Public Universities: Dishonesty Starts with YOU! (best, careers, salaries, major)

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by sponger42

You are correct. I only have in-depth knowledge of one specific example, but I prefer not to name the University. I then did a search for other Universities in similar situations but did not fully examine each individual case. This might be an ill-posed opinion since it may only--in actuality--apply to one specific case. However, I believe that this sort of behavior is widespread among Universities. That is a belief and not a fact.

If you only have knowledge of one situation, don't allude that this is a problem [of ethics] at other public universities. wouldn't that be unethical? Opinions and beliefs can be debated, facts cannot.

I figured that you would not name this school, that is why I asked for the state.

Originally Posted by sponger42

However, per your statement about research, donations, and grants; the specific case I have examined carefully defines a very narrow range of activities supported by student's tuition. Tuition income pays for some things, donations, grants, and other sources of income pay for other things, and the two are not mixed. So it is easy to define the shortfalls and additional expenses in the tuition-funded section. The net result is that the university in question has a ~10% increase in revenue, mostly due to a ~15% increase in tuitions.

Another poster mentioned research, donations, etc. I didn't write that.

A 10% increase in revenue does not mean a 10% increase in profit. All public universities and the majority of private ones reinvest this increased money back into the school at some point in time. My school has been increasing tuition at a rate of 2 - 3% per year since 2003. There has also been an increase in attendance of about 500 new students a year. Yes, more students means more tuition money raised for the school, but it also means more money the school will have to spend in order to accommodate the growing numbers in the student body. To make room for more students, my school had to build a new dorm, a new building to house more classrooms, has yet to, but is going to, build more parking spaces, and is going to build a larger, more modern, dining hall.

Originally Posted by sponger42

No, ethics is defined by laws and societal norms, not individual belief systems. Just because you personally believe that murder is ethical does not make it so.

Ethics is a philosophy of morality. It can be applied to either an individual or a group (work place, regional, state, country, world, etc.). Honeywell and Raytheon, for example, think that it is morally acceptable to build weapon systems for profit. Some religious followers believe that it is morally acceptable to kill another under the guise of their religion. Both go against my personal code of ethics, but it is hard, dare I say impossible, to convince someone that what they are doing is ethically wrong if that person is absolutely convinced that what they are doing is right.

A person's individual code of ethics may follow groupthink or mob mentality, but ultimately what one defines as right or wrong stems from the individual's POV on how the world, or a society, should function. You can't argue against philosophy as you will just end up going in circles.

Is it ethically wrong for a public university to raise tuition in time of recession? If they were doing it for personal gain, if the school President and/or deans were receiving large kick-backs, I would say yes. However, as someone who sits on the student government, is a member of the Student Welfare and Retention committee, and a writer for the school newspaper, I can attest that the school will argue any increase in tuition or fees will ultimately end up being used to benefit the students. Now, is that situation right or wrong?

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by city_data91

Baby boomers are already in the process of retiring and will continue to retire in large numbers, opening jobs for young people.

True, however, when the Baby Boomers came of age and entered the workforce, there was what, 100 - 150 million less people living in the United States.

[skipcromer]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

That is a really biased and arrogant stand point. Blame the students. Oh wait, the students are the customers and the college is filled with highly educated but unethical professors, advisers, and counselors trained to "help" and "guide" students. Yeah right! It's a joke on the students. They like dumb students, it makes the colleges look good.

Of course its biased, its his opinion.

[drjones96]

Originally Posted by Sandpointian

Your anger is justified but for the wrong reasons. The true cost of a public university educated is more double what you are paying. Prices are too low and quality even lower. The problem is that Americans have not fully debated the content of curriculum, which I submit to you is extremely watered-down and getting worse. Such low standards mean that worse students enter and leanr anything. Such students then resist any effort to make the curriculum rigorous.

Push for traditional grade standards; push harder and more meaningful classes; push regulatory dormitory living instead of dorm floors with concierge service! But alas, students won't, as they love the teen life too much.

S.

My first year of college I could have completed in my sleep. It took a little work to get the A's but the basic freshman classes were a joke. I did harder work in high school.

My core engineering classes were far from a joke however. I recall many sleepless nights until I graduated.

[mcb1025]

Originally Posted by drjones96

My first year of college I could have completed in my sleep. It took a little work to get the A's but the basic freshman classes were a joke. I did harder work in high school.

My core engineering classes were far from a joke however. I recall many sleepless nights until I graduated.

I think this goes for most people, but it especially depends on the quality of school you attended. My upper level Econ courses were extremely rigorous. The enormous data sets and calculus we worked with still give me nightmares.

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by sponger42

Please note that this opinion is limited to public institutions.

A large portion of major state-sponsored universities in the USA have raised tuition through the recent recession despite a decrease in overall inflation rates. Often the tuition increases are snuck over the maximum allowable by state law (for the university to continue to recieve state funding) by tacking on massive "differential fees" to yield a total increase of 5-10% in moderate cases and 20% or more in extreme cases.

Usually, these fee increases are justified by citing a shortfall in state funds, increases in general operating costs, and lots of hand waving and smoke-blowing about the "return on investment" in a college education.

While there are, indeed, shortfalls in state funding, donations, and increases in operating costs such as utilities and health care, the tuition increases usually FAR outstrip the pace of increased costs.

First, the vast majority of universities are incorporated as non-profit institutions. So any excess in funding over operating expenses is not profit, in that it is not paid out to an owner or shareholders. It is applied to the general operating fund for next year, pays down debt, whatever.

But to address your main point, I need to point out a math flaw. A minor decrease in state funding can mean a major increase in tuition, just to break even. Here is a simple example.

Lets say a university has a budget of $1 million/year. This is what they take in, and spend. There is no excess or deficit.

Lets also say that inflation is 5%, state subsidies cover 50% of operating expenses, tuition 40% of expenses, and endowments and other income 10%.

So $500,000 is covered by state subsidies. Next year, to break even, the university will need to take in $1,050,000 because of inflation.

But the state hits hard times, and cuts back spending on universities by 8%. At the same time, the stock market does poorly, so the university cannot draw as much from its endowment. Lets say that is cut in half.

So the university is now pulling in only $460,000 from the state, and $50,000 from the endowment, for a total of $510,000 from non tuition revenue. But it needs to spend $1,050,000 to break even, so it needs to bring in $540,000 from tuition.

Last year, tuition only brought in $400,000 (40% of $1million), so to break even, and take in $540,000, the university must raise tuition by 35%.

That is how minor funding decreases (8% in my example) by the state can result in huge tuition increases (35% in example) by the university.

No profiteering or dishonesty required.

[artsyguy]

Operating expenses include wages of The Presidents and Deans and everyone else who works there. If The President wants a bigger salary or more bonuses then, hey why not raise tuition and allocate more of the funds towards him and his staff. Let's be real.

Originally Posted by fishbrains

First, the vast majority of universities are incorporated as non-profit institutions. So any excess in funding over operating expenses is not profit, in that it is not paid out to an owner or shareholders. It is applied to the general operating fund for next year, pays down debt, whatever.

But to address your main point, I need to point out a math flaw. A minor decrease in state funding can mean a major increase in tuition, just to break even. Here is a simple example.

Lets say a university has a budget of $1 million/year. This is what they take in, and spend. There is no excess or deficit.

Lets also say that inflation is 5%, state subsidies cover 50% of operating expenses, tuition 40% of expenses, and endowments and other income 10%.

So $500,000 is covered by state subsidies. Next year, to break even, the university will need to take in $1,050,000 because of inflation.

But the state hits hard times, and cuts back spending on universities by 8%. At the same time, the stock market does poorly, so the university cannot draw as much from its endowment. Lets say that is cut in half.

So the university is now pulling in only $460,000 from the state, and $50,000 from the endowment, for a total of $510,000 from non tuition revenue. But it needs to spend $1,050,000 to break even, so it needs to bring in $540,000 from tuition.

Last year, tuition only brought in $400,000 (40% of $1million), so to break even, and take in $540,000, the university must raise tuition by 35%.

That is how minor funding decreases (8% in my example) by the state can result in huge tuition increases (35% in example) by the university.

No profiteering or dishonesty required.

[artsyguy]

What is the point of going to a college that gives you nightmares? That is just unreasonable.

Originally Posted by mcb1025

I think this goes for most people, but it especially depends on the quality of school you attended. My upper level Econ courses were extremely rigorous. The enormous data sets and calculus we worked with still give me nightmares.

[artsyguy]

What is your point??? If people or an individual are being harmed in some way then obviously it is unethical. Ethics involves a lot of critical thinking, care, and consideration on short-term and long-term consequences. It involves consideration of both the individual and the group(s) involved in the dilemma. Current law also plays a role in ethics.

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Ethics is a philosophy of morality. It can be applied to either an individual or a group (work place, regional, state, country, world, etc.). Honeywell and Raytheon, for example, think that it is morally acceptable to build weapon systems for profit. Some religious followers believe that it is morally acceptable to kill another under the guise of their religion. Both go against my personal code of ethics, but it is hard, dare I say impossible, to convince someone that what they are doing is ethically wrong if that person is absolutely convinced that what they are doing is right.

A person's individual code of ethics may follow groupthink or mob mentality, but ultimately what one defines as right or wrong stems from the individual's POV on how the world, or a society, should function. You can't argue against philosophy as you will just end up going in circles.

Is it ethically wrong for a public university to raise tuition in time of recession? If they were doing it for personal gain, if the school President and/or deans were receiving large kick-backs, I would say yes. However, as someone who sits on the student government, is a member of the Student Welfare and Retention committee, and a writer for the school newspaper, I can attest that the school will argue any increase in tuition or fees will ultimately end up being used to benefit the students. Now, is that situation right or wrong?

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

Operating expenses include wages of The Presidents and Deans and everyone else who works there. If The President wants a bigger salary or more bonuses then, hey why not raise tuition and allocate more of the funds towards him and his staff. Let's be real.

The president of a college does not decide how much to pay him or herself. That decision is made by the college's Board of Directors. Also, the president, nor deans, have the authority or power to raise tuition.

Originally Posted by artsyguy

What is your point??? If people or an individual are being harmed in some way then obviously it is unethical. Ethics involves a lot of critical thinking, care, and consideration on short-term and long-term consequences. It involves consideration of both the individual and the group(s) involved in the dilemma. Current law also plays a role in ethics.

My point is that ethics is largely up to the individual and is generally governed by that particular person's worldview. Argue against it all you want, but it is true. This subject is too deep and off topic to be debated in this forum.