Students Paying More and Getting Less, Study Says

New York Times ^ | January 15, 2009 | Kate Zernike

[reaganaut1]

College students are covering more of what it costs to educate them, even as most colleges are spending less on students, according to a new study.

The study, based on data that colleges and universities report to the federal government, also found that the share of higher education budgets that goes to instruction has declined, while the portion spent on administrative costs has increased.

It describes a system that is increasingly stratified: the smallest number of students — about 1 million out of a total 18 million students — attend the private research universities that spend the most per student. The largest number of students — 6 million — attend community colleges, which spend the least per student, and have cut spending most sharply as government aid has declined.

“Students are paying more, and a greater share of the costs, but are arguably getting less,” said Jane Wellman, the executive director of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability, which drafted the study.

...

Colleges have justified rising tuition, in part, by saying that it does not cover anywhere near the full cost of educating a student. That is still true, but less so; the study found that students are contributing a greater share of the cost of their education at all kinds of institutions, even after accounting for scholarships and other tuition discounts.

In 2006, the last year for which data is available, students at public colleges and research universities paid about half the cost of their education — defined as the cost of instruction, student services and a portion of spending on operations, support and maintenance. That is up about 10 percentage points since 2002. At community colleges, students covered about 30 percent of their education, up from 24 percent.

[reaganaut1]

In general, I think it makes sense for college students and their families to pay for most of the cost of college, since they reap most of the direct benefits. But colleges spend vastly more money than they would need to if they were focused on teaching undergraduates. At many research universities, a professor may teach only one course per semester, with five or fewer classroom hours per week. He spends more time on research than teaching, and it is misleading to count the full cost of his salary and benefits as a cost of educating undergraduates. At many universities, the teaching loads of tenure-track faculty could easily be doubled or tripled, and the need to pay fewer professors would reduce costs. The disparity between what adjunct faculty and grad students are paid for teaching and what professors are paid is huge.

If teaching loads were dramatically increased, less academic research would be produced. That might be a good thing, especially in the humanities and social sciences.

[Troll_House_Cookies]

More advertising for the movement to make colleges “FREE” (except to us taxpayers).

[MahatmaGandu]

Paying more and getting less, eh? Well, at least they’re getting an education in the realities of what happens when you depend on government for too many things.

[rabscuttle385]

At many research universities, a professor may teach only one course per semester, with five or fewer classroom hours per week. He spends more time on research than teaching, and it is misleading to count the full cost of his salary and benefits as a cost of educating undergraduates.

At many research universities, the bulk of funding comes from grants. Triple the teaching load of many of those tenure-track professors, and you can kiss the grants good-bye.

[KansasGirl]

[the share of higher education budgets that goes to instruction has declined, while the portion spent on administrative costs has increased.]

Sounds like every other Gov’t program.

[AD from SpringBay]

The disparity between what adjunct faculty and grad students are paid for teaching and what professors are paid is huge.

And the number of adjunct instructors is usually greater than the number of full-time professors. Adjunct is a fancy word for part-time, Master's degree teacher who doesn't get benefits.

[Williams]

Unless you didn’t pay attention, it was very difficult to go through college without seeing it is one of the smarmiest and most self rewarding systems imaginable. Administrators “care” about the students? That is a laugh.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Some of your points are accurate....and tenured professors at many schools should be teaching more classes than they do

But the biggest problem with colleges and universities are the excessive costs in administration....too much of the school budget goes to non-teaching and non-research related functions.

Also, too many colleges and unis hire people who have no business being in academia...so many politicians and public figures are hired for useless positions, which get paid for by the students tuition, and our tax dollars.

If colleges and unis truly want to cut expenses....they need to fire at least %50 of their administrators...cut the salaries of the remaining ones...and eliminate positions based on patronage and political ties.

I work for a college, and I can tell you that this is a huge problem...and at my college the situation is mild compared to most other schools.

[Son House]

later ping

[elpadre]

the same is true in public schools, K-12. When I taught and coached in late 50’s, early 60’s the superintendents office for four high schools and feeder schools below, had about 4 clerical personnel, a bus and equipment manager and two professionals. Today they have one more high school, a huge building and probably several hundred non-teaching personnel (including bus drivers).

[GOP Poet]

I haven’t seen a more apt title that says it all in a long, long time. This should be one of the top titles that encompasses life from the mid seventies on for Americans. “Students Paying More and Getting Less.” and repeat again . . .

[ex91B10]

College students are covering more of what it costs to educate them, even as most colleges are spending less on students,...

Doctor, my brain hurts!

[Williams]

“The disparity between what adjunct faculty and grad students are paid for teaching and what professors are paid is huge.”

No way, all those Marxist professors riding high on the hog as an elite while the grads and adjuncts do the real teaching?

And we all remember how those same Marxist nitwit profs treated all but their most favored indoctrinated students - like offensive dirt to be abused at will.

[WOBBLY BOB]

or they could spend some of the millions in endowements they’re sitting on.

so when’s the congressional hearing on college ‘price gouging’ ?

[Williams]

Just thinking, the same liberals who are going to control health costs (yeah right) are creatures of the runaway cost college system. Runaway cost with declining value per consumer dollar.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a very good point.

I volunteer on an advisory board for my alma mater, and the sobering realities of the financial aspects of higher education are among our biggest concerns. Many of these schools are desperate to hold onto their research grants just to keep their books balanced.

[HIDEK6]

Every now and then someone posts an article that quotes Vegas odds and states that these odds reflect the chances that an event will have a particular outcome. Numerous posters then reply that Vegas odds have nothing to do with the probability of the outcome, rather they are set so that the amounts wagered will divide equally among the possible outcomes.

We have a similar situation with these "education" articles.

The purpose of higher education is not to educate a student, but to convince him that by attending a particular insitition and following its prescribed rituals, he will emerge with a higher degree of understanding of the subjects that interest him.

Those of you who work at schools can attest that managements primary concern is that course sections are filled.

The pressure on faculty to publish is so that the institution's reputation among potential customers will be enhanced.

So when you read these articles about the struggling education institutions being forced to take all the money in the world to "achieve their mission," please understand that they are selling things, just as you and I are.

They're selling the idea that a person needs to pay them in order to succeed in life.

Once they have your money, you're on your own.

[DrC]

“In general, I think it makes sense for college students and their families to pay for most of the cost of college, since they reap most of the direct benefits.”

Here’s a dirty little secret: the most elite research universities such as Princeton, Yale and Harvard have figured out that it may actually pay to provide completely tuition-free education. Yes, the students benefit from their education, but if you’re fiercely competing for the brightest and best, then having a completely open-door policy in which you can attract the brightest prospects without having to worry about their ability to pay is a self-financing proposition. Your lifetime alumni contributions from these grateful grads will far exceed the relatively minor investment you made in them.

[DrC]

“At many universities, the teaching loads of tenure-track faculty could easily be doubled or tripled, and the need to pay fewer professors would reduce costs.”

As suggested in my other reply to you, at the most elite universities, the cost of education literally doesn’t matter. They have need-blind admissions policies that permit any student to afford the cost. In THEORY you can increase teaching loads, but it is far from easy. In a star system (just like in the NBA and elsewhere), the best professors will just react to higher teaching loads by going elsewhere. The result is both fewer grants coming in (as someone else already observed), but also making yourself less attractive to the best students who want the bragging rights to be able to say they were taught by Nobel laureate So-and-So.

I can’t speak to how things work at community colleges, but many of the elite universities such as Princeton, Duke etc. essentially require some minimum level of teaching effort from all tenure track faculty since they recognize that a system built entirely on the backs of adjuncts and grad students probably isn’t the best idea in terms of attracting either the best professors or students. That said, over time, the trend over time unquestionably is in the direct of lower average teaching loads. That’s purely a function of a relatively fixed supply of “slots” at the most elite universities combined with a massive surge in demand fueled by the absurd expectation that everyone “needs” a college education (and concomitantly, that any society unwilling to bankroll this aspiration is failing its citizens or morally bankrupt).