<p>The real price, excluding financial aid, of a college education continues to increase rapidly. I think one of the reasons that this is the case is that quality, in higher education, is measured by the opposite criteria used in all other industries. Output per man-hour (person hour?) is a standard measure of efficiency in most production processes. In education a low student faculty ratio (roughly output per man hour) is a sign of quality. Until some other measure of quality or productivity is created, I think the cost of a college education will continue to rise faster than inflation.</p>
<p>Professors and administrators etc have no fiscal accountability. They go into that business so they will be taken care of. WE PAY FOR IT!</p>
<p>Don’t forget simple supply and demand economics.</p>
<p>hedoya,
As a professor at a two year institution, I can tell you that your comment is as deep as it is long. Accreditation agencies (SACS in my case), as well as state legislatures, are increasingly demanding accountability measures to ensure student learning and continuous improvement efforts. It is impossible to renew accreditation if you can’t document these efforts (some of which, IMO, are more subjective than objective). I spend an increasing amount of my time tracking learning outcomes and learning new technologies to assist in improved student learning. Without a doubt, my job is harder than it was in 1990 when I entered teaching.<br>
It is becoming incresingly hard to attract new faculty to replace retiring faculty because of poor salary potential compared to the private sector. More public institutions are forced to rely on an increasing number of adjunct faculty as full-time position funding decreases. This absolutely affects instructional quality. I am continually amazed by those who believe that America should provide the premier education of the world at a bargain basement price (and yes, I know private tuition is not bargain basement). There are two areas of spending that will typically return well for all that invest - purchasing a home and investing in a college education. I’m not insensitive to the sticker shock of tuition increases, but at public institutions this is often necessitated by the decreasing amount of funding provided by legislatures. Someone has to pay the bills for faculty salaries and for technology which must be upgraded on a frequent basis to make students competitive in today’s job market and, increasingly, this cost is being passed to the student.
I will concede that there are cost inefficiencies and other blemishes in the academic world, but overall most faculty do not pursue this career path because they are lazy and seek tenure as some kind of permanent job protection plan.</p>
<p>Here’s another perspective, from William Chace, former president of Emory.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=248119[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=248119</a></p>
<p>His bottom line: much of the arms race in college costs is driven by the rising expectations of students and their parents.</p>
<p>I’ve had this conversation with the director of admissions for New Mexico Tech, a school that has notably lower-than-average tuition. After touring the school and noting that its facilities were at least as good as those at Harvey Mudd, which is similar in size and educational goals (primarily a science and engineering school), I asked her “why don’t you charge more?” Her answer was interesting (paraphrased): “We get lots of research grant money, and the overhead allocation on the grants covers most of our costs. We also receive mone from the state and the lottery fund. We just don’t have to charge more. Why do you ask? Do you think we need to raise tuition?”</p>
<p>I think the biggest reasons schools raise tuition is because they can. (See “supply and demand.”) Some schools – and I’m guessing they are mostly publics – see providing education as a mission, and take serious steps to insure affordability. Other schools – see “elite privates” – believe in the number one rule of capitalist pricing, which is that it is sinful to charge anyone less than they are willing to pay for goods or services. By manipulating the system with huge educational fees, and then dangling “scholarship” carrots the schools can extract the maximum possible money from each student. </p>
<p>The other thing colleges – especially privates – are getting better at is product marketing. Set the price high, send out $5-per-page view books, and take loving close-ups of your campus’ best-looking buildings. Writing glowing stories of enlightened college life illustrated by carefully balanced mixes of good-looking students having fun. Make sure your tuition is really high so that prospects will know that you are an elite institution. Who wants to go to a low-cost college? Where’s the prestige in that? Make sure you manipulate the management of your school to maximize your college rating service scores.</p>
<p>Washdad:</p>
<p>I agree with the pricing at elite privates. Very likely they charge more because they can.</p>
<p>But I’m surprised that the overheads at New Mexico Tech can be covered by research grants. A lot of grants expressly forbid shifting grant monies to overhead. Some foundatons will not cover support staff and overhead expenses such as heating and electricity, for example.</p>
<p>At her private college-
my daughter enjoyed a beautiful campus, single room, larger than her room at home. Housekeeping service, pretty good cafeteria, in a beautiful setting ( overlooking the canyon). She had access to health care, on site, for no extra charge. She used tutoring and other supports, including weekly ADD coaching, also for no extra charge. She used the pool, the gym and the art studio available for students, even though she didn’t have classes in those facilities.
Senior year, she shared a thesis office with 4 other students who were working with the same advisor. When she stayed until 3 am, she often had security escort her to her apt, which was available for all students at any time. All staff is also given a stipend to spend on students, so she has not only gotten to have dinner at profs homes, but played paint ball with the(acting)college president, seen Harry Potter movies with her advisor and his family, and enjoyed having a housekeeper who made fresh coffee and cookies for students, as well as picking up their stuff.</p>
<p>COnsidering what the public K-12 schools receive from the state/federal/taxpayers, for students, and what is spent on salaries, building maintainance, court costs, and what the public receives as an education benefit, I think that the colleges, I have some knowledge of, are giving more for their dollar, than some K-12 schools.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You are conflating quality with productivity. They are not the same concept. Output per hour worked = productivity. ‘Quality’ is a combination production quality and design quality. Production quality can be measured as the rate of defects in the products. Design quality can be measured how well the product, when free of defects and working properly, meets the needs of the customers.</p>
<p>In college terms, a school’s productivity would be simply the number of graduates produced per man-hour worked by the faculty. </p>
<p>Production quality would be a measure of how much to students actually learned - Can the French majors actually speak French and do they know French literature? Can the accounting majors actually balance a ledger, or did they miss important concepts? Did the Physics majors learn all the concepts expected of physicists, or for some reason did some school not require them to take quantum mechanics?</p>
<p>Design quality in this case is a little fuzzier, and would a measure of how well students actually fit into and function in society. Do they get jobs, found businesses, write books, create art, and generally contribute in positive ways, or are they a bunch of unemployable eggheads or useless layabouts? And are there important jobs requiring advanced education that go begging because the universities fail to teach that? The bigger question would be how well do colleges fulfill their broad role in society? Are society and the economy getting what they need from colleges?</p>
<p>Now the student/teacher ratio thing is largely a question of productivity that affects production quality. It’s the same question of hand-crafted vs. mass-produced. Sometimes one is better and sometimes the other, depending on what you want and need. There is the 300-students-per-section course taught by a TA in an auditiorium at Massive State U., and there is the hands-on, small-enrollment seminars and tutorials taught at some small and selective LAC. And the prices are going to be a lot different.</p>
<p>Colleges really aren’t the opposite of other industries. The quality and productivity concepts are the same. And with all industries, it really depends on what the customers want and need. The Stradivari really weren’t very productive when they were making their violins back in Cremona. They made only a few. But their quality was extremely high. They were the small, hands-on tutorial so to speak. But if what you need is a decent violin sold at an affordable price, the mass-produced stuff sold at Sears might suit you just fine.</p>
<p>Courer,</p>
<p>Of course you’re technically correct. But I think you miss the larger point. If colleges were to use technology to increase productivity, as most other industries do, it would have the side effect of allowing them to educate more students wih less faculty. The result a higher student teacher ratio would be interpreted by many as a indicator of declining qulaity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But would parents and students interpret the adoption of more technology to drive down costs a sign of higher quality?</p>
<p>There’s been adoption of more technology–for example, the ubiquitous use of powerpoint and video clips has meant that many colleges have had not only to refurbish classrooms. But the videotaping of classes is not seen as an indicator of greater quality. Lower faculty/student ratio is.</p>
<p>curious, you were getting close when you wrote, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But many people have no way to measure quality except by cost! A favorite expression (and one of my LEAST favorite expressions) is, “You get what you pay for.” There are documented cases of colleges that saved themselves from financial ruin by raising tuition and increasing merit aid.</p>
<p>2VU0609, with all due respect everyone has heard your party line before and its like asking lawyers if they should cut back on litigation. Fact is there is too much waste on the Prof and Administration side. $50k per year is a joke. Many Profs should be let go for phoning the work in but they wont be because they are tenured or hooked up in some political way. The costs keep rising as your golden parachutes and lifestyle plans bloat. Manditory courses about the favored social issue of the month is usually taught by the most politically connected Prof around. I am sure you are a great Prof and I respect your right to live well but the costs are out of control and the middle class is paying your freight. I have sat in on many classes that frankly have not been refreshed for years- ( though new course titles have been invented lol ). These required courses bring the $$$$ in. I am reminded constantly to be grateful that we are Ivy Leaguers on CC. I am not the only student who feels this way believe me. Please put your wallet down for a moment and try to understand that we are the consumers and we do have a right to ask for a quality education. I am not talking about amenities by the way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There seems to be a disconnect here.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity4 where did ur daughter go to college?</p>
<p>Supply and demand for the top 150 schools or so makes it clear that, for these, the price is too low, and for some WAY too low. As list-price has increased, so has the number of applicants, and the number of rejections, even as selectivity declines.</p>
<p>NJRes,</p>
<p>I like the following addendum to “You get what you pay for”: “sometimes you get get less but you rarely get more.”</p>
<p>It would be interesting to know the price that would clear the market for HYP, i.e. no one turned away who was willing to pay the price.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had the same thought. She told me that a lot of their research grants allocated a portion of the money for “overhead and administration.” She didn’t go into details and I didn’t ask. It’s possible I misunderstood what she said.</p>
<p>lesmizzie she went to an LAC in Portland
Reed college- not a country club really ;)</p>