Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today colleges have more administrators than professors. This blob of mostly unproductive paper shufflers adds little to the teaching and a lot to cost. They should do to colleges like they did to health insurance companies: limit administrative costs to 10% of the total. That would get rid of most of them.
Right problem, wrong analysis.
What many colleges that are top-heavy with administrators are doing is "running the place like a business." Just as we now have a national administration that's running the country like a business (to absolutely disastrous effect), running universities as a for-profit competitive business is an incredibly counterproductive tack. It turns students into little more than commodities, to mine for as much money as possible, without any real consideration of the consequences for them, or overall... not unlike pretty much all other consumers.
People with resources pay for their children to attend school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Do you have an actual point?
Rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Do you have an actual point?
Rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Do you have an actual point?
Rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
Rich people CAN get loans to pay for school. Poor people CAN'T get loans. Poor people have to get a job to pay for their rent, car, insurance, food, medical, education, etc. These low paying jobs don't even cover rent, let alone luxuries like food and education. Rich people say that education is "not that expensive". That is because rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
The tuition increase paralleled to a tee, the amount of government loan money available to borrow. Period.
Starting in the late 1970's tons of loan money suddenly became available. That, and college tuition increased like a wet snowball rolling down a hill. I have posted before, here, the tuition at a school I attended between 1977 and 1981, and importantly, the amount of loan money suddenly available, not to mention, the ten years previous to 1977, where the tuition was essentially static. My tuition went from $710/yr to $5400/yr, all in 4 years! Loan money available to me (same loan app basis, same loan officer, same everything) went from $450 to $4000 during that same period. You got the college degree. Lick that pencil and draw the graph (5th grade stuff here).
So...want affordable tuition? Get the government out of the student loan business. Tuition will go down 90%.
Interestingly, perfessors get paid about the same as they did before the tuition increase 40 years ago! So where exactly is all that money going? I think I know. [Hint: It's more than 2 dots to connect, it's more like 4 or 5, and yes...it's sorta circular]
Last edited by TwinbrookNine; 01-14-2018 at 12:25 PM..
What many colleges that are top-heavy with administrators are doing is "running the place like a business." Just as we now have a national administration that's running the country like a business (to absolutely disastrous effect), running universities as a for-profit competitive business is an incredibly counterproductive tack. It turns students into little more than commodities, to mine for as much money as possible, without any real consideration of the consequences for them, or overall... not unlike pretty much all other consumers.
How does any of it effect costs, though? "Top heavy with administrators" and "like a business" don't belong in the same sentence unless there's a not between them somewhere.
The tax bill has a provision that charitable organizations that pay people more that $1 million will lose the their tax exempt status. Maybe that applies to colleges and if it does it will help.
The tuition increase paralleled to a tee, the amount of government loan money available to borrow. Period.
Starting in the late 1970's tons of loan money suddenly became available. That, and college tuition increased like a wet snowball rolling down a hill. I have posted before, here, the tuition at a school I attended between 1977 and 1981, and importantly, the amount of loan money suddenly available, not to mention, the ten years previous to 1977, where the tuition was essentially static. My tuition went from $710/yr to $5400/yr, all in 4 years! Loan money available to me (same loan app basis, same loan officer, same everything) went from $450 to $4000 during that same period. You got the college degree. Lick that pencil and draw the graph (5th grade stuff here).
So...want affordable tuition? Get the government out of the student loan business. Tuition will go down 90%.
Interestingly, perfessors get paid about the same as they did before the tuition increase 40 years ago! So where exactly is all that money going? I think I know. [Hint: It's more than 2 dots to connect, it's more like 4 or 5, and yes...it's sorta circular]
This is probably correct. Unfortunately, it will also take us back in time to when only the wealthy could afford college.
As someone has already pointed out, the running of colleges like business has resulted in bloated administrative costs and reduced investment in education, which is then funded by student loans. With the good, came the bad. There are few good options at this point.
How does any of it effect costs, though? "Top heavy with administrators" and "like a business" don't belong in the same sentence unless there's a not between them somewhere.
Sorry, I should have included that sentence or two.
Colleges have increasingly become profit-driven entities even if their charter or organization piously states otherwise. A good part of the administrative overhead has come from expanding "business" staffing that manages all the aspects central to for-profit business but should be a trivial task for a truly ed/student-centric institution. If you are going to run major marketing, recruiting, infrastructure and other efforts (not to mention the huge admin requirements of a multi-million-dollar sports program)... you're going to need all that business-level staffing and support.
(The solution being to get colleges the frack out of "business.")
Of course, the other thing driving the administrator expansion is the endlessly increasing demands for government compliance with things like Title IX, equal opportunity, etc. - you takes their money, you generates their reams of reports. I'm a little more familiar with this at the public school level, where a very capable and dedicated district administrator of my acquaintance was absolutely overwhelmed by reporting requirements, and had to endlessly justify a staff of five who did nothing else. From what I know of colleges these days, it's the same or worse - on top of riding that line between public institution and corporation.
This is probably correct. Unfortunately, it will also take us back in time to when only the wealthy could afford college.
Community support of higher education is an almost unqualified positive. Anyone who wants secondary education and qualifies for it should be able to get it, regardless of economic status.
Which is why I maintain that easy gummint money alone is not the cause of grossly inflating college costs. It's certainly the fuel for that fire... but the real problem lies elsewhere. (Where? Largely in this stupid cycle we've allowed to evolve where head janitors need a four-year degree to get hired. Maybe some segment of degrees has always been something of a job ticket, especially for fields that require intense education and training... but the current idea that you can't hire a junior anything without him/her waving a fairly worthless - but probably insanely expensive - piece of parchment is just arrogance and ingrained laziness.)
Rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
Rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
Rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
When you phrase that in the passive voice instead of the active voice, you imply someone is taking care of them. Of course, that isn't true.
The following might be what you meant:
"People who have high incomes resulting from adding value to their employers can choose to pay their own expenses; and people who have high wealth resulting from disciplined investment in the past can choose to pay their own expenses."
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedgoats4sale
poor people have to get a job to pay for their rent, car, insurance, food, medical, education, etc.
Just like everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usedgoats4sale
That is because rich people have most of their expenses taken care of.
No one takes care of rich people's expenses but themselves.
Now, poor people, on the other hand, get deeply discounted or free tuition to many legitimate academic institutions.
Bloated administrative costs flow from governmental requirements placed upon colleges & universities.
Not entirely. The aggressive consumer-goods-seller mentality has a lot to do with it as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
