• Monday, February 20, 2012
February 20, 2012, 05:37:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with your Chronicle username and password
News: Talk about how to cope with chronic illness, disability, and other health issues in the academic workplace.
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why does college cost so much?  (Read 7082 times)
mad_doctor
1337
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 2,579


« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2009, 01:06:42 PM »

I see you found a technicality
that addresses our interthreaduality.
Will notaprof say
you're welcome to play
your little game at another locality?
Logged
jackofallchem
Senior member
****
Posts: 554


« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2009, 09:18:46 AM »

No one seems to be really looking at why college costs are increasing as fast as they are.  At least, no one seems to be willing to admit exactly why. 

I am frustrated that no one will explain to me what is causing our costs to increase as fast as they are.  I have access to what budget information my administration will give me, and this is what I see:

•Faculty and academic staff compensation has gone up by 4%/year for the last 10 years
•Non-compensation Academic spending (supplies and equipment) has been flat for 10 years.  This includes projectors, computers, and all the academic technology.
•The university's budget has increased by 9%/year for the last 10 years
•Administrative-staff compensation is only 2/3 that of academic-staff compensation(total), but that budget item increases by a larger absolute number than the total academic staff compensation every year.  Despite this, the administration insists that they are only getting the same 4% raises that the academic wing is.
•No one can tell me what parts of the budget are increasing by 12-15% every year.  Since academic costs are increasing by less than 4%/year at it is ~40% of the budget, something else must be increasing by much more than 4% to average 9%.  I have been told that is not the case. 
•Our health insurance costs have been flat or declined each year for the last 4 years.

From this, I can determine what is NOT causing the rapid increase in costs.
• It is not faculty raises (duh!)
• It is not our health insurance (our admins love to blame that for the increases)
• It is not instructional technology.  Yes, it is getting more advanced, but it is also getting cheaper.
• It is not academic supplies
• It is not utilities.  Yes, utility costs are going up, but when I checked the rates, they are under 5%/year.

Therefore, these costs must be outside the academic area completely.  These costs have nothing to do with delivering the 'academic product'.

The other faculty are not helpful and in fact get mad if I ask what is causing the costs to go up so rapidly.  I think if people really knew what was causing the increase, they would be highly upset (if not, why keep it such a secret).

"Yes", you might say, "we all know that it is caused by increasing the luxury services demanded by today's students".  But how much is it costing EXACTLY?  And how much is actually due to an increase in the administrative salaries and/or staffing?  Until we know exactly what is causing the increase and by how much, not  much will be done to stop it.

 

Logged

Anything you do not understand is magic.
aandsdean
I feel affirmed that I'm truly a 6,000+ post
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 6,412

Positively impactful on stakeholder synergies


« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2009, 09:44:54 AM »

No one seems to be really looking at why college costs are increasing as fast as they are.  At least, no one seems to be willing to admit exactly why. 

I am frustrated that no one will explain to me what is causing our costs to increase as fast as they are.  I have access to what budget information my administration will give me, and this is what I see:

•Faculty and academic staff compensation has gone up by 4%/year for the last 10 years
•Non-compensation Academic spending (supplies and equipment) has been flat for 10 years.  This includes projectors, computers, and all the academic technology.
•The university's budget has increased by 9%/year for the last 10 years
•Administrative-staff compensation is only 2/3 that of academic-staff compensation(total), but that budget item increases by a larger absolute number than the total academic staff compensation every year.  Despite this, the administration insists that they are only getting the same 4% raises that the academic wing is.
•No one can tell me what parts of the budget are increasing by 12-15% every year.  Since academic costs are increasing by less than 4%/year at it is ~40% of the budget, something else must be increasing by much more than 4% to average 9%.  I have been told that is not the case. 
•Our health insurance costs have been flat or declined each year for the last 4 years.

From this, I can determine what is NOT causing the rapid increase in costs.
• It is not faculty raises (duh!)
• It is not our health insurance (our admins love to blame that for the increases)
• It is not instructional technology.  Yes, it is getting more advanced, but it is also getting cheaper.
• It is not academic supplies
• It is not utilities.  Yes, utility costs are going up, but when I checked the rates, they are under 5%/year.

Therefore, these costs must be outside the academic area completely.  These costs have nothing to do with delivering the 'academic product'.

The other faculty are not helpful and in fact get mad if I ask what is causing the costs to go up so rapidly.  I think if people really knew what was causing the increase, they would be highly upset (if not, why keep it such a secret).

"Yes", you might say, "we all know that it is caused by increasing the luxury services demanded by today's students".  But how much is it costing EXACTLY?  And how much is actually due to an increase in the administrative salaries and/or staffing?  Until we know exactly what is causing the increase and by how much, not  much will be done to stop it.


Financial aid.  See if you can get someone to tell you what your discount-rate trend has been for the past 10 years or so.  At a lot of places it's gone from, say, 30% to perhaps 50% during that time.  Factoring that in, the net expenses for students, compensating for inflation, have quite likely not gone up that much at all.

It's hard to figure out how to manage that problem, however.  If you're a private and you lower your tuition and your discount rate at the same time, people will think you're in trouble, and potential and current students will be mad even if there's no net change in their costs. 

If you're a public, just wait to see what's going to happen.  As tuition rates go up to compensate for reduced state subsidies, these institutions are going to begin to look a great deal more like privates than they do now.  My institution gets on the order of 15% of its operating budget from the endowment--quite a few state institutions are getting pretty close to this figure from state appropriations, so the superficial cost differentials are going to narrow considerably.  In some states (e.g., Georgia), the publics can only award funded scholarships, not tuition discount.  There will be some trouble there.

I'd also qualify your comments on academic technology.  Yes, it's getting cheaper, but the demand for it, in terms of quantity, support, and upgrading, is getting bigger.  I'd have to look at the budget, but our costs have gone up quite a lot in the past 10 years even as equipment has gotten less expensive.  For example, we've given students laptops for about 10 years--at the beginning of that time, our spec for them led to costs of abotu $2,000 per unit, while now they cost around $900 each (2-year replacement cycle).  The entire difference, though, is absorbed by things like enhanced support services, replacing astoundingly expensive bulbs in classroom projectors, ensuring that the network reaches reliably into every corner of campus, etc.

Liability insurance has increased tremendously.

Travel costs have gone up radically.

But most of it is financial aid.  Believe me, I know.
Logged

Wearing a black armband for Lucy
wareagle
Wicked Witch of the West and
Senior member
****
Posts: 479

I'll get you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!


« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2009, 11:41:54 AM »

At my institution, athletics is the black hole that sucks every available dollar (today's and tomorrow's) from more suitable purposes.

Is anyone's athletic budget decreasing? 
Logged

Where's the Field of Poppies when you need it!??
aandsdean
I feel affirmed that I'm truly a 6,000+ post
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 6,412

Positively impactful on stakeholder synergies


« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2009, 03:17:31 PM »

At my institution, athletics is the black hole that sucks every available dollar (today's and tomorrow's) from more suitable purposes.

Is anyone's athletic budget decreasing? 

Yes.  But we're DIII, which makes a huge difference.
Logged

Wearing a black armband for Lucy
wareagle
Wicked Witch of the West and
Senior member
****
Posts: 479

I'll get you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!


« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2009, 03:51:13 PM »

At my institution, athletics is the black hole that sucks every available dollar (today's and tomorrow's) from more suitable purposes.

Is anyone's athletic budget decreasing? 

Yes.  But we're DIII, which makes a huge difference.

So are we.  But our admin seems to think we should be adding more sports as a recruiting tool.  Over a third of our students are athletes, and every single one of them is on some kind of scholarship.  I don't even want to think how much money that's costing.
Logged

Where's the Field of Poppies when you need it!??
wareagle
Wicked Witch of the West and
Senior member
****
Posts: 479

I'll get you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!


« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2009, 04:53:00 PM »

Okay, I am going to try to insert a link here:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/30/ucsports

Hope it works. 

Here's where at least some of the money goes.
Logged

Where's the Field of Poppies when you need it!??
aandsdean
I feel affirmed that I'm truly a 6,000+ post
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 6,412

Positively impactful on stakeholder synergies


« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2009, 05:10:34 PM »

At my institution, athletics is the black hole that sucks every available dollar (today's and tomorrow's) from more suitable purposes.

Is anyone's athletic budget decreasing? 

Yes.  But we're DIII, which makes a huge difference.

So are we.  But our admin seems to think we should be adding more sports as a recruiting tool.  Over a third of our students are athletes, and every single one of them is on some kind of scholarship.  I don't even want to think how much money that's costing.

Technically, in DIII there are not supposed to be athletic scholarships.  Students are supposed to receive exactly the same aid as they would as non-athletes (whatever need-based and academic scholarships they'd be eligible for anyway).

If that's not how it's working at your place you're in violation. 

We spend a fair amount of money on athletics, but actually more than half of our students are athletes, so it makes some sense.  We have this discussion sometimes, but it's pretty clear that a large portion of our students come here for athletics, and we're pretty sure a lot of them would go somewhere else if we didn't have such a good program (our hoops team is nationally competitive almost every year and our football team is at least decent)...

And again, adding sports may actually serve as a recruiting tool.  At my last school (NAIA, or No Athletic Integrity at All) we added sports and indeed did get commensurate increases in enrollment.  Every time we looked at doing it, we did an analysis to ensure it would be net-revenue positive, and it was.
Logged

Wearing a black armband for Lucy
wareagle
Wicked Witch of the West and
Senior member
****
Posts: 479

I'll get you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!


« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2009, 05:22:12 PM »

At my institution, athletics is the black hole that sucks every available dollar (today's and tomorrow's) from more suitable purposes.

Is anyone's athletic budget decreasing? 

Yes.  But we're DIII, which makes a huge difference.

So are we.  But our admin seems to think we should be adding more sports as a recruiting tool.  Over a third of our students are athletes, and every single one of them is on some kind of scholarship.  I don't even want to think how much money that's costing.

Technically, in DIII there are not supposed to be athletic scholarships.  Students are supposed to receive exactly the same aid as they would as non-athletes (whatever need-based and academic scholarships they'd be eligible for anyway).

If that's not how it's working at your place you're in violation. 

We spend a fair amount of money on athletics, but actually more than half of our students are athletes, so it makes some sense.  We have this discussion sometimes, but it's pretty clear that a large portion of our students come here for athletics, and we're pretty sure a lot of them would go somewhere else if we didn't have such a good program (our hoops team is nationally competitive almost every year and our football team is at least decent)...

And again, adding sports may actually serve as a recruiting tool.  At my last school (NAIA, or No Athletic Integrity at All) we added sports and indeed did get commensurate increases in enrollment.  Every time we looked at doing it, we did an analysis to ensure it would be net-revenue positive, and it was.

Well, I suspect we remain within the letter of the law on the scholarships, although very few are based on academic ability.  And many consist of tuition waivers, rather than scholarships, so I mis-spoke earlier.  I'm not sure tuition waivers are viewed in the same light as scholarships - I'm not that familiar with the athletic regs.

Logged

Where's the Field of Poppies when you need it!??
aandsdean
I feel affirmed that I'm truly a 6,000+ post
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 6,412

Positively impactful on stakeholder synergies


« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2009, 05:32:28 PM »

At my institution, athletics is the black hole that sucks every available dollar (today's and tomorrow's) from more suitable purposes.

Is anyone's athletic budget decreasing? 

Yes.  But we're DIII, which makes a huge difference.

So are we.  But our admin seems to think we should be adding more sports as a recruiting tool.  Over a third of our students are athletes, and every single one of them is on some kind of scholarship.  I don't even want to think how much money that's costing.

Technically, in DIII there are not supposed to be athletic scholarships.  Students are supposed to receive exactly the same aid as they would as non-athletes (whatever need-based and academic scholarships they'd be eligible for anyway).

If that's not how it's working at your place you're in violation. 

We spend a fair amount of money on athletics, but actually more than half of our students are athletes, so it makes some sense.  We have this discussion sometimes, but it's pretty clear that a large portion of our students come here for athletics, and we're pretty sure a lot of them would go somewhere else if we didn't have such a good program (our hoops team is nationally competitive almost every year and our football team is at least decent)...

And again, adding sports may actually serve as a recruiting tool.  At my last school (NAIA, or No Athletic Integrity at All) we added sports and indeed did get commensurate increases in enrollment.  Every time we looked at doing it, we did an analysis to ensure it would be net-revenue positive, and it was.

Well, I suspect we remain within the letter of the law on the scholarships, although very few are based on academic ability.  And many consist of tuition waivers, rather than scholarships, so I mis-spoke earlier.  I'm not sure tuition waivers are viewed in the same light as scholarships - I'm not that familiar with the athletic regs.

Waivers count as scholarships. 

For the rest of it, students are supposed to receive financial aid based on the same system as the overall student body--need, merit, whatever.  If they're not, and the NCAA audits it, it's bad news.  Generally in DIII it's the conferences that are self-policing; because there's not huge bowl money, etc., at stake, it's a lot more about the conference's overall reputation for integrity.

There are one or two schools in my institution's conference that are slightly roguish, and the other schools watch them with great care.  The whistle would be blown if it got out of had.
Logged

Wearing a black armband for Lucy
magistra
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 6,488

discolor unde auri per ramos aura refulsit.


« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2009, 02:02:23 PM »

And don't forget that the states are getting stingier -- many schools can't count on the same support they had 20 years ago.

Here's a timely article on public universities and funding:

At Public Universities: Less for More
Logged

First it was Wolfram and Hart, now it's Blackboard.  There's not much moral difference, if you ask me. -- Malcha

Grammar is the chocolate in the buttery croissant of life.  -- Yellowtractor

Okay, so that was petty.  Today, I feel like embracing pettiness.  -- Mended Drum
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!