<p>Colorado gets it RIGHT??? Good grief.</p>
<p>Katlia, CU is apparently charging reasonable tuition (althought they seem to include everything but the kitchen sink in COA) and dont cost the taxpayers so much – whats the problem?</p>
<p>What’s the problem? Read the very first post in this thread. The issue that began this whole discussion. Here’s a highlight</p>
<p>“I am concerned that the financial stress on the institution is reaching a breaking point and the areas of true excellence are increasingly at risk. Our faculty salaries are well below the national average, a situation that has gotten worse following several years of no raises. Facilities are aging and overused, affecting everything from classroom space to quality laboratories, while classes are getting larger, taught by a faculty that has for too long been asked to do more with less. The inevitable result of these trends is a decline in performance, which is arguably already under way.”</p>
<p>BTW and before anyone starts nagging that the professor just wants a higher salary. Consider this. The average home price in Boulder is $424,000</p>
<p>And that “reasonable” $27K tuition - consider the median household income is $56,993</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like Williams is atypical in this respect in having all of those amenities for about 2,000 students. No wonder it spends $90,000 per student per year…</p>
<p>Katia, the 27K was not tuition, it was total COA. The tuition 9K, per your link. </p>
<p>Yes, I get it that this guy is concerned. That his salary is below average. Well someone’s salary has to be below average, thats the way it works. I am certain the average home price in Boulder is less than Berkely or LA.</p>
<p>The average professor salary at Berkeley is 40% higher than at Boulder. The cost of an average house at Berkeley is $586,000, plus faculty has the option of living in nearby Oakland that’s much cheaper; Boulder has no communities near by that are ‘much cheaper.’ </p>
<p>As to tuition vs. COA. You’re right, my mistake. But it shows the huge disparity between tuition and actual costs of sending your kids to Boulder at least the first year. (Second year you can save on dorms but add that 9%.)At least CU is honest about it.</p>
<p>Katlia, my point was if you are comparing COAs, different schools through in different stuff. </p>
<p>I get it that the average proff earns more at Berkeley. And I dont want professors treated badly. But, particularly with the humarnities, I guestion whether there isnt a good supply of very good people available.</p>
<p>So fine, you don’t think there is a problem. Obviously OP thinks there is, as do many others myself included.</p>
<p>kayf–this might convince you otherwise. See section on UW related new companies.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.news.wisc.edu/news/docs/UW-Madison_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf[/url]”>http://www.news.wisc.edu/news/docs/UW-Madison_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf</a></p>
<p>Barrons, could not open link.</p>
<p>“As to patents produced through government research–the taxpayers get their cut–as the new company hires people who pay taxes and expand the tax collections and jobs. That’s why they did it that way when the law was passed.”</p>
<p>So what’s the matter with capitalist rewards? The taxpayers paid for the research, and should reap the direct financial benefits. This business about hiring is bunko - the gov’t could hire people directly, if that was the issue. Capitalists don’t invest to produce jobs and taxes - that’s just a supposed side benefit (like my mother is a ‘job creator’ when she spends her Social Security.)</p>
<p>"Seems like Williams is atypical in this respect in having all of those amenities for about 2,000 students. No wonder it spends $90,000 per student per year… "</p>
<p>But that’s not the point. The market could easily bear $90k per year for COA. And then there would be plenty of money for financial aid if they chose. Or just auction off the seats to qualified applicants. Do we believe in the market, or don’t we?</p>
<p>You should be asking your questions and making your proposals to your alma mater, who can act them them if they want to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Typically public university professors don’t own the patents generated from their university-supported research. More commonly, the university—itself a public entity—owns the patents, and reaps the royalties from their commercialization. Those funds often go into the university’s general fund, or, if the university is especially entrepreneurial, some fraction may go into a fund to support additional research, which in turn might generate additional intellectual property, and so on.</p>
<p>In an era of fiscal retrenchment at both the state and federal levels, public universities are finding they need to be more nimble, entrepreneurial, and market-oriented. But very few public university faculty are getting rich off taxpayer-funded research.</p>
<p>If the funds for research come from the federal government, then the patent should be owned by the federal taxpayer. </p>
<p>"You should be asking your questions and making your proposals to your alma mater, who can act them them if they want to. "</p>
<p>But the larger question (which is where this forum started, and why I posted) is, “do we support a market system for college tuition or don’t we?”</p>
<p>There is a market system as every private college is free to charge as they wish. Collusion went out a couple decades ago. The fact that some charge less than you think they could is meaningless. Williams eyes what Amherst is charging and wants to compete with them. Harvard may look at Yale. You just don’t like their decisions. But they are market driven as their goal is not just based on getting the most full pay students. They also have social goals which fits with their non-profit charter.</p>
<p>The act that established the college patent rules clearly stated the public purpose and it was passed and signed by the President and is the law. Many items assisted or paid for by the Fed Government end up in private hands. If you get funding for college from Federal money does the public own your degree?</p>
<p>Barrons, </p>
<p>Just because the law allows something, does not mean it is right, or that we should do it. Obama gave away gazillions to Goldman Sachs. </p>
<p>I do not agree with your analogy with a degree, I see it differently than a patent. Yes, I resent professors getting rich off govt subsidizied research, and then schools crying for more money. Easy answer – states should reduce subsidies and tell them to go after the patents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, many of the schools also act to their own advantage in the market by making their pricing opaque and individualized to each student. I.e. for most people, the “list price” is not the price that one pays, but the actual price is known only after applying and getting accepted and seeing financial aid and scholarship offers. By then, the student is comparing a much smaller set of schools than s/he could compare before the application stage.</p>
<p>“Easy answer – states should reduce subsidies and tell them to go after the patents.”</p>
<p>Kayf, isn’t this exactly what you argued AGAINST earlier in this thread? </p>
<p>You had written: “What I object to is public/private partnerships. I question whether the state/univ is getting moneys worth for valuable intellecutual property. I question whether these deals are fair to the taxpayer.”</p>
<p>
If everyone charges the same price (within a few percent) regardless of the underlying cost structure, how is this any different than collusion?</p>