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.
People criticizing colleges often blame athletics, student life, building upgrades, etc for the higher cost of college, but they're missing the forest for the shiny trees.
Things that cost far more money (considering staffing as well):
- tech infrastructure for classrooms, labs, residence halls (wifi, Bloomberg terminals, etc)
- website, email, and online learning training, maintenance, and pace
- licensing fees for library catalogues (huge expense), lab software, Adobe products for all staff, etc
- accessibility upgrades, meaning both updating physical buildings and the immense communications networks where all classroom, informational, and marketing material must meet ADA requirements
- increased demand for constant & direct communication to parents which dramatically increases staffing needs to meet those demands (we are no longer in the age of a student calling home once a week - or even once a day)
- deferred maintenance of buildings, especially since government funding never recovered past the 2009 recession
And that's before you get into remote learning and testing due to covid.
The lab settings I experienced as a college student in the 00s feel like generations ago compared to what is expected now.
I work at a university in one of the jobs covered by the stuff above. When I started working in higher ed in 2010, my job didn't exist yet. I was the first person in my role doing what I do full time in 2015. Now, I'm a team of 2 in the main office and there are 3 other people who do what I do full time, plus some 140 people that I dotted line oversee who do this part time with their other duties. And we're severely understaffed. Our digital communications team was 2 people - one on the content side, one on the tech side - when I graduated from college. Now, there are a combination of 18 people (including some part time temps) doing that work. And, once again, understaffed for the expectations.
All of that stuff is behind the scenes, so while expensive and important in 2020, it's not necessarily acknowledged.
Meanwhile, 18 year olds are seeing their friends at college on TikTok posting about their swanky dorms, rock walls, hyped up athletics program, etc. We are dealing with consumers who are often more swayed by the perks than they are the educational and professional opportunities. So colleges, to stay competitive, have to keep one-upping each other. And while the optics from the outside aren't great, those rock walls and pools are far cheaper than the labs and library enhancements over the past decade. They're probably cheaper than staffing for helicopter parents who don't understand why little Jimmy hasn't called in 12 hours or Susie doesn't like the food in the dining hall or Timmy won't share his grades and DON'T WE KNOW that we're talking to the person who pays tuition?
There's a lot that could be reformed and slimmed down in higher ed, but the truth is the raw cost to operate a university is just significantly higher than it was 10 years or 20 years ago, even without the fluff. And the fluff is what makes colleges competitive, as much as we'd like our education to stand alone.
College is a competitive big business. They have to constantly invest in their buildings and grounds to remain attractive to their students (customers). The professors don't really get paid that much it is mostly adjuncts anyway many times. many have large endowments and still get public funding. College is just another subsidized for profit industry.
No reform needed, they will lose relevancy soon and only a few will survive
Colleges will have more relevancy when it is free and debt is eliminated while colleges are allowed to spend millions on varsity sports and water parks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00
People criticizing colleges often blame athletics, student life, building upgrades, etc for the higher cost of college, but they're missing the forest for the shiny trees.
Things that cost far more money (considering staffing as well):
- tech infrastructure for classrooms, labs, residence halls (wifi, Bloomberg terminals, etc)
- website, email, and online learning training, maintenance, and pace
- licensing fees for library catalogues (huge expense), lab software, Adobe products for all staff, etc
- accessibility upgrades, meaning both updating physical buildings and the immense communications networks where all classroom, informational, and marketing material must meet ADA requirements
- increased demand for constant & direct communication to parents which dramatically increases staffing needs to meet those demands (we are no longer in the age of a student calling home once a week - or even once a day)
- deferred maintenance of buildings, especially since government funding never recovered past the 2009 recession
And that's before you get into remote learning and testing due to covid.
The lab settings I experienced as a college student in the 00s feel like generations ago compared to what is expected now.
I work at a university in one of the jobs covered by the stuff above. When I started working in higher ed in 2010, my job didn't exist yet. I was the first person in my role doing what I do full time in 2015. Now, I'm a team of 2 in the main office and there are 3 other people who do what I do full time, plus some 140 people that I dotted line oversee who do this part time with their other duties. And we're severely understaffed. Our digital communications team was 2 people - one on the content side, one on the tech side - when I graduated from college. Now, there are a combination of 18 people (including some part time temps) doing that work. And, once again, understaffed for the expectations.
All of that stuff is behind the scenes, so while expensive and important in 2020, it's not necessarily acknowledged.
Meanwhile, 18 year olds are seeing their friends at college on TikTok posting about their swanky dorms, rock walls, hyped up athletics program, etc. We are dealing with consumers who are often more swayed by the perks than they are the educational and professional opportunities. So colleges, to stay competitive, have to keep one-upping each other. And while the optics from the outside aren't great, those rock walls and pools are far cheaper than the labs and library enhancements over the past decade. They're probably cheaper than staffing for helicopter parents who don't understand why little Jimmy hasn't called in 12 hours or Susie doesn't like the food in the dining hall or Timmy won't share his grades and DON'T WE KNOW that we're talking to the person who pays tuition?
There's a lot that could be reformed and slimmed down in higher ed, but the truth is the raw cost to operate a university is just significantly higher than it was 10 years or 20 years ago, even without the fluff. And the fluff is what makes colleges competitive, as much as we'd like our education to stand alone.
If Lake Superior State University simply said that varsity sports had to be self-funded they could lower college costs by 10%. Many other Michigan colleges and colleges across the nation have similar or even worse percentages.
10% is a big deal when you are racking it up in debt and paying interest on it.
That would be a real simple fix.
Also, I get that water theme parks make more kids want to attend college, but if the Democrats are going to start paying for it, then we should ask to not pay for the water theme parks and similar frivolous profligacy.
Colleges will have more relevancy when it is free and debt is eliminated while colleges are allowed to spend millions on varsity sports and water parks.
If Lake Superior State University simply said that varsity sports had to be self-funded they could lower college costs by 10%. Many other Michigan colleges and colleges across the nation have similar or even worse percentages.
10% is a big deal when you are racking it up in debt and paying interest on it.
That would be a real simple fix.
Also, I get that water theme parks make more kids want to attend college, but if the Democrats are going to start paying for it, then we should ask to not pay for the water theme parks and similar frivolous profligacy.
I definitely get it, but sports aren't a huge part of many schools that are still quite expensive. Both my alma mater and the college I work for now are among the most expensive private schools in the country. My alma mater is particularly highly ranked overall and in the sciences.
Neither has big sports programs (and no football) and certainly no water parks. And I can tell you that my current employer is losing students to less prestigious schools because our dorms are older, our gym hasn't been updated in 20 years, and our dining looks like institutional food rather than gourmet meals.
And none of that would change the dramatically higher technology and infrastructure costs combined with the reduced government support for both education and research. 30 years ago, an undergraduate business major wouldn't have such a significant portion of their tuition going toward supporting basic science labs and research programs.
You bet they need reform. Universities need to go back to what they were about 100 years ago. AND, technical/trade colleges need to come back big time--which is where at least 50% of the students in universities belong.
I definitely get it, but sports aren't a huge part of many schools that are still quite expensive. Both my alma mater and the college I work for now are among the most expensive private schools in the country. My alma mater is particularly highly ranked overall and in the sciences.
Neither has big sports programs (and no football) and certainly no water parks. And I can tell you that my current employer is losing students to less prestigious schools because our dorms are older, our gym hasn't been updated in 20 years, and our dining looks like institutional food rather than gourmet meals.
And none of that would change the dramatically higher technology and infrastructure costs combined with the reduced government support for both education and research. 30 years ago, an undergraduate business major wouldn't have such a significant portion of their tuition going toward supporting basic science labs and research programs.
I get that some colleges don't blow tuition money to prop up varsity sports - but MOST public schools do.
I get that schools want to attract students, but if we are moving to a system of the tax payers paying for colleges - why should taxpayers fund colleges to literally build water theme parks?
European countries that offer free college do not blow millions a year on varsity sports, water theme parks, and other overly frivolous expenditures.
If we are going to start chipping in more than we already do, students need to be happy with the education and go off campus on their own dime for entertainment.
They don't want to compete on tuition so they compete on perks. They have students agree on fees that they themselves won't pay because they will be graduated. It will fall on future students who will get the perks, but didn't get to vote on them.
Colleges can also get donations for things like new gyms and new student unions.
Katelyn Waltemyer, a junior at James Madison University in Virginia, was stunned by what she learned during a seemingly simple assignment for the campus newspaper: dissecting the school's tuition bill.
Buried in each student's yearly cost of almost $23,000 was a required fee of $2,340 solely to finance the school's sports teams. The money was not for using the gym, or for funding student clubs and activities. It was only for underwriting the costs of athletic teams — and a student could only find out about it by visiting and searching the school's website.
James Madison University charges students $2,340 extra a year, every year, to fund its varsity sports programs.
The Virginia Military Institute takes $3,340 of tuition out of every student's fees every year to pay for varsity sports - so a student for 4 years will have racked up $13,360 in debt just to prop up varsity sports. WOW!
The squad says the tax payers should pick that up with their current plan.
An NBC investigation found schools in Division 1 sports took at least $1,200,000,000 of tuition money to fund varsity sports in 2018. This number is likely higher as the schools are not transparent and likely hide money flowing in.
Wow!
4 out of every 5 Division 1 colleges admit to spending tuition money on varsity sports.
Private Universities almost certainly do to, but aren't as open with their records.
There are 11 public universities in Ohio, if you factor out Ohio State, the other 10 universities average to take $810 in tuition a year per student to prop up varsity sports according to a Cleveland.com report. Considering that the average college kid attends for 5.1 years that means the typical college kid in Ohio will rack up over $4,000 in debt just to prop up a sports program.
Why should the tax payers pay for this when tax payers already subsidize the university and now we will start paying off college debt nationally.
The colleges must reform so the tax payers don't have to pay this.
I definitely get it, but sports aren't a huge part of many schools that are still quite expensive. Both my alma mater and the college I work for now are among the most expensive private schools in the country. My alma mater is particularly highly ranked overall and in the sciences.
Neither has big sports programs (and no football) and certainly no water parks. And I can tell you that my current employer is losing students to less prestigious schools because our dorms are older, our gym hasn't been updated in 20 years, and our dining looks like institutional food rather than gourmet meals.
And none of that would change the dramatically higher technology and infrastructure costs combined with the reduced government support for both education and research. 30 years ago, an undergraduate business major wouldn't have such a significant portion of their tuition going toward supporting basic science labs and research programs.
My public alma mater (University of California Riverside) as well as some other UC's (Santa Barbara) got rid of their football programs back in the 70's.
I gave a speech in my public speaking elective class about supporting the new "student recreation center" which we didn't have yet when I was there way back when...we used to study hard and work out like demons though in the old school gym with metal free weights and Universal machines. The school has grown five fold since I was there...supposedly one the best student recreation centers of any of the 10 UC campuses...will have to check it our sometime...looks amazing!
Since when do students have any say in what the college charges?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
They don't want to compete on tuition so they compete on perks. They have students agree on fees that they themselves won't pay because they will be graduated. It will fall on future students who will get the perks, but didn't get to vote on them.
Colleges can also get donations for things like new gyms and new student unions.
Government involvement and the false premise that everyone needs to attend college is what has bid the price though the roof.
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.
