
Things universities should do to rein in costs - prostoalex
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/four-tough-things-universities-should-do-to-rein-in-costs/2015/11/25/64fed3de-92c0-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html
======
6stringmerc
Well, in keeping with Mr. Pearlstein's desire to identify things "universities
should do" in a vaccuum of authority where neither of us can enact change
through a dictate by fiat avenue, I'll take a crack at four even more
aggressive and not-likely-to-happen scenarios, and I'm not even getting paid
to write them!

1\. Downsize course offerings in areas where graduates can not be reasonably
expected to recoup the cost of a University education in the forseeable, full-
time job market - such as journalism.

2\. Perform genuine, rigorous auditing of participating in NCAA sports for
cost-benefit analysis and completely shut down programs which do not recoup or
actually cost money.

3\. Become fiscal mentors to prospective and current students by engaging in
hands-on financial counseling with respect to private loans and income earning
potential.

4\. Drastically reduce the number of Freshman and Sophomore students and
aggressively recruit potential graduates through the Community College systems
nationwide.

I mean, there are a lot of ways to save money, and while I can enjoy comfy-
armchair musing as much as the next guy, sometimes articles like this one just
seem so out of touch.

~~~
jdmichal
> Drastically reduce the number of Freshman and Sophomore students and
> aggressively recruit potential graduates through the Community College
> systems nationwide.

Doing a 2-year stint at a community college is just about one of the most sane
things a person can do. At the end, you still end up with a bachelor's degree
from whatever university you finish at, indistinguishable from any other
graduate. And you do it typically at a fraction of the cost. Oh, and often
community colleges focus on teachers with industry experience, meaning that
you're not learning about software engineering from a computer science
academic that's never actually been a software engineer.

~~~
HarryHirsch
_Doing a 2-year stint at a community college is just about one of the most
sane things a person can do._

Really? I know how introductory courses are taught at the local community
college, and there's the MIT/Berkeley/whatnot lectures online. It's a
difference between day and night! Of course you can watch the Youtube lecture
instead of the tripe they feed you at the c.c. but you do miss out on
interaction with fellow students and professors. This means missing out on a
lot.

~~~
verisimilidude
I went to community college for two years. I'm at Stanford now, previously
Berkeley. I don't feel like I missed out on much by going to a CC, except
debt.

[shrugs]

~~~
HarryHirsch
The experience at my department at Tumbleweed State University is that those
who transfer from Tumbleweed Community College struggle. YMMW.

~~~
hkmurakami
Anecdotally (albeit from multiple sources), the scholastic bar for a CC
transfer is lower than that of a HS to 4 year college route.

GP was likely someone who could have passed the HS to University bar without
having to go the CC route to increase his or her odds.

Personally, I advise younger friends or international transfer type students
to consider the CC->University track especially if they are naturally bright
but didn't get the marks needed to pass the direct enrollment route.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I've known several Chinese students with very low SAT scores (because of the
English sections). Your advice for international students is reasonable but
possibly not necessary. Of the best three that I knew well:

\- One had her heart set on attending a UC school. I particularly recommended
applying to a california community college because of their low standards and
strong UC admissions preference. Her SAT scores were somewhere in the 1400s
(out of 2400), but she was admitted to UC Davis directly.

\- One had an SAT score in the 1700s, far and away the best of her cohort. She
applied (and was accepted) to University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and is
quite happy there.

\- One had an SAT score in the 1300s (in my opinion the smartest of the
three), and, in what was to me a shocking move, applied to and enrolled at a
University of Alabama (I don't know which one -- USNews lists several). But
she transferred from there to Georgia Tech.

Universities seem to be aware that SAT verbal scores are poorly reflective of
foreign students' actual abilities, and they really like the inflated
international tuition.

------
Jtsummers
Cutting research and enrolling _more_ students isn't necessarily the way to
go.

How about save money for both students and the university. Drop the absurdly
nice housing that's going into them. This will reduce room & board fees and
cut staffing, construction, & maintenance costs for the university.

Athletics: Drop athletes that aren't _student_ athletes. I'm sorry, but
illiterate players don't belong in college. It's a disservice to them, the
rest of the students, and the university's reputation. Stop spending
astronomical amounts on football (primarily) and other sports, even if it pays
for itself it's not needed for an _academic_ environment. Rein these in, keep
athletics but cut the programs so they aren't (budget-wise) on the level of
some _professional_ teams.

~~~
newman314
This.

Plus I remember reading an article a while ago saying that universities had no
incentive to cut costs due to student loans. Effectively, student loans are at
least partially responsible for driving ever higher costs for tuition.

I'm very frustrated about this as I would like my (eventual) kids to go to
college at my alma mater but at $40k+/per (for a public school !!!), I can't
fathom that happening.

[1] Related read: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/upshot/student-debt-in-
ame...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/upshot/student-debt-in-america-lend-
with-a-smile-collect-with-a-fist.html)

~~~
HarryHirsch
_I remember reading an article a while ago saying that universities had no
incentive to cut costs due to student loans._

If universities didn't have an incentive to cut costs, _why the shift to
adjuncts?_ Just to make life shitty for junior faculty? Do you really think
that's plausible? Really?

~~~
evanpw
(tongue only partially in cheek) They're only cutting costs in areas that
potential students can't observe / don't care about, like teaching. They won't
cut costs in important areas like admissions staff, gym facilities, football
stadiums, and fancy architecture because students see those things on tours.

------
HarryHirsch
Who writes this kind of reality-free trash? The author talks about reducing
administrative costs, but with today's universities you have no choice. You
can throw an upper-middle-class kid into university and he will do just fine.
But first-generation students, non-traditional students, foreign students,
students on athletic scholarships &c need support services, and access has
been expanded so much that these things consume a substantial part of the
budget. You have no choice but to offer them. Without them a substantial part
of the student body would fail out quickly.

And then the author talks about leaving campus open all year. When you ply
faculty and teaching support staff at my university with sufficient alcohol
they will eventually admit that Summer term is done for the extra tuition
income. When you ply them with more they will also admit that soon they will
add Winter classes for even more cash - not that anyone can learn anything
substantial in these three weeks.

And finally the author recommends to drop research and go back to teaching. In
theory that sounds good. In practice, universities have been forced to fish
for grant money because state support has been scaled back. Also, in my
observation, the worst teaching is done by full professors in their Fifties,
who have long checked out and are not keeping up with current practice.

Maybe it's time to get rid of tenure and increase state support.

~~~
Retric
Nontraditional students add minimal administrative overhead. There are plenty
of schools that are dysfunctional or pad their budget for various reasons, but
done well this is really cheap.

Universities spend ungodly amounts on things like recertification,
advertising, internal busywork, fundraising, government requirements etc.
Abstractly this stuff adds zero value for students, but good luck telling an
auditor you have better things to do with your time. And internal politics is
all about how someone changes things not how this pet project actually helps
students.

~~~
robotresearcher
> Nontraditional students add minimal administrative overhead.

Do you have any evidence either way? Both sides are just claiming this as a
fact. The actual numbers can decide this.

(Even if the non-trad students do cost more, there may be good reasons to
spend the money. I'm not arguing either way. I just want to see these opposing
claims supported).

~~~
Retric
Community collages have historically surved this population and they have
maintained lower administrative costs than Universities.

It's hard to get exact numbers in large part because collages don't want them
broken down and administators are the ones releasing statistics.

------
SneakerXZ
I always wonder when somebody proclaim they have best universities, what does
it actually mean? Eg. methodology in this article
[http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-
articles/...](http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-
articles/world-university-rankings/qs-world-university-rankings-methodology)
Basically it is all about reputation that is very subjective and if you are
not good, the name will not help you or research that is nice if you want to
do PhD otherwise it is not very useful for you.

I would recommend people in US to study abroad. You might learn a new language
and you will receive equally good education and it will be much cheaper for
you.

------
imgabe
> A better approach would be to offer comparable pay and status to professors
> who spend most of their time teaching, reserving reduced teaching loads for
> professors whose research continues to have significance and impact.

I think the problem with this is that you have no idea up front which research
is going to be significant and impactful and which isn't. If you knew what the
outcome was going to be, it wouldn't be research, now would it?

~~~
Retric
People optimize for what you measure. If you want numbers they will pump out
numbers, if you want citations they will set up citation rings etc.

The real solution is to realize research is best ignored. Don’t count it for
anything in any way. And they people who stick with it will likely focus on
actual important things.

------
Joof
Give accreditation for MOOCs. Many are well designed (more so than community
college and often regular college) and provide a far more social experience
than showing up to class and not asking questions (which is the case 99% of
the time).

------
logfromblammo
The only way to do it without swimming against the economic flow is to create
some new universities not encumbered by all the academic cruft that
accumulates over multiple decades.

Any new business that can focus solely on the elements of what makes
university education valuable in the first place, and can maintain that focus
for enough time, will end up eating the old guard's lunches, turning out grad
with 90% of the useful skills and 50% the advantageous social connections, at
only 10% the cost. Those grads will go on to jobs that pay 75% as much, but
their student loan payments will be 10% as burdensome.

College-age kids are not _quite_ so dumb as to never realize that they could
get along just as well academically, at less cost, while living in a decrepit
old dorms, capsule hotels, discreetly parked converted vans, or parents'
basements.

In short, existing universities can do nearly _nothing_ to meaningfully cut
their own costs. Their hands are tied by foundation requirements, tradition,
alumni expectations, and countless boards and committees. Their budgets are so
strictly controlled by vested interests who have built both careers and
pensions on them that they can sooner fire an adjunct than to refrain from
installing a bronze plaque dedicated to Someguy Alumni in the Inverted Aquatic
Basketology building.

Start 100 new universities from scratch, and let 90 of them fail. Repeat until
tuition falls permanently.

------
jdietrich
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good)

~~~
wbeckler
Not only is the high price considered a positive as per your link, but Veblen
specifically used university culture to explain his concept of conspicuous
consumption. So much of university professor culture has nothing to do with
learning and everything to do with appearing high class, but without the
money. Robes, fancy eating spots, stone everywhere ... it's all about
appearing upper class.

------
erbo
The biggest thing that would help rein in costs would be the elimination of
all the "free money," i.e. loans, that students can get to pay those costs. If
students _can 't_ pay those costs, they _won 't._ Universities will either
then reduce their costs, or go bankrupt and be replaced by institutions that
_will._

This could be accomplished with a couple of changes to current policy. First,
remove the restriction that makes student loans nondischargeable in
bankruptcy. Second, get the Federal government _out_ of the business of
providing student loans. With these changes, private institutions will only
lend money for education if they have a reasonable expectation that the money
will be _paid back._ That'll dry up the "free money" spigots.

Back in the 1960's, it was possible for a student to pay for his education by
flipping pizzas at night and over the summer, without having to take out
loans. That's the standard we should be shooting for.

~~~
VLM
It'll likely be part of a cross generational compromise. So due to educational
debt the kids can't buy their ancestors overpriced real estate or pay SS taxes
sufficient to keep SS afloat. The solution is government education loan
jubilee day paired with an increase in SS taxes such that the kids end up
paying as much as before, but now their balance sheet is more mortgage
positive. Meanwhile the old people keep running the SS ponzi for a couple more
years.

------
alpineidyll3
This is the same guy who was criticized by Greenwald for arguing bank bailouts
were a good idea.
([http://www.salon.com/2008/10/31/pearlstein_3/](http://www.salon.com/2008/10/31/pearlstein_3/))

I am a professor. This man's ideas are totally naive. Universities and
colleges are engaged in a cold war to avoid gaps in endowments, buildings and
other metrics of prestige. Their students are willing to pay more for this
prestige and so the cost goes up. It's simple as that. If universities that
decided not to heavily invest in themselves were effective at generating that
prestige, the cost wouldn't be going up.

Only a fraction of the people at the university are there because it is a
place of learning, and almost all the people are engaged in research. Many of
this guy's ideas are worse than bad, they are poisonous.

------
matrix
The issue of administrative costs (e.g. IT) growing rapidly boils down to the
fact that there are no economic forces that would otherwise enable the
administrators to be held accountable for their spending.

In the private sector, if you are responsible for a P&L, and "P" isn't a
positive number, you'll eventually lose your job. In higher ed, there is no
metric that similarly lays bare whether an administrator is effective or not.
This allows spending to run rampant and weak managers to thrive, which just
continues the cycle.

If anybody figures out how align spending with outcomes in this sort of
environment, they deserve a nobel prize in economics.

------
moyix
I thought that Daniel Drezner's rebuttal to this (also in the Washington Post)
was pretty good:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/30/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/30/four-
tough-things-columnists-should-do-before-writing-about-universities/)

------
ksenzee
Wait, most universities don't offer summer classes? Where I went to school
there were fewer students enrolled over the summer, but that just meant campus
was a bit less crowded, not that it was a ghost town.

~~~
ambiate
My uni offers summer classes, but mostly for intro classes. This means if you
transfer in or are a second year student, you have slim pickings in the summer
offering.

I would have gladly attended 90% of my classes in the summer had they been
offered to students. Especially, those mid-tier classes that are only offered
in Spring or Fall. IE: intro1 (Fa, Sp, Sum1, Sum2) -> intro2 (Fa, Sp, Sum1,
Sum2) -> mid-tier class (Spring only) -> opens up 10 classes.

------
fredgrott
an alternative..

Some of the Purdue campuses in Indiana have reduced their administrative cost
by re-aligning and pairing two commuter campuses together with one
administrative body..expected savings $500 to $1000 off of tuition costs per
student.

