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.
25 billion and they can't re-distribute a measly 5-10 billion to those who crave a Harvard education?
Greedy hypocrites
Harvard does provide funding to many of it's students. Especially those in need.
I don't know much about Harvard's budget... but with a $25 billion endowment, they can afford to spend about $1.25 Billion per year on all of their expenses.
When one hears of at the mountain of debt students and their families incur just to pay for a college degree, where is the outrage over the absolute, out-and-out greed of the higher education establishment?
These institutions have levied costs that have far surpassed the rate of inflation over the last couple of decades (depending on the source, 3-5 times more)
When someone is duped into paying 60, 80 100 thousand dollars or more for a degree in Art History, Library Science, Women's Studies and Q*eer Theory and so on, someone needs to be brought forward and held accountable.
Students should be uniting against those on the campuses that are complicit in making their higher education unaffordable or debt heavy.
Where are they?
May I take a shot at this?
The reason they aren't outraged over the cost of their education is because most of them don't pay for it, their parents do.
2) It's the same reason why they aren't outraged over taxes (few work)
3) or outraged over the President saying electricity rates will skyrocket under his plans for cap and trade (most don't pay utility bills and live at home with mom and dad or mom and dad pay for their dorm room/apartment)
4) think electric cars are wonderful (how many do you think drive cars they bought themselves or thought out that if electricity costs will skyrocket under Obama why is he pushing electric cars?)
5) aren't outraged over the price of food (still living at home with mom and dad or mom and dad giving them money for food at college)
6) aren't concerned about Obamacare (still on their parents' health insurance until 26)
7) aren't concerned about high unemployment rates (they don't work and if they did and were laid off, mom and dad would take care of them)
8) don't care about foreclosures (they don't own a house or worry their neighborhoods are going donhill from so many foreclosures)
9) don't care if the government tells them what to do (their parents still tell them what to do, what's the big deal difference if you substitute the government for their parents?)
10) don't care what's happening overseas (no draft).
10) and don't care if you and I are paying for everybody else's entitlements because they aren't paying for it (YET).
That big National Debt thing is not touching them yet sort of like health problems (when you are 18 - 21, you think you'll live forever).
Why do you think, when President Obama is trolling for votes, he heads for the colleges? They are the least likely people to be currently impacted by a bad economy and/or his policies. This is not to say 7 - 10 years from now they won't be kicking themselves. It's just right now, they buy what he's shoveling because none of these things actually touch them, including their tuition.
You should be asking why mom and dad aren't storming the colleges. They should be asking "Why am I forking over big bucks for Junior's education and going into debt up to my ears so some graduate students can teach them? They get real teachers in the community colleges and it doesn't cost as much."
While I agree 100% that the cost to go to college is outrageous at the moment (speaking as a college student), no one is forcing these students to go to these schools...Plus the return on investment (getting a good job [if the student makes a wise major choice and does well with school]) will ultimately (hopefully) dwarf what they paid to go to school.
True that nobody forces you to go to college. And its true that blaming the Professors is pointless; they didn't cause the problem. And the problem is that for the majority of youngsters today, college (like Social Security) is a losing investment, all things taken into consideration.
As to ROI, I'm not sure those numbers will work out like they did in the past. The original ROI figures were based on college costs and an employment future that no longer exists. In the past, a smaller percentage of the population went to college, making those graduates more valuable. That was before massive structural unemployment became the new normal. Now we have so many college grads that they are flooding the low-paying job sector: 24.5% of retail salespersons had college degrees, 21.6% of customer sales reps had them, even 17.4% of baggage porters and bellhops had them in 2010. Doubtless the numbers are even worse now. I doubt the ROI figures for these people will ever go into positive territory.
The ROI numbers are published by colleges who want to justify their large price tags. Do the statistics factor out the upper class kids who had a place in the elite no matter what? Those kids didn't "need" the college education to qualify them for anything; they simply used college as 4 more years of not having to work. These children of the elite will inherit money and income flows that grossly distort the figures applicable to the working class.
ROI figures typically indicate that those without college degrees generally earn less than those who have them. But like in the above paragraph, is that just indicative of the socioeconomic status of the groups that tend to go to college, or who don't? We would need to factor OUT those who don't have college degrees, but who also weren't going to spend much time in the workforce anyway--for instance, women who focus on motherhood and childrearing, those with chronic drug or alcohol problems, career criminals, those who cannot (or will not) devote 40 hours a week to a job, and those who have come to rely on public assistance from generation to generation.
In the future I bet most college degrees will not provide a good payback on the investment. Nowadays the few well-paying jobs left are those that cannot be outsourced, like plumbers and electricians and carpenters. These are also jobs learned primarily by apprenticeship, rather than college. College simply doesn't seek to prepare young adults for well-paying jobs. In fact, colleges aren't really sure what their purpose is today: to indoctrinate youth into liberal ideals, to make "well rounded" citizens, to equalize everyone in the population as a college grad despite intellectual differences, etc. Since they don't have the goal of preparing the graduate for a decent job, why would that be a result?
Also, for the groups where a college degree is necessary, as in engineering and other technical fields, does ROI take into account that the current workweek in these professions is now 60 to 80 hours a week? In effect, these jobs pay about 1/2 the hourly wage they did before (actually less, since benefits have been reduced and cost-shifted to the employee). At least when a plumber puts in extra time, or goes to work on Christmas, he gets paid for it, and paid at an enhanced rate. For the vast majority of the technical employees today, ALL the required overtime is UNPAID. In effect, the trades that get to charge by the hour are now far more valuable employment than the college jobs that are at the mercy of modern Big Business.
Also, does ROI take into account our wonderful progressive tax code? The more successful a worker is, the more taxes he pays (while business owners get tax breaks, there are NO tax breaks for workers). So is it worth going to college and getting a degree and being an engineer and working 80 hours every week, when the tax code pretty much equalizes you with someone working 40 hours a week in a less-demanding and less-well paid job? My family certainly wouldn't have chosen our current high-stress technical fields if we realized that we would be totally equalized with those who worked half as hard and focused on having lots of kids instead of a career. We would have loved to enjoy college instead of killing ourselves studying every second to pass advanced math, science and engineering. We would have loved to have LIVED the last 30 years instead of wasting them working insane hours for a cutthroat Big Business.
In short, I don't think ANY of the old rules apply in our new, gutted, jobless economy. Nothing is the same; and in fact everything quantifiable is infinitely worse and still declining. The deck is so stacked against young people today that even the minimal opportunities we had are denied them.
If I were young, I'd still get a technical degree of some kind at the cheapest school, but then I'd leave the country and look for opportunities in a growing economy. Spending your worklife in a contracting industry means you will NEVER be able to retire; even if you are the hardest-working "cream" rising to the top, the pie will shrink far faster than your piece increases.
Opportunities are few and far between when an economy is in decline (which has been our entire working life), and decline is accelerating at a breakneck pace now. If I was stuck here due to family, I'd probably follow a trade that cannot be outsourced, in a niche market that is resistant to economic collapse (something that the wealthy either need or REALLY want). As to jobs for regular college grads, you will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs requiring more and more sacrifice and paying ever-less, but health care is the one thing that will fail last.
Now we have so many college grads that they are flooding the low-paying job sector: 24.5% of retail salespersons had college degrees, 21.6% of customer sales reps had them, even 17.4% of baggage porters and bellhops had them in 2010.
Did they go to Stanford? Duke? The University of Michigan? I don't think so. What we call a college education today can be more like a high school education...remedial English, remedial math, and so forth. *Of course* they can't get good jobs.
If students are looking to protest something, it should be the terrible quality of the education that third- and fourth-rate colleges (and I don't mean for-profit) allow students to graduate with. Some of the professors at these schools are excellent, but it's possible to get a four-year degree without meeting a good one.
Do you really believe that janitors and maintenance guys have any influence over those that are involved with running the higher education establishment or educating students?
I don't.
Nor do most staff members (I am one) or professors. Increasingly, professors are adjuncts working at 3 or 4 different colleges making a paltry $5K a class with no benefits, no access to office space, and no expectations of reseach. That means no office hours (or, often, giving office hours unpaid), no engagement in the community, and no research. It hurts students and the environment of academia. My alma mater didn't use adjuncts or TAs, so it was common to chat with your professors in the library or dining halls. That's not so true anymore.
Even full time professors don't make as much as people think they do. At the university I work for in the Boston area, tenured professors top out around 100K. That might sound like a lot if you're not from Boston, but it's not much in reality. Keep in mind that these professors are expected to teach 2 or 3 classes, engage in research, mentor graduate students, present at conferences, be active in departmental activities for undergrads, participate in on-campus committees, and other duties for the school that go far beyond 9-5. Most professors make far less than that top number. Staff make even less - I stick it out because of the benefit of tuition remission for my master's degree.
There are a few places to look for the increased cost of college: increased demands from students (and their parents) about the quality of the dorms, dining halls, gym, and grounds; reduced government funding; shrinking endowments (particularly after the financial crash where alumni giving was also anemic); and high senior administrator and president salaries. The president of my university made over 900K last year, and that was with poor job performance and not even the highest in the region.
Nor do most staff members (I am one) or professors. Increasingly, professors are adjuncts working at 3 or 4 different colleges making a paltry $5K a class with no benefits, no access to office space, and no expectations of reseach. That means no office hours (or, often, giving office hours unpaid), no engagement in the community, and no research. It hurts students and the environment of academia. My alma mater didn't use adjuncts or TAs, so it was common to chat with your professors in the library or dining halls. That's not so true anymore.
Even full time professors don't make as much as people think they do. At the university I work for in the Boston area, tenured professors top out around 100K. That might sound like a lot if you're not from Boston, but it's not much in reality. Keep in mind that these professors are expected to teach 2 or 3 classes, engage in research, mentor graduate students, present at conferences, be active in departmental activities for undergrads, participate in on-campus committees, and other duties for the school that go far beyond 9-5. Most professors make far less than that top number. Staff make even less - I stick it out because of the benefit of tuition remission for my master's degree.
There are a few places to look for the increased cost of college: increased demands from students (and their parents) about the quality of the dorms, dining halls, gym, and grounds; reduced government funding; shrinking endowments (particularly after the financial crash where alumni giving was also anemic); and high senior administrator and president salaries. The president of my university made over 900K last year, and that was with poor job performance and not even the highest in the region.
The place where I used to work published all professor salaries.
I could name a few people who were among the twenty best in the world in their subfields, and they make less money than I do right now. These are guys with doctorates from Harvard and 30 years of experience and massive amounts of talent. They're household names among people who know a bit of math.
How many other professions are there in which you can be that good and still make a salary in the low six figures?
Edit: For those who aren't familiar with what kind of workload research is, I should mention that it, by itself, requires a full-time commitment unless you want to get left behind. When I was in academia, I had to spend 40+ hours every week just on research just ot keep up, and then I had to make time to do everything else.
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.
