
Our Universities: The Outrageous Reality - g8oz
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/our-universities-outrageous-reality/
======
apsec112
I find it amazing that someone can write so much about the cost of college,
and yet treat tuition bills as if they were handed down on stone tablets at
Mt. Sinai, rather than something colleges themselves might have any
responsibility for. Colleges have become giant money-sucking machines, similar
to Scientology. In fact, they're so similar that I made a handy comparison
chart ([http://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/06/15/universities-vs-
sci...](http://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/06/15/universities-vs-
scientology/)).

The author here insinuates that the increased cost comes from paying for
teaching and research. But this is wrong for at least five reasons:

1\. Research is not a cost center for colleges. It is a profit center.
Usually, research is not funded by the college itself; rather, professors get
grants from outside agencies, which the college then takes a large, juicy cut
of for itself. (Ask any professor.)

2\. At most colleges, the number of faculty members per student has remained
stagnant for the last thirty years. The author waves their hands about "new
areas of knowledge", but these new areas aren't leading to more hiring.

3\. Wages for tenured faculty have also remained stagnant, adjusted for
inflation.

4\. Colleges are rapidly replacing their tenured faculty with adjuncts, who
are given heavy courseloads, and paid peanuts even compared to tenured faculty
(barely minimum wage, in a lot of cases).

5\. Most of the actual work of research and teaching is done by grad students,
of whom there are far more than tenured faculty. Grad students are, again, a
profit center rather than a cost center, since the university gets to charge
them "tuition" (despite most of them taking few or no classes). This "tuition"
is either paid by an outside research agency, or "generously" waived in
exchange for the grad student doing teaching and grading, again at very low
wages.

~~~
cfqycwz
I'd like to echo drjesusphd and ask if you could point us to any good
information you've found on increasing per-student expenditures. My university
likes to justify increasing tuition by pointing to a decrease in the
proportion of a student's education that is funded by the state. The
implication, is that per-student state funding has gone down and that's why
tuition is going up, but state funding per student has remained relatively
steady in inflation-adjusted terms for decades. It leads one to wonder what
exactly they're spending all the extra money on.

I have yet to look into the numbers in greater detail but if you could point
me toward some good sources it would be much appreciated.

~~~
nhebb
> It leads one to wonder what exactly they're spending all the extra money on.

I just looked up the operating budget for my alma mater (Oregon State
University), and if I'm reading it correctly, administrative costs are about
1/3 of the total. Interestingly, the direct instruction and research portion
increased 5% since last year whereas the administration portion increased 15%.
And looking back 10 years, the the direct instruction and research costs
increased 85%, whereas admin costs increased 110%. So the admin : education
costs ratio appears to be slowly increasing over time.

~~~
abandonliberty
This is the same as in any organization. The wealth filters to those who run
it.

------
akrolsmir
I wonder if there'd be room for a true alternative to an elite college. I've
always felt that the value of such institutions was that it is the premier
place to meet and befriend other smart students, not in the facilities or
instructors who make up the bulk of the cost.

Imagine: thousands of applicants from around the world vie for a spot in
Nollege, a new kind of edtech startup. Admitted students are flown to the
"campus", an exotic site, rotating yearly and chosen for its cheap room and
board. Instruction that can be automated a la Khan Academy, is; more
experienced students also tutor newcomers as needed. Students spend half their
time on work-study/internship programs, which cover all costs of attendance.
They're encouraged to leave whenever they feel ready, be it one semester or
10; no arbitrary rules about which courses to take. When they do, they emerge
with the same bonds of friendship and learned knowledge as their college-
attending peers, but are years ahead in working experience and also debt free.

Perhaps this would be most feasible for cs, where the only materials needed
are a laptop and WiFi, but I could see it working for English, art,
mathematics, and many other disciplines.

~~~
npkarnik
There are probably more efficient ways to build useful skills and learn
material than paying for an elite education. Prestige is much harder to
manufacture. YC is 10 years old (i think?) and has managed to do this,
impressively.

~~~
akrolsmir
It seems to me that prestige is a combination of fame and selectivity; a
school is prestigious if everyone has heard of it, but few get in. A long
history is certainly helpful (a ranking of UC schools by age would probably
correspond to a ranking by prestige), but I think that a genuinely good
product and clever marketing should be able to bridge the gap.

~~~
aswanson
_prestige is a combination of fame and selectivity_ I recall a debate on the
value of college( Peter Thiel vs some college admins) and Thiel asking his
opponent (a university administrator) if Harvard is providing such a great
value to the world why are they making it so hard to obtain for people? Good
question.

~~~
majormajor
Wouldn't the answer be the same reason not everyone is accepted into YC, or
why Thiel doesn't personally fund everyone under the sun?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Nobody is pretending that receiving money from Peter Thiel makes you better at
whatever it is you do.

But a lot of people, such as Harvard admissions, do pretend that attending
Harvard has such benefits.

In contrast, no one at Harvard is pretending that they couldn't afford to
enroll ten times as many students.

Put another way, Thiel fundamentally doesn't fund most people because most
people are bad investments. Harvard admissions isn't _claiming_ that it won't
admit you because you're a bad investment and would devalue their brand.
They're _claiming_ that, if you were admitted, the experience of attending
Harvard would increase your personal quality, but they nevertheless won't
admit you for undisclosed reasons.

