lost 50% of its state support yet has had increasing demands placed upon to to ensure taxpayer money is protected that has increased costs while cutting budgets.  

Example 1

There was a proposal at this school to set A/C temperatures at the school at 75 from its current 70.  Would have saved the school thousands of dollars but could not do it because government mandates temps set in building be 70.

Example 2

State dictates any purchase over $1000.00 must go though RFP process.  School proposed that since this has not been altered since 1988 when $1000.00 was a greater cost it get raised to $2500.00 to save red tape and increase efficiency in procurement.  State says no.

Yes. there is waste at every school but there a several other variables to consider as well.

Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, so to speak, your state sounds a little atypical.  The statistics available from the US DOE indicate that from 1980 to 2001 there was an overall average 10% decrease in state funding from 46% to 36% (in current dollars), a 1.7% increase in average enrollment, and a 223% increase in revenue per student (also current dollars).  That 10% decrease in state funding seems a drop in the bucket alongside the 223% increase in revenue (other sources of revenue are relatively unchanged - about 22% sales, 18% tuition, 12% fed).  I suppose the honest question would be to ask, WTF?!?!  Where's all the money going?! 

[mad_doctor]

I suppose the honest question would be to ask, WTF?!?!  Where's all the money going?! 

For the record, this is a rhetorical question on my part.  For the most part, I'm with Al_Wallace on this one.  The evidence strongly supports the explosive growth of administrative and staff expenditures.  The proportion of FT faculty on the average university campus has actually decreased.  I have heard at least one Dean attribute this to out-of-proportion increases in faculty salaries, which resulted in reductions in ft faculty to manage costs.  However, with a 3:1 faculty administrator ratio on the "average" university campus, I think this is unlikely.

[madhatter]

Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, so to speak, your state sounds a little atypical.  The statistics available from the US DOE indicate that from 1980 to 2001 there was an overall average 10% decrease in state funding from 46% to 36% (in current dollars), a 1.7% increase in average enrollment, and a 223% increase in revenue per student (also current dollars).  That 10% decrease in state funding seems a drop in the bucket alongside the 223% increase in revenue (other sources of revenue are relatively unchanged - about 22% sales, 18% tuition, 12% fed).  I suppose the honest question would be to ask, WTF?!?!  Where's all the money going?! 

There are a number of factors you aren't considering. 1) The increase in # of institutions, particularly private (proprietary or not) institutions that don't receive state funding; 2) The percentage increase in student revenue can be very impressive when one considers that for public schools, the baseline revenue in that period was very low. If you raise a CC's tuition from $10/credit hour to $20/credit hour, you have a 100% increase, but in real dollar figures, it's not a lot.

[mad_doctor]

Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, so to speak, your state sounds a little atypical.  The statistics available from the US DOE indicate that from 1980 to 2001 there was an overall average 10% decrease in state funding from 46% to 36% (in current dollars), a 1.7% increase in average enrollment, and a 223% increase in revenue per student (also current dollars).  That 10% decrease in state funding seems a drop in the bucket alongside the 223% increase in revenue (other sources of revenue are relatively unchanged - about 22% sales, 18% tuition, 12% fed).  I suppose the honest question would be to ask, WTF?!?!  Where's all the money going?!  

There are a number of factors you aren't considering. 1) The increase in # of institutions, particularly private (proprietary or not) institutions that don't receive state funding; 2) The percentage increase in student revenue can be very impressive when one considers that for public schools, the baseline revenue in that period was very low. If you raise a CC's tuition from $10/credit hour to $20/credit hour, you have a 100% increase, but in real dollar figures, it's not a lot.

Since these are averages, I believe the number of institutions is accounted for, madhatter.  Here's the numbers for public schools only, so you can double-check:

year  enrollment  institutions   avg enrollment   revenue   avg revenue   revenue per student
1980  9.5 M        1497          6318                 43.2 B      28.9 M          4.6 K
2000  11.8M        1698         6922                 176.6 B     104.9 M        15.0 K

%      24%          13%          10%                  309%      261%            229%
increase

The figures for revenue are for all sources of revenue.  Tuition ranged from 13% to 18% of total revenue for that period.  That means a 100% increase in tuition would result in an approximately 18% increase in total revenue, which would leave about 211% in revenue increases unaccounted for, as an example.

[madhatter]

That's interesting. Thanks for posting the figures.

[canadatourismguy]

I will add another point that has not been discussed.  At a certain state school in the sunny south:

10 years ago 30% of its funding came from the state.  5 years ago 25% came from the state.  As of today ~14% of the budget comes from the state.  

In the last 10 years, the school has lost 50% of its state support yet has had increasing demands placed upon to to ensure taxpayer money is protected that has increased costs while cutting budgets.  

Example 1

There was a proposal at this school to set A/C temperatures at the school at 75 from its current 70.  Would have saved the school thousands of dollars but could not do it because government mandates temps set in building be 70.

Example 2

State dictates any purchase over $1000.00 must go though RFP process.  School proposed that since this has not been altered since 1988 when $1000.00 was a greater cost it get raised to $2500.00 to save red tape and increase efficiency in procurement.  State says no.

Yes. there is waste at every school but there a several other variables to consider as well.

Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, so to speak, your state sounds a little atypical.  The statistics available from the US DOE indicate that from 1980 to 2001 there was an overall average 10% decrease in state funding from 46% to 36% (in current dollars), a 1.7% increase in average enrollment, and a 223% increase in revenue per student (also current dollars).  That 10% decrease in state funding seems a drop in the bucket alongside the 223% increase in revenue (other sources of revenue are relatively unchanged - about 22% sales, 18% tuition, 12% fed).  I suppose the honest question would be to ask, WTF?!?!  Where's all the money going?! 

Well here in the sunny south - we're a little different most of the time. 

I do agree with the point about growing administration.  There is a VP for everything now.  A school close to mine just hired a VP of Health Services for close to $100,000 a year (and no the person is not an MD).

I was just merely making that point that this is indeed a near perfect storm. 

[farm_boy]

"Keeping up with the Jonses" (i.e. making all campuses super-comfy) may ultimately lead the the destruction of "college" as we know it:

 "A Virtual Revolution Is Brewing for Colleges"

 (From the Washington Post.  OK, I'm too dumb to figure out how to make it a link, so I've pasted in the first two paragraphs):
 
 
   Sunday, September 13, 2009

Students starting school this year may be part of the last generation for which "going to college" means packing up, getting a dorm room and listening to tenured professors. Undergraduate education is on the verge of a radical reordering. Colleges, like newspapers, will be torn apart by new ways of sharing information enabled by the Internet. The business model that sustained private U.S. colleges cannot survive.

The real force for change is the market: Online classes are just cheaper to produce. Community colleges and for-profit education entrepreneurs are already experimenting with dorm-free, commute-free options. Distance-learning technology will keep improving. Innovators have yet to tap the potential of the aggregator to change the way students earn a degree, making the education business today look like the news biz circa 1999. And as major universities offer some core courses online, we'll see a cultural shift toward acceptance of what is still, in some circles, a "University of Phoenix" joke.

[al_wallace]

"Keeping up with the Jonses" (i.e. making all campuses super-comfy) may ultimately lead the the destruction of "college" as we know it:

 "A Virtual Revolution Is Brewing for Colleges"

 (From the Washington Post.  OK, I'm too dumb to figure out how to make it a link, so I've pasted in the first two paragraphs):
 
 
   Sunday, September 13, 2009

Students starting school this year may be part of the last generation for which "going to college" means packing up, getting a dorm room and listening to tenured professors. Undergraduate education is on the verge of a radical reordering. Colleges, like newspapers, will be torn apart by new ways of sharing information enabled by the Internet. The business model that sustained private U.S. colleges cannot survive.

The real force for change is the market: Online classes are just cheaper to produce. Community colleges and for-profit education entrepreneurs are already experimenting with dorm-free, commute-free options. Distance-learning technology will keep improving. Innovators have yet to tap the potential of the aggregator to change the way students earn a degree, making the education business today look like the news biz circa 1999. And as major universities offer some core courses online, we'll see a cultural shift toward acceptance of what is still, in some circles, a "University of Phoenix" joke.

They have been forecasting that online education will eclipse brick and mortar colleges for the last 15 years. I don't see it happening. Online instruction is labor intensive when it is done right (i.e. lots of emailing and blackboarding, and grading feedback and online discussions). The labor costs are about the same if not more since interacting with the same number of students online in this manner is more difficult than in person. When online education is done wrong (e.g. automated grading of fill-in-the-dots etc.), it will perpetuate "University of Phoenix" jokes for the next 50 years since it generates an inferior education.

I give reading quizzes in my class to see how students perform prior to me reviewing the material with them There performance is based only on their reading comprehension. Most of them don't understand what they have read without an interpreter. 

[al_wallace]

Although this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, so to speak, your state sounds a little atypical.  The statistics available from the US DOE indicate that from 1980 to 2001 there was an overall average 10% decrease in state funding from 46% to 36% (in current dollars), a 1.7% increase in average enrollment, and a 223% increase in revenue per student (also current dollars).  That 10% decrease in state funding seems a drop in the bucket alongside the 223% increase in revenue (other sources of revenue are relatively unchanged - about 22% sales, 18% tuition, 12% fed).  I suppose the honest question would be to ask, WTF?!?!  Where's all the money going?!  

There are a number of factors you aren't considering. 1) The increase in # of institutions, particularly private (proprietary or not) institutions that don't receive state funding; 2) The percentage increase in student revenue can be very impressive when one considers that for public schools, the baseline revenue in that period was very low. If you raise a CC's tuition from $10/credit hour to $20/credit hour, you have a 100% increase, but in real dollar figures, it's not a lot.

Since these are averages, I believe the number of institutions is accounted for, madhatter.  Here's the numbers for public schools only, so you can double-check:

year  enrollment  institutions   avg enrollment   revenue   avg revenue   revenue per student
1980  9.5 M        1497          6318                 43.2 B      28.9 M          4.6 K
2000  11.8M        1698         6922                 176.6 B     104.9 M        15.0 K

%      24%          13%          10%                  309%      261%            229%
increase

The figures for revenue are for all sources of revenue.  Tuition ranged from 13% to 18% of total revenue for that period.  That means a 100% increase in tuition would result in an approximately 18% increase in total revenue, which would leave about 211% in revenue increases unaccounted for, as an example.

So revenue includes overhead from grants, licensing from patents, and university team licensing?

[kaysixteen]

1) The link still does not allow access to the individual articles within the story, which is still a shame, sadly.

2) Does anyone really think OL education will ever get to the point, for most fields, where the average OL graduate will be considered by grad schools, employers, etc., as equal to the average brick-and-mortar one?  Are there not numerous fields for which OL education is really not acceptable at all?

3) What can be done to stop the spiralling amount of adminiscritters?  What about the spiralling amount of campus frills, etc.?

4) Is 'public higher education' really public anymore?  Do Americans really want public support for post-secondary ed?