next »

[mad_doctor]

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

They don't always get that specific, Al, but it looks to me that they include everything in revenue, just not in the categories we want.  When working w/ DOE stats, you have to accept what they offer and make the best of it.  Here's the breakdown they offer: 18% tuition and fees, 11% federal, 36% state, 4% local, 5% private gifts, grants, and contracts, 1% endowment income, 22% sales and services, and 4% other.  Within the federal, state, and local categories they break it down by appropriations, unrestricted grants and contracts, and restricted grants and contracts, for starters.  There's more, but they don't report on most details the way we would like them to.  Even so, there's enough info to get the big picture on the money trail.

[henry_adams]

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?

I've taken an OL class, and I've designed and taught several, but my experiences were very disappointing.  OL can support ordinary classes--I use it that way--but a degree that's only OL?  No.   

[mad_doctor]

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.?

The cynic in me believes that these trends will continue, simply because there are no incentives to prevent them.   Professors are held accountable for quality by their peers, but administrators neither get rewarded for quality, nor penalized for lack of it.  Furthermore, they have no incentive to manage the size of the administrative functions of the university like there is in a real business.  I suppose an uprising on the part of employers might catch their attention and force them to pay attention to quality, but the more likely course of action will be either to outsource or hire better-educated foreigners.  Now, if we were really serious about running a university like a business, we would do something like, pay the admins $25K base salary, and give them a performance bonus for every percentile ranking higher the graduations seniors are above the level when they entered college.  It's all about the incentives that are in place - there's the cynic in me, and that's why I believe these trends will continue.

[t_r_b]

Now, if we were really serious about running a university like a business, we would do something like, pay the admins $25K base salary, and give them a performance bonus for every percentile ranking higher the graduations seniors are above the level when they entered college.  

Which would be a lovely way to ensure that admins penalize faculty who fail to teach to whichever flavor of test they use to rank the graduates.

The trouble is not just with the sheer number of admins, but also with the general incompetence of many of them. Some got their jobs because they were married to a valued (or well-connected) faculty member. Others got their jobs because no one else wanted them. And they end up drawing a salary without contributing much value to the university. My favorites are the ones whose sole purpose appears to be scolding faculty for spending money.

[der_gadfly]

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

The cynic in me believes that these trends will continue, simply because there are no incentives to prevent them.   Professors are held accountable for quality by their peers, but administrators neither get rewarded for quality, nor penalized for lack of it.  (snip)

I agree that it may appear that administrators are not accountable for meeting quality or other standards, but in reality, this is not always the case. Some are placed in rather untenable situations. 'Build this program with no money, not even a scant penny to purchase coffee for your team meetings' was one of my personal favorites. And another, 'get this project completed, make everyone participate, yet noone actually reports to or is accountable to you. You are responsible for making the senior staff do this work, even though they far outrank you and because of their position in the food chain, can get away with ignoring you completely, all with complete impunity. Should this happen, it is your fault and you will be terminated.'

[mad_doctor]

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

The cynic in me believes that these trends will continue, simply because there are no incentives to prevent them.   Professors are held accountable for quality by their peers, but administrators neither get rewarded for quality, nor penalized for lack of it.  (snip)

I agree that it may appear that administrators are not accountable for meeting quality or other standards, but in reality, this is not always the case. Some are placed in rather untenable situations. 'Build this program with no money, not even a scant penny to purchase coffee for your team meetings' was one of my personal favorites. And another, 'get this project completed, make everyone participate, yet noone actually reports to or is accountable to you. You are responsible for making the senior staff do this work, even though they far outrank you and because of their position in the food chain, can get away with ignoring you completely, all with complete impunity. Should this happen, it is your fault and you will be terminated.'

Fair enough...  this happens sometimes.  I'd like to point out that anyone who is being held accountable for the quality of such a program/ project is going to allocate resources to develop it.  In other words, if they're not willing to allocate resources to build it, then they're probably being held accountable for something other than quality - perhaps enrollments, number of programs, money, because their "competition" has one, etc.  So, to your point about the poor bastard who has to carry the water uphill on something like this...  hu's probably not being held accountable for quality either.  All hu's thinking about is getting something in place - anything, it doesn't matter if it's staffed with adjuncts and instructors, anything will do - hu's just trying to save hu's job and doesn't give a d@mn about quality.

BTW, I believe that ignoring administrators cannot be done with impunity, since they will argue that it's insubordination, and insubordination is "cause".  What usually happens is the faculty will do what the admin tells them to do, the program fails because it was a stupid idea in the first place, then the admin blames the failure on the faculty - the faculty ignored me, the faculty are self-serving and disloyal, the faculty intentionally sabotaged it, and so on...

[der_gadfly]

Fair enough...  this happens sometimes.  I'd like to point out that anyone who is being held accountable for the quality of such a program/ project is going to allocate resources to develop it.  In other words, if they're not willing to allocate resources to build it, then they're probably being held accountable for something other than quality - perhaps enrollments, number of programs, money, because their "competition" has one, etc.  So, to your point about the poor bastard who has to carry the water uphill on something like this...  hu's probably not being held accountable for quality either.  All hu's thinking about is getting something in place - anything, it doesn't matter if it's staffed with adjuncts and instructors, anything will do - hu's just trying to save hu's job and doesn't give a d@mn about quality.

BTW, I believe that ignoring administrators cannot be done with impunity, since they will argue that it's insubordination, and insubordination is "cause".  What usually happens is the faculty will do what the admin tells them to do, the program fails because it was a stupid idea in the first place, then the admin blames the failure on the faculty - the faculty ignored me, the faculty are self-serving and disloyal, the faculty intentionally sabotaged it, and so on...

True, to a degree: but to be given a task, and no resources to support it by the higher level administrators places our low-level-administrator in quite a jam. Given no resources, it becomes a moot point about allocating resources. "Fetch me a Shrubbery!"

I do not believe that anyone goes to work each with the goal of attaining mediocrity.... each of us honestly tries to do our best, given our circumstances.

[mad_doctor]

I do not believe that anyone goes to work each with the goal of attaining mediocrity....

Of course, nobody goes to work calling it that.

each of us honestly tries to do our best, given our circumstances.

Well, maybe they do and maybe they don't.  I have met many who, if they were giving us their best, must not have been a very high-quality person to begin with.  I have met few who would place the university's interests above their own.

[mad_doctor]

True, to a degree: but to be given a task, and no resources to support it by the higher level administrators places our low-level-administrator in quite a jam. Given no resources, it becomes a moot point about allocating resources. "Fetch me a Shrubbery!"

To clarify my intent, I was referring to the higher-level admins who would drop a project like this on their lower-level subordinate.  The higher-ups are clearly not concerned about quality in such a case, and our poor lower-level admin must adopt their priorities as a matter of practicality, as you point out.  It makes lower-level hu a little more sympathetic, but just as unable to prioritize quality as if hu weren't.

[renji]

I have a few thoughts on this.

First state schools are not expensive, they are incredible bargains.

1) You can improve your lifetime earning potential by about a million dollars
2) College graduates are less likely to be unemployed (even in today's recession)
3) College graduates live longer

Not only that, but you make lifelong friends and likely find your first spouse.

All this for somewhere between $40,000 and $60,000

People go to college, to learn, but also to discover themselves and for the social activities, (e.g., the big game on Saturday or Green Day playing in the student center) so online colleges will never replace brick and mortar colleges. It is like saying that fortified seaweed will replace steaks. The sea weed my provide the nutrients, but they don't have the sizzle.

Another benefit of college is that you get  to interact with some of the brightest people on the planet.

For less than half of what I charge companies for a single day, my students get 26-30 hours of group instruction plus one-on-one access (via office hours) and 24/7 support via email.

Yes, $1000+ a month sounds like a lot of money, but compared to how much it costs not to attend college, it is a bargain.

Now, my son's college costs about $42,000 a year. I have a harder time calling that a bargain.

[airball]

I agree a lot of it is the technology. When I was in college, the university had to replace computers once every...well, never. And the library's catalog was on 3x5 cards. And if you wanted a journal article you had to go to the library and get it, but there were no on-line databases to find the article, so good luck there.

And if anyone wants to go back to that way of doing things, knock yourself out.

A lot of it is also student- and parent-driven. You want a campus cop on every corner? Emergency Call Boxes every 100 yards? Escorts to walk students to and from the library? A shuttle to take them to and from the subway/mall/grocery store? An internet connection in every dorm room? Wireless networks everywhere?

You got it. Now pay for it.

No student or parent wants to go to school in 1980, but that's what they want to pay for.

[kaysixteen]

It is all well and good to note that there is much more technology, demand for more and better 'student services', dorm and food facilities, etc., than there was in 1980, but this does not explain why college costs have been rising so much more than inflation.  Many things are actually more affordable now, in real dollars, than they were in 1980, and college teachers' compensation is certainly not at a par with what it was, taken as a whole, in 1980.  So why is it that colleges are so much, ahem, less efficient in spending practices than almost any other 'industry'?

[sibyl]

Professors neither get rewarded for quality, nor penalized for lack of it.  Furthermore, they have no incentive to manage the teaching functions of the university as in a real business.  I suppose an uprising on the part of employers might catch their attention and force them to pay attention to quality, but the more likely course of action will be either to outsource or hire better-educated foreigners.  Now, if we were really serious about running a university like a business, we would do something like, pay the faculty $25K base salary, and give them a performance bonus for every percentile ranking higher the graduations seniors are above the level when they entered college.  It's all about the incentives that are in place.

The trouble is not just with the sheer number of faculty, but also with the general incompetence of many of them. Once they get tenure, they end up drawing a salary without contributing much value to the university.

I think I speak for everyone when I say such statements about the faculty are outrageous and ought not to be allowed to stand.

I don't know how many people I speak for when I say, They also ought not stand if they refer to administrators and not faculty.  But I mean it: partly because it's rude, partly because it's not universally accurate, but mostly because it's unhelpful.

Over the last 100 years or so, all the changes in higher education can be boiled down to this:

1.  Colleges do more things than they used to do.
2.  Faculty do fewer of those things, but do them much better.

Colleges offer more majors and provide facilities to allow students to do more advanced work than their great-grandfathers did in 1900.  They also offer more extracurricular activities, more spectacles for the public (i.e. sports and arts), and more courses to a broader cross-section of the public.  They take in more public financial aid and more research funds, handle an exploding list of regulatory demands, and contribute more to society.

Most college faculty in 1900 were recent alumni, taking the work for a couple of years before moving on.  In addition to teaching (mostly by recitation), they also handled student discipline, lived in residence, and were paid much less.  Today's full-time faculty have professional preparation, teach and research at a high level, and are paid like professionals.  

How is it possible for the faculty to handle those expanded roles?  Obviously, the answer is they don't:  there are plenty of administrators to make it possible, by handling the discipline and residence functions, creating athletics and activities departments, handling legal matters, soliciting funds, paying employment taxes, and handling money.  You can't just say that high costs are a function of administration; while administrative growth contributes to high costs, there are too many sins to be covered solely by administrators.

Higher ed is a non-profit industry and so it doesn't have the same incentives for controlling costs that businesses do.  And because it has shared governance, it doesn't have the same structures that make cost-controlling easy.

Those readers who actually make it through to the real articles know that one of the articles talks precisely about accountability and about the need to improve accountability in the university.  But it seeks accountability mostly for faculty, and mostly at the program level: cut off academic programs that aren't directly tied to mission and/or that aren't working well.  Academia, as an industry, does this very badly.

Another article suggests that we might pay professors known for teaching according to the number of students in their courses.  It's ridiculous -- but his real point, it seems to me, is that there are no standards now for evaluating faculty on their teaching, and connecting pay to enrollments is a place to start.

A third article calls for institutions to place social responsibility (serving first-generation students, displaced workers, and veterans) ahead of "rankings" and "excellence" as their organizing principle; that will help us to control costs and place resources where they belong.

It's a complex problem and I'd like nothing better than a good discussion of the serious problems raised.  Bashing anyone isn't going to get there.

[madhatter]

Bravo, Sibyl.

[mad_doctor]

Professors neither get rewarded for quality, nor penalized for lack of it.  Furthermore, they have no incentive to manage the teaching functions of the university as in a real business.  I suppose an uprising on the part of employers might catch their attention and force them to pay attention to quality, but the more likely course of action will be either to outsource or hire better-educated foreigners.  Now, if we were really serious about running a university like a business, we would do something like, pay the faculty $25K base salary, and give them a performance bonus for every percentile ranking higher the graduations seniors are above the level when they entered college.  It's all about the incentives that are in place.

The trouble is not just with the sheer number of faculty, but also with the general incompetence of many of them. Once they get tenure, they end up drawing a salary without contributing much value to the university.

I think I speak for everyone when I say such statements about the faculty are outrageous and ought not to be allowed to stand.

I don't know how many people I speak for when I say, They also ought not stand if they refer to administrators and not faculty.  But I mean it: partly because it's rude, partly because it's not universally accurate, but mostly because it's unhelpful.

Alright, then, defend yourself.  We have put a lot of facts in this thread.  What facts are you putting forth to defend your words?  Are you prepared to support a 229% increase in average revenue per student?  Are you prepared to show us how we're wrong about misaligned incentives?  These are facts - Where's the money going?  Why is quality suffering with such great revenues?  It seems to me if that 229% increase in revenue and all those great things being done by admins you cite are in fact supporting quality, then our graduates should be the best in the world instead of second-rate.  Why has American higher ed declined for 40 years while costs increase out of control?

I think there's a fallacy out there that prevents meaningful dialogue on the subject - we are all trained to believe that when two sides of a debate are in dispute, that the truth must be a fair compromise between the two.  This is not only a false assumption, but it's a dangerous one to make.  Sometimes one side of a dispute is right and the other is wrong, and any compromise only serves to weaken the position of the "right" party and strengthen the position of the "wrong" party.  Game Theorists can demonstrate that such a dispute with rules of "compromise" strongly favors the wrong party, since wrong parties have nothing to lose by defending themselves, and stand only to gain when compromises are made.  "Right" parties are forced to win every single skirmish in order to preserve what is right, since any losses result in an incremental weakening of their position over time.

For my part, I'm not ready to accept the notion that faculty either share an equal portion of the fault or play a major role in this problem.  Everywhere I have ever worked, and in 9 out of 10 places my Ph.D. cohort went to work out of grad school, professors are working harder than ever, being more productive than their predecessors in previous generations (by the admission of their predecessors), while getting kneecapped by admins who seem more concerned about headcounts and revenues rather than quality.  The one "good" Dean I had who actually produced measurable increases in quality wasn't able to keep his own job because he wasn't willing to pull the rug out from under faculty.  The VPAA made sure his successor didn't have a "problem" with that.

BTW, you talk about accountability and quality for faculty - are you suggesting that faculty aren't holding each other accountable in the tenure and promotion process, and somebody else would do it better?  Who, praytell, is more qualified to evaluate an expert in their field if not the other experts in the field?  Sure, a few professors fall through the cracks who should never have been tenured in the first place, but when you compare that number to the number of deadbeats on the job in industry who never should have been hired, I'll put my faith in the tenure and promotion process to keep the good and weed out the bad.

So, I'm open to hear you, sibyl, but you're going to have to put some points on the board first.