For John, BLUF: Higher Education is pricing itself out of the market of goods. It will eventually crash, since what is not sustainable will not survive.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article focused on the cost of higher Education. But, it is The Wall Street Journal and their articles are behind a "pay wall". Except, perhaps, this article. Just in case the link doesn't work for you, here is part of a summary someone provided in an EMail:
The following article focuses on the University of Minnesota and what the new president's "fresh eyes" found as he looked at their staffing and finances. He did find that there was one University employee for every 3.5 students, and most new hires did little or no teaching. The topic has been previously discussed, but this article provides a degree of granularity not previously available.I think this last point is important. What is not sustainable will not continue. It is a warning to us here in Lowell. UMass Lowell is a wonderful engine for growth, but its long term success will depend upon how well Chancellor Meehan manages the cost of education and the drag of too much administration. One solution, of course, is more on-line courses and UMass Lowell is doing that very well, although at some point the price per credit hour will have to come down to be competitive.Many of the "lessons learned" at the University of Minnesota, also apply to other parts of our economy, to include business and government. One of the lessons to be learned from the article and from the fiscal cliff "debate" currently underway is the sheer cost of doing some otherwise "good things." When economic times are good, the cost of the "good things" is more readily accommodated. When times are tough—and particularly when tough times last for years—the cost of "good things" can be too difficult for many to bear.
From the article: "Across U.S. higher education, nonclassroom costs have ballooned, administrative payrolls being a prime example. The number of employees hired by colleges and universities to manage or administer people, programs and regulations increased 50% faster than the number of instructors between 2001 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education says. It's part of the reason that tuition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has risen even faster than health-care costs."
And, "For students, the effect (tuition more than doubled in 10-years) is striking. In 1975, a University of Minnesota undergraduate could cover tuition by working six hours a week year-round at a minimum-wage job, the Journal calculated. Today, a student would have to work 32 hours at minimum wage to cover the cost."
And, "Many forces besides administrative overhead add to universities' cost pressures, among them health-care and retirement expenses. And among the administrative spending, some is unavoidable, such as that owing to federal rules requiring greater spending to oversee research grants or accommodations for students with disabilities."
And, "Higher education now faces pressures similar to those that reshaped other segments, Minnesota's Dr. Kaler says. "You look at American industry in general—the car industry got comfortable until the Japanese showed up, the airline industry was comfortable until it got deregulated," he says. "Now it's higher ed's turn."
And, over at The New Englander Blogger and MBA Student Greg Page comes at this same WSJ article from a different direction, looking at salaries and "competitive pay" with the private sector. Nice job, Greg.
Regards — Cliff
I would suggest that "higher education" has been oversold as a necessity of a successful life. The bachelor degree has become little more than a higher order high school diploma. To be "marketable" one must have a Master's and we are sliding rapidly toward the threshold being the Doctorate. Of course, all that requires an increase in both administration and teaching staff. I would posit that at the graduate level, because of demand and the resultant increase in manpower requirements, we have brought into the education business folks with questionable teaching ability, making our education system much lower quality.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, as we answer the demand for more and more "college grads" as a "human right," we stumble on a problem. In order to folks to "qualify" for entrance into higher education, we have to dumb down the requirements. Why? Because we have dumbed down our curriculum in our primary and secondary schools. Why? Well, for a whole host of reasons, some folks just don't "get" trigonometry or American history, or (pathetically) English composition. But, if they don't "pass" we are accused of damaging their self image and rendering them a "burden on society." So, the ONLY answer left apparently is to reduce what it required for "success."
In the undergraduate courses I have taught, the level of analytical ability and communication skills is appalling.
There is a reason that in math and sciences, the US ranks far down the list in the world. I would suggest that a BA in General Studies hasn't got much value. And, I have yet to figure out just what "Fine Arts" means in terms of "employability."
UMass Lowell may be doing a wonderful job of delivering education, but delivery is not quality. It is the media, but the message is alarmingly weak.
Finally, to meet the demand for "higher degrees" many if not most universities have flirted with becoming little more than diploma mills and arguably, the on-line degree programs have in many instances arrived at that sorry state.
As a quick post script (and potential answer to this vexing issue), while we lament the "shortage" of doctors, has anyone tried to find a really competent and high quality carpenter or plumber lately? I would argue strongly that in order for the US to be a strong "world leader" (whatever that means), we need high class welders, farmers, electricians, plumbers...laborers.....as well as mathematicians, chemists, physicians, and others. I think we've reached overkill on lawyers however.