Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: An inevitable property tax hike for Chicago
Next Post: Today’s quotable
Posted in:
* Paul F. Campos writes about the real reason behind skyrocketing college tuition in the New York Times..
For example, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Michigan in 1980, my parents were paying more than double the resident tuition that undergraduates had been charged in 1960, again in inflation-adjusted terms. And of course tuition has kept rising far faster than inflation in the years since: Resident tuition at Michigan this year is, in today’s dollars, nearly four times higher than it was in 1980.
State appropriations reached a record inflation-adjusted high of $86.6 billion in 2009. They declined as a consequence of the Great Recession, but have since risen to $81 billion. And these totals do not include the enormous expansion of the federal Pell Grant program, which has grown, in today’s dollars, to $34.3 billion per year from $10.3 billion in 2000. […]
Interestingly, increased spending has not been going into the pockets of the typical professor. Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. Moreover, while 45 years ago 78 percent of college and university professors were full time, today half of post-secondary faculty members are lower-paid part-time employees, meaning that the average salaries of the people who do the teaching in American higher education are actually quite a bit lower than they were in 1970.
By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: An inevitable property tax hike for Chicago
Next Post: Today’s quotable
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
You mean all those Republicans in the Approp hearings were telling the truth? No way…
Comment by mcb Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:30 am
State universities have become the economic golden goose for many communities in the state which would collapse completely if they ever closed.
But with changes in how people learn and where they learn, the far-flung, many stand alone state universities are just plain antiquated.
All the points in the article are true. The vast majority of growth, or bloat, in state university budgets (and private ones too), has come in the area of administration and PC programs that do nothing to add to the preparation of an 18-year-old for the job market.
Can’t close any of them. Can’t even really cut their funds in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, the degrees they produce are worth less and less, and the students incur more and more debt.
Comment by Adam Smith Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:32 am
At Easter, the topic of conversation was how heroic it was for students to complete college in 4 years. Almost all of the nieces and nephews were able to do it, but none without taking summer courses at Community colleges to get ahead or catch up. The guidance officers were taking a beating at the dinner table.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:35 am
Similar to growth in government spending this is at least partially in response to changing public expectations/demands. Universities used to be able to get away with just educating students. Now they are expected to help address social issues through research, grants and programs that require staff to run. Faculty are expected to conduct research projects that often require staff. Universities are expected to contribute to economic and community development. Many prospective students look at whether a school has a social mission when deciding where to go. These activities may not be directly related to the core mission of educating students, but let’s not jump to the conclusion that they are wasteful or worth less.
Comment by Fun with Numbers Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:46 am
Union apprenticeship programs provide a great alternative for many people. Low overhead, no tuition, real world training that produces productive members of society. It’s a shame our governor attacks these programs and wants to cut their salaries.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:47 am
People don’t realize that higher education is now a heavily regulated industry. Graduate research grants come with federal grant and audit requirements. Drug and other biology research comes with lab safety and animal welfare regulations. Grant administrators, safety specialists, IT pros and equipment, auditors, and lawyers cost money. Unless institutions stop doing funded research, these areas can’t be cut.
Other regulations also cost money. Just as an example, there has been a tremendous increase in lawyers, investigators, and staff to handle sexual assault allegations. Should that be cut?
Complaining about the increase in costs — without discussing the change in mission and regulatory background that led to much of the increase– is not helpful.
Of course, universities could get rid of super dorms for athletes and super salaries for coaches and presidents. That would make a bit of a difference. But you won’t see that happen.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:47 am
The next questions are things like:
Why did universities add administrators?
What do administrators do? What do they do that they didn’t do in 1993? 1970?
Has anyone ranked schools by how much they spend on administrators?
What are the differences between schools in the to 15% in administrator spending & schools in the bottom 15% in administrator spending?
My guess is that slightly different things are driving increase in administrator spending at large public universities & at small private universities.
My guess is that having schools process more money has led to needing more administrators.
My guess is that large schools that have many relations with state & federal government have a ton of administrative requirements they didn’t used to have.
My guess is that small private schools aspire to have higher levels of services than in the past, in part to justify the higher tuition.
There’s also the hypothesis that colleges/universities are trying to sell themselves to potential students so they invest in stuff that has “curb appeal”. They have great sports, athletic & extracurricular facilities. These things add bureaucracy too.
Then there’s the thesis that high prestige schools, eg Harvard, Northwestern, U of Chicago, are more properly understood as endowment funds with universities associated with them to recruit & groom future donors.
Schools want grads to remember their college days fondly. So, there’s a bunch of stuff to ensure this happens. This costs money.
These high level of services become the standard other schools aspire to.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:49 am
It’s the Berrios Chicago Dem model for education.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:49 am
There is some faulty logic in some of the claims and assertions; http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/higher-ed-wonks-are-going-ballistic-over-an-op-ed-in-the-new-york-times/96773
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:51 am
Any unsustainable model will eventually be replaced with a more efficient one. How the universities have gotten away from the laws of supply and demand for so long is a modern miracle. Junior college costs in my area have exploded in a more pronounced way than 4-year programs, albeit that they are still cheaper than U of I…a credit hour at our local CC costs about 1200% more than it did when I went.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:52 am
And somehow these same administrators have managed to con so many into thinking the only available solution is to receive more tax dollars rather than cut their own bureaucracy. The other driver is the never ending quest by universities to have the newest most state of the art facilities.
Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:54 am
This out of control bloat of non-teaching administrators is a serious problem across the entire public education establishment. Let’s just challenge every local school district and university to cut their number in half, especially to move the qualified ones back to the classrooms, to be eligible for some level of state funding. The obvious waste across the whole education establishment dwarfs that in state and county government.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:55 am
chi-
One of my son’s buddies was in CC, and while there applied for an apprenticeship with the pipefitters. Hmmm…train for less than a year, travel and make $100k/year…or spend the next 2-3 years going to college and amass a $100k debt? Eventually the college education will pay for itself, but the rewards of being a trades person come much more immediately.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:57 am
“Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. ”
I wonder how that compares to the increase in the salaries of football and basketball coaches.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:59 am
The bloated Administration expenses are prime contribution to higher tuition costs? I hope this isn’t news to most people!
Comment by Apocalypse Now Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:00 am
Well darn. This just shoots down the Blame the Educators Bandwagon, doesn’t it? While those who read this blog are savvy enough to understand that administrators are not teachers (who actually do the work of educating students), the masses out there just lump them all together and blame teachers(professors) for jobs that supposedly pay gold. Same in lower education. If one were to compare ratios of administrators to students vs teachers to students…….if one were to compare salaries of teachers to administrators, pensions, etc. ….it would become crystal clear where money was going. But schools, at whatever level you choose are simply mirrors of society in general. Is it any different in private business?
Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:01 am
=Eventually the college education will pay for itself=
I think this is only true in some cases. I’m making up numbers here to illustrate a point, but if you assume a union pipefitter will earn $60k/year for thirty-five years (some good years, some bad years), and then retire with a pension that pays him $35k/year, that is much more money earned over a person’s career than many college graduates earn. Now when you add to that the fact that the pipefitter won’t have any college loans to pay down, and will be almost as likely to earn $60k in his first few years as a pipefitter as he will in his last few years, compound interest dictates that if he saves and invests his money, he will be much better off than someone that goes to college, earns $30k/year for ten years, and eventually gets raises that push his average over 35 years to $60k/year. It’s a no-brainer in many cases, especially for someone who would enjoy the work more than sitting in a cubicle. But again, the only threat is people like the governor who want to legislatively cut the wages of people like this.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:08 am
Campos misses the mark; the real reason for high tuition is OPM - Other People’s Money. Can’t afford our school, no problem just get a student loan, no qualification necessary. Every time I read one of these stories about high tuition I think of used car salesmen; what is it going to take to get you in to this school today? Just think in 20 short years this degree will be all yours.
Comment by Angry Republican Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:10 am
Truly, we live in the Age of the Administrator. The education industry’s equivalent of middle management has been mushrooming for decades like the Tribbles in that old “Star Trek” episode, sucking up resources that could be benefiting students and attracting excellent instructors. It’s the same in elementary and secondary education. Some of it is needed to fulfill various “mandates,” but a lot of it is just pure self-perpetuation.
Meanwhile, the people who actually do the work of educating–the teaching faculty–have been increasingly blamed and treated like children or worker drones during this same period. Adding insult to injury, more and more admins seem to have only a nodding acquaintance with actual teaching, although they can spout b.s. theory day and night. Arne Duncan is their patron saint–the Peter Principle in action, lol! Not knocking all admins–great ones are indispensable and truly worth their weight in gold. But there are quite a few who–aren’t.
Admins also make a ton of money compared to teaching staff. The folks who like to squeal that public school teachers are “overpaid” would be shocked at the salary, benefit, and pension deals for administrators. Plenty of room for cuts at the top.
Comment by Crispy Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:12 am
The problem is that when faced with cuts, administration rarely trims itself. The cuts will come from faculty and service ranks making the percentage of non-teaching employees to teaching employees even higher.
Comment by ash Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:13 am
Gas prices and college tuition, 2 things I will never be able to fully grasp.
Comment by Westward Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:14 am
basically what Carl was saying
There are critical factors missing such as what is an administrator? everyone that isn’t a teacher?
In the 1970’s we had no computers or computer networks. Campus security was a couple of people who asked the frats not to throw up on the lawn
Today we have large IT infrastructure, many colleges and universities have full on police departments, campuses are covered in safety lighting, safety phones, high tech security. food programs that provide more then just gruel. in other word’s we have had security/safety and IT explosions. Heck the U of I has a massive cloud computing system they rent out to private companies and so forth. That system has lots of personnel to support it.
By comparison the phone and cable industry have expanded non-operator positions some 300 percent since the 1970’s.
the on campus services and infrastructure. heck count the number of building on the campus in the 70’s versus today. The U of I in Champaign/Urbana has more then doubled its square footage. Benedictine in spfld closed it college program because it could add needed buildings for campus life etc.
And those teachers that have not grown that much, want parking spots, student assistants and secretaries all of which would fall under admin.
Which leads to another query; how many of those administrators are students who are on a paid student worker program to help offset the cost of school etc.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:15 am
It is hard to imagine how this article got published. I suppose it is an opinion piece and hence facts aren’t essential.
Administrative “bloat” is an issue, but many, many of these administrators are required due state and federal regulations. Additionally, state funding per student has not kept pace.
And the idea by Sen. Brady to privatize Illinois public universities is not going to help. That is a silly idea if you want to increase affordability.
Comment by Scamp640 Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:28 am
Not so fast NYT:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/04/06/why_is_college_so_expensive_the_new_york_times_offers_an_awful_explanation.html
Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:33 am
Universities need to be pressured into lowering tuitions. They won’t do this on their own, as they have become big, money-making enterprises. Universities don’t need armies of administrators paid six-figure salaries. They don’t need presidents and coaches making seven figures. They don’t need constant, large-scale construction of the latest, greatest, and most expensive buildings. Tuitions can be cut without any reduction in quality of education.
Comment by Quiet Sage Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:35 am
Then that begs a question, why are they required due to regulations. Is there some sort of great risk that students face today that they didn’t face 20 years ago?
As for the faculty pay thing, in part universities create their own instructor surplus by producing large numbers of phd graduates in fields where the best employment opportunities are in higher ed. There are not a lot of places in the arts and humanities in general that require a phd for a job than higher ed.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:37 am
=== - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 9:47 am:
People don’t realize that higher education is now a heavily regulated industry. Graduate research grants come with federal grant and audit requirements. Drug and other biology research comes with lab safety and animal welfare regulations. Grant administrators, safety specialists, IT pros and equipment, auditors, and lawyers cost money. Unless institutions stop doing funded research, these areas can’t be cut ===
Not impressed. Do you want us to believe that regulations, reporting requirements, and increased scrutiny is ONLY happening at universities? The whole economy - businesses, manufacturing, transportation - all sectors of our economy are subject to such costs, not just institutions of higher learning.
There really is no way to justify these increases in higher education costs. But, nice try anyway.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:40 am
Well, a really good econ or marketing prof can really increase their income thru consulting and speaking engagements. It is not uncommon for some to earn $10K-$15K per speech and do 20 talks a year. Or, have lucrative consulting contacts with Fortune 500 companies.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:45 am
I wouldn’t discount that regulatory burden. Widely publicized and very heinous, yet isolated incidents result in regs that are applied to higher ed overall. For example, thanks primarily to Penn State, if you are a university employee, you now get regular training on your duty to report if you see signs of sexual assault.
Thanks to the escapades of certain incarcerated Illinois governors, all university employees, down to at least the GA level (if not the general student level) must submit to the full statewide ethics training apparatus.
And of course, that training isn’t going to run itself….
Comment by Graduated College Student Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:48 am
Here is a follow up response to the NY Times article from a Slate magazine:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/04/06/why_is_college_so_expensive_the_new_york_times_offers_an_awful_explanation.html
Comment by Scamp640 Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:50 am
One of the biggest jumps in tuition at the Illinois Universities occurred when costs for employee health insurance was changed. For many decades, all state employees (including universities) health insurance was paid with one big payment from the general state budget. Then (I think early Blago admin.) the cost for health insurance was shifted to the universities, causing them to raise tuition to cover the cost.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:52 am
The Times Op-Ed was written by a law professor. Consider the source gang.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:55 am
Plenty of room for cuts at the top==
How true, but when does anyone at the top ever take a hit?
Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:56 am
This is better:
https://capitolfax.com/2015/02/20/an-ever-burgeoning-bureaucracy/
By UIUC guy John Bambenek.
Comment by Cheswick Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 10:58 am
Some of it is also related to the effort to remove personnel from unionized positions to “Assistant Directors’,” who are paid more - but aren’t in the union! My U is overrun with the critters, some of whom I’m not even sure have a Director to assist.
And once they become AD’s, they can’t only do their former job, like academic advising, because that’s union. Nope, they have to develop programs, write reports, blah, blah, blah - justify themselves.
When there are as many AD’s as people on the direct student contact rank, there’s a problem. We need one AD for each Admin Assistant, Admissions Counselor and Academic Advisor?
Comment by PolPal56 Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 11:06 am
He is right about the administrative bloat at universities; we should find a way to reduce that. But there is another factor behind increasing college costs that he does not, apparently, discuss.
Teaching students is a service; thus far, we have not found a way to greatly improve productivity or outsource this without affecting the quality of the product. The relative price of virtually all services in general has increased in the past five decades, because unlike manufactured goods or purely technical work they cannot (easily) be automated or outsourced. If inflation is the average increase in prices, and things that are subject to these factors increase at below average rates or even decline, then other things that are not subject to these factors must increase at above average rates.
Comment by Andy S. Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 11:16 am
It is easy to pick on the top salaries in any organization but if that is what the markets command then so be it. That is the American way, Right?The truth is that today there are not enough good candidiates for many of the key leadership positons at puiblic universities. Their jobs have become too political with too many bosses. So let’s go ahead and make it harder by passing laws that limit their salaries.
Comment by Makandadawg Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 11:29 am
The exploitation of adjunct faculty lecturers who are paid miserly sums is a scandal and it is happening here in Illinois. Rahm congratulates himself for the new construction at the City Colleges, but never mentions how almost sixty-five percent of the courses are taught by adjuncts who have not had a new contract in three years.
Comment by Upon Further Review Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 12:40 pm
Do you know how much tuition pays for? I’m quoting the provost of this private university where I work. 13% of the operating costs of this place is paid for with tuition money.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 12:56 pm
The UIC fitness center has a lazy river.
I think a lot of the problem is the need to guild the lily in order to appease outfits like US News and World Report, and their baloney rankings.
Manufactured scarcity in school choice only works because of social signaling.
Comment by HappyToaster Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 1:01 pm
gild not guild.
Slapping the state/federal land grant model on normal and municipal schools may have been a mistake.
Comment by HappyToaster Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 1:17 pm
Long suspected and now confirmed that the driving force for skyrocketing tuition is the insatiable desire to hire more administrators.
When my son attended the same university I had graduated from 21 years earlier, I found a tuition bill from when I was in school and a semester’s tuition back then was less than his book bill for one semester.
Comment by Tommydanger Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 1:20 pm
Yep. To anyone who’s worked in academia, this isn’t news, or at least not new news. It’s a problem at the primary education level too. Spend lots on superintendents and administration and reduce the number of people who actually teach.
Comment by Left Leaner Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 1:32 pm
=administrators are not teachers (who actually do the work of educating students), the masses out there just lump them all together and blame teachers(professors) for jobs that supposedly pay gold. Same in lower education. If one were to compare ratios of administrators to students vs teachers to students…….if one were to compare salaries of teachers to administrators, pensions, etc. ….it would become crystal clear where money was going. But schools, at whatever level you choose are simply mirrors of society in general. Is it any different in private business? =
LOL!
Our district, the lens through which I share this with you-’
admin ratio 1:253 students
teacher ratio 1:9 students
I cannot speak to large school districts as we are smaller with 1300 K-12 students. Our admin costs are 3.5%. Well below the state desired 5% and even further below what is considered efficient in the private sector (10-15%).
So how many administrative personnel should we have? If we gave the teaching staff the economic responsibilities…well, I would like to be a fly on the wall for that meeting.
We are not mindless drones that sit in an office and use a calculator all day. I am an educator that rose through the teaching ranks, acquired advanced degrees while working (as in many professions) and I spend as much time as possible in the classroom with teachers, supporting teachers, procuring and preserving resources for teachers, interpreting the landslide of rules and regulations jammed down our throats, dealing with parent complaints, not to mention the higher level of accountability we shoulder. When things do not go right our board does not call the teaching staff in, they call the admin team in.
May not be applicable everywhere but it is in my world.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 1:44 pm
I hear that there are a lot of pretty smart folks working in universities, so I don’t think the trend causing the increase in administrators is because someone is being stupid.
Probably the opposite. What we’ve been witnessing over the past generation has been good intentions causing bad secondary consequences. The administrators are probably necessary in order to oversee new projects, programs, regulations, grants and other new conditions placed upon universities, requiring the new administrators.
It is more complicated than most folks think.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 2:29 pm
JS Mill–you sound like one of the good ones who is involved with your staff in a positive, supportive way and in promoting excellence from all involved. Within our extended family, there are 5 teachers in very different districts, locations and levels. No, our 5 places and experiences do not sound like yours.
Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 6:06 pm
It now makes sense that Larry Dietz thinks that jobs are the main purpose of universities instead of educating students.
Comment by A modest proposal Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 6:14 pm
Let’s clear up one thing. Many of the Taj Mahal fitness centers, deluxe dorms, etc. don’t get any State or tuition money. They’re either self-financed or funded by student fees. IMHO, which removes any incentive to build simple or not build.
My UIUC student’s fees are higher than my tuition and fees combined from the 70s. Fees are also uncapped, unlike tuition. (Approx. $2500/semester)
I think there are valid points made above about regulation, IT/Internet, Compliance, Facilities Management and maybe more driving growth in non-classroom headcount.
It’s the Deputy Assistant Vice Chancellors for Administration (that’s an actual title) and their ilk that have been proliferating at UIUC over the past 10 years and which cause many to question the cost of tuition.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Apr 7, 15 @ 11:24 pm