Short term ROI is not a good strategy for a university- I agree.
Having an expert on staff to help faculty and researchers monetize their research, patents, etc. is not short term. Even though hiring that person- in the short term- is for sure a cost.
That was my point up-thread…
Not if a college education is now seen as an individual benefit rather than a social benefit, which is what I am suggesting has become the normal way of thinking about college. (Even in colleges’ own marketing materials, in fact!)
Many more states have cut community college funding in real dollars than have increased it over the past couple decades—so yes, there are exceptions, but the general trend in the majority of states is unmistakable, and a few outliers on the positive side do not invalidate the general observation.
And this means that your (not quoted here) contrast between community college and 4±year college funding is based on false assumptions.
Most frosh at public colleges and universities do not live on campus – probably most live where they lived before attending college (i.e. with parents for traditional age students, or where they lived before attending college for non-traditional students).
In most cases, traditional age students have to pay more for the “luxury experience” of living away from home, compared to commuting to the nearby public college or university. However, students in some (mostly rural) areas do not have a public college or university in reasonable commuting distance, and some others may not be able to continue living at home (e.g. parents intend to move away after the student graduates from high school).
In recent years, college has become more politicized in terms of partisan differences on views on whether colleges are a positive or negative influence on society. This may have implications on what state governments (i.e. politicians) feel should be offered for study at state colleges and universities.
Colleges have also become a much more luxurious experience in terms of dorms, cafeterias, recreational offerings, and health services. That likely decreases taxpayer interest in additional public funding
Darn tooting. You can look at North Carolina for an example of this. The UNC system Board of Governors used to be full of moderate non-partisan career educators, but now politics have entered the game and it’s full of political appointees trying to dictate what the universities, especially UNC Chapel Hill, can do. I have not followed this thread closely and maybe y’all have covered it but I would imagine it’s a similar scenario in WV.
Does UNC have severe financial problems and underenrollment as well?
I don’t think that was mentioned by @ucbalumnus in the bit I quoted. It’s mainly political in the UNC system but they are trying to defund some things and starting up other new programs no one at the universities wanted just because they can.
I don’t want to derail the conversation and make it about NC though. Just wanted to echo @ucbalumnus point that politics can and does play into it in other states.
Then it is quite a bit different than the WVU situation, which was prompted by an impending financial crisis. Given that outside consultants helped suggest the cuts, and they seem to be the same type of cuts implemented at other universities, I really see no basis for the oft repeated claim here that politics played a role at WVU. One might sincerely argue that major enrollment is not the right measure for determining which areas to cut, but that hardly seems political.
The Women’s studies department likely would not have survived had it been a politically motivated decision. It did and was praised for its realistic approach towards economizing.
Didn’t Miami of Ohio use the same criteria for its cuts? Edited to add, it did:
I would suggest: News reports of colleges becoming a much more luxurious experience have increased. All of the evidence that college has become more luxurious seem to be anecdotal, not anything meaningful.
Not anything meaningful? How many campuses have you visited recently? The dozen or so I have visited bear no relation to those campuses 3 decades ago. The dorms, the food, the degree of support in the form of tutors, counselors, administrators. Colleges claim their costs have increased greatly due to all this; you doubt that?
You’re collapsing a number of different things together here.
First of all, academic support services (e.g., tutors) are, well, academic. That’s not an amenity leading to claims of colleges being “luxurious”.
Second, administrative positions certainly have increased (as have their salaries, even more so). I am on record as being opposed to most though not necessarily all of this. But for the discussion here, whether a university has 5 or 6 vice-provosts has precisely nothing to do with whether it is a “luxurious” experience.
Finally, dorms and food haven’t really changed that much. I mean yeah, dorms nowadays are more likely to have air conditioning, yes, but that’s also a fiscal decision—alongside its cooling properties air conditioning literally conditions the air, making it easier to control things like mold.
Basically, there’s a continuing “Kids these days have it too easy!” narrative that leads to people seeking for confirmation bias to support it. And yeah, a few colleges have done (IMO stupid) things that play into this narrative (e.g., yes, the University of Akron really does have a lazy river). But in general it’s not supportable with actual facts across the sector—and, I will note, no more supportable than when people were saying precisely the same thing in the 1980s, and heck the 1920s.
Yes, additional academic tutors and counselors are luxuries-one could purchase those privately as was the case before. Food is a far cry from what it was, and the dorms- wow, private rooms and bathrooms! Paid for study abroad! Yes, I am quite certain the luxuries are far greater
Private rooms and bathrooms are still rare. Just peruse this site – you see more complaints about dorms as you see people raving about them. Tutors and counselors are not luxuries – they are essential services, and students shouldn’t go without just because they can’t afford it. Did they go without in generations past? Yes, but that doesn’t mean they should. Food? Maybe that’s improved in a lot of places, but you still hear a lot of complaints about food, so I’m thinking it’s not everywhere. Yes, some of the creature comforts today are more noticeable than they were 30 years ago, but I get the sense that it’s only across-the-board in perception and rumor.
We can agree to disagree. Most foreign schools offer education, only. Classes. Anything else is in the student.
Americans expect and often get a country club experience.
The American college experience is different than the international college experience, to be sure, but there’s a long history here of a residential liberal-arts education that has nothing to do with country-club lifestyles. European (and other) universities don’t have that same history, even those with residential colleges. The differences are rooted in contrasting academic philosophies, not lifestyles.
Maybe. The cuts at WVU and elsewhere weren’t attributed to student lifestyle expenses anyway. Public support for residential universities has cratered and no doubt there are many reasons why.
True!
But “luxurious” student experiences aren’t one of the causes for that, I would submit—rather, narratives of luxurious student experiences are an effect of that cratering of public support.
Paid-for study abroad could be a money maker for US universities, if they collect their tuition and then pay out the study abroad university tuition that is probably much smaller. (Like with medical care, colleges and universities tend to be less expensive outside the US, even in rich countries.)
Yes, it could be, for full-pay but not financial aid students. In any event, it reinforces the perception of luxury on campus. Those at community college or trade school do not get 4 months in Europe to play.