Another element is that now faculty earn a reasonable living wage, while several decades ago they didn't.
> One element in the increase in college costs, not just research, is > accountability. Congress has passed laws that had good objectives > (protecting human subjects, protecting animals, ensuring occupational > safety, reducing campus crime, ensuring no discrimination on campus, > ensuring fair value for federal student loans, etc etc.). Laws become > rules and regulations which are monitored and enforced by federal agencies > that have no real need to restrain themselves, so they add more > regulations, the better to enforce the intent of the law. Universities > meanwhile, trying to stay in compliance, add senior administrators and > assistants and assistants to assistants to deal with the regulations. > These bureaucracies (well any bureaucracy) protect themselves and the best > way to be protected is to jump through every hoop the agencies put in > place. Because the university might get in trouble, compliance gets handed > what is often essentially a blank check. > > > Whole industries have developed around animal care, human subjects, > college accreditation etc. These classes and consultants don't tell the > universities how to maximize compliance at minimal cost, instead they > suggest ever better and more expensive ways to be in compliance, selling > something the compliance bureaucrats are more than happy to buy. Even > more senior administrators are brought on board and again, they need more > support staff. > > > For research, the more the university spends on compliance, the higher the > indirect cost it can charge the federal government, thus providing even > more money for compliance. Unless the funder is NIH, higher indirect means > the amount the researcher actually gets is smaller, so research loses. And > so it goes. With federal funds in short supply, the agencies should be > taking a look at compliance, but then they have their own compliance > empires to support. > > > Is the compliance industry the only cause of increased tuition costs? No. > As one of the articles mentioned, higher tuition makes a college more > attractive (never mind that like hotel room rates the list price is not > necessarily what you end up paying). State and federal governments no > longer feel education is so important so they have decreased support. This > is in stunning contrast to after World War II when the GI Bill jump > started American prosperity through essentially free higher education for > returning vets. Too many Americans, politicians and administrators now > seem to regard universities as factories that produce degrees, learning > being incidental. In that case, climbing walls and Jacuzzis make sense, > making one factory/college more competitive than another. So does hiring > of 'rock star' professors that, like professional athletes, lend their > names but not always their teaching skills to the university's "brand", > while driving up faculty salaries. > > > More and more people are telling universities to jump and fewer and fewer > universities are bothering to ask why before they do. Until faculty and > students start asking why, the universities won't so things will continue > as they are, or get worse. > > > That's the way it is. Happy New Year. > > > David Duffy > > > > > > David Cameron Duffy Ph.D. > Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director > PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany > University of Hawaii Manoa > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Martin Meiss <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:10 am > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv ies'in fiscal > peril > To: [email protected] > >> Hi, Rick, >> I don't think the answer is that >> simple. I went to a small, private, >> liberal arts college from 1970 through 1974 and it cost my >> father about >> $3,000 per year for room, board, and tuition. Now it would >> cost about >> $42,000, about a 14-fold increase. Inflation, which I'm >> guessing has been >> about three-fold since then, obviously only accounts for a small >> part of >> that, and since it is a private school, declining government >> subsidies are >> not the reason. The professors haven't all become >> millionaires. The >> campus hasn't been plated with gold. The students aren't >> getting an >> education that is ten times better than what I got. This >> is a general >> trend, not just a phenomenon of my alma mater, and I really do >> want to know >> what the hell is going on. My father had a bachelor's >> degree, and my >> annual college costs were about on fifth of his annual >> income. I have a >> PhD and the costs for my kids would be well over half of my >> annual income. >> >> Can someone out there tell my why higher education is becoming >> somethingonly for the rich? >> >> Martin M. Meiss >> >> >> 2011/12/28 Rick Lindroth <[email protected]> >> >> > The answer is simple and (nearly) universal: states' support >> for higher >> > education has declined precipitously over recent decades, >> especially in >> > recent years. In essence, states are transfering the financial >> burden of >> > higher education from the general public to individuals >> (students and >> > parents). >> > >> > Although tuition increases have been high, they cannot close >> the gap; >> > hence the fiscal peril that public research institutions now find >> > themselves in. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Richard L. Lindroth, Ph.D. >> > Professor of Ecology, Associate Dean for Research, and >> > Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station >> > University of Wisconsin-Madison >> > Madison, WI 53706 U.S.A. >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> [mailto:ECOLOG- >> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini >> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:29 PM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv >> ies'in fiscal >> > peril >> > > >> > > > The University of California at Berkeley subsists now in >> > > > perpetual austerity. Star faculty take mandatory furloughs. >> > > > Classes grow perceptibly larger each year. Roofs leak; >> > > > e-mail crashes. One employee mows the entire campus. >> > > > Wastebaskets are emptied once a week. Some >> > > > professors lack telephones. >> > > >> > > If all of the above is true, then can someone please >> > > explain why for 20+ years the annual increase in the >> > > cost of college tuition has far outpaced the consumer >> > > price index, heath care, energy costs, etc. >> > > >> > > http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1450 >> > > http://tinyurl.com/6xq6hv >> > > >> > > Paul Cherubini >> > > El Dorado, Calif. >> > >
