In Michigan today, President Obama will address the escalating cost of college education and what he wants to do about it. This morning on Morning Joe, Education Secretary Arne Duncan gave us a preview, as well as advocated for the Administration’s general approach to education policy.
Now, I by no means completely endorse this approach—I’m still thinking about it—but I present it as a counter to those on the right who think Mr. Obama is a left-wing radical. The “reward excellence” mantra is something you hear from both ideological camps, although no one has demonstrated to my satisfaction just how it we can fairly determine who gets the rewards.
In any case, here is the clip:
Advertisement
Tags: Arne Duncan, Barack Obama, college tuition, Education
January 27, 2012 at 10:23 am |
Duane,
In some respects Obama’s approach to solving education issues is CORRECT, very correct in my view. He seems to me to endorse what I have long called for, higher standards to be achieved by students. Students MUST learn MORE in all levels of education today, particularly in public K12 schools where many graduates have a hard time learning to read, write and do simple math. But you have heard all that before from me.
Now the “clip”. First Duncan did NOT answer the first question asking WHY college education costs were skyrocketing. He slipped the question and went straight to his agenda.
I wonder what Bruce Speck thought of the President’s call in the SOTU?
I suspect I know the answer of soaring college costs. It has a lot to do with waste, fraud, abuse and “CEO-like” salaries for big shot administrators in our Universities. The costs of tenure, etc play a role as well. But I for sure am not an expert and thus await, further an answer from such experts to “Joe’s” excellent question.
But here is where I disagree with the President in terms of college education. K12 is a government mandate of long standing in our country and should remain as such. But college level education, no way in my view. No one has an inherent right to go to college. Instead they must EARN the privilege to so attend an institution of higher learning.
Far too many kids decide to go to college that have no business being there in the first place based on their performances in K12 education. Dry up that pool of wanta-bees and the remaining number of applicants DROPS, significantly. Supply of students that DESERVE to go to college drops, thus the demand for college drops, thus tuition….. You know, the old “supply – demand” curve to control prices???
Anson
January 27, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
Anson,
I like what I heard someone say this morning about this issue: Colleges and universities, like most institutions, took advantage of “cheap money” and the ever-increasing (so, we thought) value of real estate, which enabled parents to put their kids through school no matter what the cost. That makes as much sense to me as anything.
But it is hard to justify the large increase in tuition even just last year. I don’t know how it can be defended in these times. And I am glad that Obama is at least talking about it. And perhaps his plan to reward those schools that keep costs down and punish those schools (with federal dollars) that don’t is a partial answer.
Duane
January 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
Yep, I give the President credit for being on the right track in this instance.
But I also hear the HOWLs from MSSU right now with State cuts in the 12% range and their tuition going up. But again, I am no expert nor have really read much about the “books” at MSSU. I may do a little gentle probbing and see what is revealed, at least for MSSU.
I am sort of surprised you did not try to “slap me down” for my comment about too many kids trying to go to college that have no place therein because of previous lack of educational achievement. I thought that would start another argument, of the left – right variety.
anson
January 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
My wife has been successively Director of the United Way, of the Children’s Miracle Network, and, finallly, the Freeman Foundation. Her position required me to join her occasionally in business/social functions around town, and while schmoozing with her business associates, they would search for topics to discuss with a fuzzy-minded college professor, and the chosen subject almost always was the question “Why are tuition rates constantly going up?” I always answered, with a perfectly straight face, but with tongue firmly placed in cheek, “Faculty salaries.”
The fact is that facuty salaries go up slowly at best, as a peek into the Missouri Blue Book will demonstrate, unless it is administrative or coaches’ salaries.
When I first came to Missouri Southern in 1971 the student enrollment was somewhere between 2500 and 3000. The primary classroom building was Hearnes Hall. Almost all of the rooms in the building were classrooms, with only the rooms at the north end of the building on all three floors as administrative offices.
Today, 40 years later, the student enrollment has roughly doubled, reported at 5600 in the Joplin Globe a the beginning of this semester. But Hearnes Hall is now completely administrative, with not a single classroom to be found.
The student body has doubled, but the administration has multiplied many, many times. Why?
While Missouri Southern, among the four different colleges and universities in which I have taught, has always maintained a modest approach to athletic salaries, none of the others have, and a look at the budgets of most American colleges and universities will reveal the wide gap between the salaries of athletic program members and those of teaching faculty.
Of course we could say that it is a matter of value, that most citizens probably place a higher value on a winning football program than on a highly rated academic program. And the public seems willing to pay for the former if not the latter
I certainly don’t want to suggest that these are the only causes of tuition increases. Textbook prices have soared to outrageous levels. State legislatures have routinely stripped budgets, usually starting with education. Insurance costs have risen dramatically.
As scientific gains are made, more and more expensive equipment is required to keep students abreast of advancing knowledge.
But when a head coach of a major collegiate football program can earn millions a year, clearly we have made the decision as a society to live up to the motto, to paraphrase Admiral Farragut, “Damn the expense, full speed ahead.”
And we ask why tuition keeps going up?
Henry Morgan
January 28, 2012 at 9:16 am |
Henry,
I appreciate the insight, particularly about the growth in administrative staff, and I assume salaries as well.
When I went to HS, we had ONE Superintendent of Schools and one principle. All were “housed” in the same building with elementary ed on the first floor and middle and HS on the second floor. The Supe and the Principle each had one office with a single secretary between them. We did just fine and it was the same building and allocation of spaces that my mother had attended some 40 years before I walked the same halls.
Both my mother and I did fine with such a school setup. Now look at today!!
Many in business today tell us that CEO salaries are out of sight because of competition to get the best men or women in such jobs. And look at the “packages” they negotiate before ever starting work. They are essentially guaranteed a HUGE parachute no matter WHAT they do once they start to work, felonies excepted perhaps.
Is that going on in the competition to get the “best professors” in our colleges? I bet it is to a degree at least. As well how many of those high priced professors actually TEACH students rather than sit in their offices, write “papers” to gain more “fame” and thus be in a position to demand ever higher salaiies because they are so “good at writing papers, to heck with teaching”? Is that a problem today?
The purpose of a college is the TEACH STUDENTS to learn the knowledge required and the ability to THINK in a modern society. That is IT and NOTHING more for a good college, in my view.
With that single purpose in mind, my guess is you and I could “look at the books” of MSSU or any other college and find ways to cut, dramatically, the cost of such education.
As for sports programs, if they are NOT self supporting from ticket sales, etc then shut them down is my call. Learning how to play football is NOT part of a good college education unless it pays for itself.
Anson
January 28, 2012 at 11:13 am |
Anson: I have heard the “Sports pays for itself.” mantra all of my life. My experience tells me that it is a myth. I have had numerous Accounting Profs at the various places I have taught tell me that sports are seldom self-sustaining, except perhaps in a handfull of high-powered institutions where sports reign supreme. I am no accountant, but those who are tell me that the institutions who make this claim seldom include the stadium, the gym, the track, and their upkeep, and many other expenses associated with athletic programs, which usually are included in a separate budget.
As to the competition for high-powered faculty, that exists, but to a very minor part and tends to exist more predominantly in private institutions with huge endowments, not tax-payer-funded state and county institutions. As to teaching load, the notion that there are huge numbers of faculty who teach one class a semester and spend all of their time on research is another myth.
Yes, there are professors in this category, but when we understand that some professors, especially in the sciences, are involved in research that requires them to be on the job for far more hours than the average, tending to on-going experiments, etc., I think it is fair to relieve them of some of their teaching duties.
In every summer issue of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) the entire subject of faculty compensation is addressed, and the salary ranges, broken down by the four academic ranks, are published. Just a brief perusal of this journal will help to dispel the rumor of over-paid faculty, particularly for a profession that requires one to earn three academic degrees, at the individual’s own expense, a process usually requiring at least 10 – 12 years beyond high school.
If there is an equivalent source dealing with K-12 institutions, I am not aware of it, but I feel certain that it would reveal the same information.
Henry Morgan
January 28, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
Henry, thanks for helping shine some light on the subject for us outsiders.
As I see it, the problem with what Obama is doing is that he is relying on the folks who are part of the problem (state governments that have cut back funding and refused to raise revenues; and college administrators—because it is always—and I mean always—a management problem) to fix the problem. That’s a wee-bit troubling to me.
Perhaps it would work better if all of the money the feds pump into the system (guaranteed student loan money, for instance) would somehow have financial accountability strings attached to it. (Like, say, an extreme measure: “We’re not going to loan money to students attending your school if your tuition increases exceed the inflation rate.” Maybe we could get state funding straightened out if the resulting pressure from students, parents, and college administrators was hot enough to get even ideological Republicans to agree to raising some extra revenues.)
I am not one to ever complain that the folks who actually do the teaching are overpaid. They are professionals and deserve the pay of professionals. Your point about athletics is important. I would bet Romney dough that a sizeable chunk of tuition money is spent by administrators doing things to and for the university that have little to do with its real and only valuable mission: teaching.
As regards sports, I don’t understand why consolidating resources to actually further basic instruction goals ought not be the guiding principle here. Closing down the football stadium and the basketball arena (even these have to run at net losses at a place like Missouri Southern, don’t you think?) would get people’s attention quickly, and it might even make ideologues think twice about their resistance to raising sufficient revenues to fund higher education.
But, no, what happens is the tuition just goes up and up.
Duane
January 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
Again, more good background, at least for me, Henry. And thanks again.
Long ago in my college, I did not see professors that did not teach, hard. The best and the brightest were right there in the classroom. One course in particular impressed me a lot. It was junior year EE course, not an easy one at all. My professor was the CREW team coach and he was a GREAT professor. And my senior year that crew team won the Olympics!!! So a pretty good coach as well.
But before I take your assurances about the “big guys” teaching, a lot, I would have to “take a walk” around MSSU or some other university. First I would want to see how many “Deans” teach a freshman class in say math or chemistry. It the answer is NEVER, i would wonder why. I would also want to know the percentage of those classes taught by graduate assistants, only? I am sure you see my point.
As for salaries, I have no idea what is “normal”, etc. What SHOULD a good college professor be making today, one with a Phd, good “papers”, status in academia, etc? Is $125K a year about right or is that too low or high. Again, I have no idea. I would of course wonder what a “dean” makes.
See the only salaries that I hear about are for the coaches and sometimes they are in the millions. If a single nickel of taxpayer dollars goes to that kind of stuff, then I am all for CUTTING such taxpayer dollars until the universities get their priorities straight.
Anson
January 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
Sorry folks, I overlooked Duane’s remarks before posting my own back to Henry. And of course I ALWAYS have something to say, when Duane comments, usually.
The first observation out of Duanes keyboard was one over State (read that as government funding) for colleges. He always goes back to the need for more government money as the first priority, or so it seems to me. As well he would NEVER challenge a “teachers” salary, no matter what, right?
Obviously the first thing that Duane and I agree upon is the atheletic side of funding in our state supported colleges and universities. My bottom line is if they are NOT self supporting, including stadiums, coaches and staff salaries, uniforms, trips for away games, you name it , then cut there to make them self supporting, period. Not a penny of hard earned tax dollars should go for such “extras” in any college or university. Actually the same should apply to atheletic scholarships as well. The football revenues should pay for those scholarships, not the “general fund” of a state university.
But oh no, we could not watch college football and basketball games that were worth watching on our weekends. So what? And those TV revenues of course could go to making the teams competitive, and not back into the general fund to teach the other 95% of students. Wonder what the MU will do with all that money coming to them from now the SEC? I actually have no idea but I suspect money was behind that move, and ONLY money, for someone.
Based on what Henry has revealed, so far, and he obviously can teach us all a lesson or two on this subject of costs of college tuition, I still think that “taking a walk” around an college campus might show a lot of current shenaigans going on with our money and the money of students that deserve to be in such institiutions, rich or poor, based on prior high achievement in K12 academics, not sports.
Anson
January 29, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
I’m not sure we completely agree on sports. I love sports and I think athletes learn valuable lessons from competing, particularly in team sports. My point, though, is that they are ancillary to the mission of the college or university and should be the first to get budget cuts.
Duane
January 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
This was a very good discussion of education issues. Coming late to the party, I would add that I think what is wrong with the soaring price of education is the same thing that’s wrong with healthcare, i.e., that it is become a “must-have” commodity for which there are few viable pricing criteria. By saying this I am not advocating more measurements like NCLB, I am simply saying that the link between pricing and demand is broken. (Exception: private schooling is categorically higher priced and higher quality.)
The cost of education soars because it can, not because more money buys a better product. Ivy League schools don’t teach better, they skim the cream of the student talent. Henry’s observations are good, and especially so regarding the growth in the number of expensive administrators, so pouring more money into it is inefficient. Somehow we need to re-establish a viable pricing mechanism, but that’s going to be even harder when kids can use the internet to cheat. How can you measure education success in a sea of corruption?
January 31, 2012 at 9:31 am |
To all, again,
I too like sports, Duane. But whenever I watch a great college team compete, I also wonder how many of those competitors graduate, even graduate with a meaningful level of knowledge (good degree, well earned) to become productive members of society that does not include throwing a “ball” around.
Jim seems to believe that “corruption” is the cause of increasing education costs in college. I disagree. I don’t believe students or teachers (teachers that LET students get away with plagarism, etc from the internet) are any more corrupt today than yesterday.
I believe our society thinks that just BEING in an educational institution is the “cure” for what ails our society. Thus the demand for such attendance has skyrocketed and gubermint now tries to pay for a lot of it.
ATTENDANCE at a good college assures NO success. It is what the student LEARNS in such colleges that really counts. And part of that learning is how to WORK, HARD, to EARN a good degree and thus be able to enter a dog-eat-dog world around us all today.
But I suspect it is the “dog-eat-dog” comment that will draw fire herein, right. And you expect gubermint to better control the “dogs”, right. And the only “dogs” that really matter are the RICH dogs, right? Well what about those “criminal dogs” in the ghettos? Sure tax the rich, only, and give them more money so they don’t try to eat other dogs.
Good luck.
But I DO know a way to lower education costs in college. Get gubermint to stop paying such bills, at least the federal gubermint. Is there not a corellation between the federal gubermint footing HC bills and college bills, and the soaring costs of such bills. Sure seems like it to me. But yes, go ahead and tell me we NEED such high priced education and therefore gubermint…..?
anson