5 ms·

A lot of public universities have been hijacked by elite career administrators and they've raised the price of tuition well past what most middle/working class

A lot of public universities have been hijacked by elite career administrators and they've raised the price of tuition well past what most middle/working class families can afford. Then there are the Universities of California that turn away local citizens so they can charge out of state and foreign students a premium. Meanwhile the local applicants are funneled into less prestigious UCs like Merced and Riverside. It feels like a public resource has been stolen from the public and turned into an institution for the elite. Look at how UC Davis's Chancellor had university police pepper spray peace student protesters, while she sat on the board of Devry, King Abdulaziz University of Saudi Arabia, AND a textbook publisher--clear conflicts of interest. The chancellor then spent university funds to try and hide the search results of her actions. Then after all this, she still leaves with her pension: >Under the settlement, Katehi will remain on administrative leave for a year as chancellor emeritus, receiving her $424,360 annual pay with the promise that she will return as a faculty member. If she should choose not to return for at least a year, she would forfeit the chancellor’s salary payment, Klein said. Her faculty pay would be decided by UC Davis campus officials. The UCs and other public universities are run by crooks.

Ar-Curunir 10y ago
Definitely not the case for Berkeley; we've been cutting down on (at least) international student admissions (albeit slowly). Much better than the likes of UMich or such.
- diogenescynic 10y ago
  Berkeley and UCLA were among first UCs to increase enrollment for foreign students until they got flack for it in recent years and has started to slow down: >The rapid rise in recent years in those students at the two highly selective campuses — to about 30% of the freshmen class — triggered much controversy among legislators and families. However, the problem is still getting worse at other UC campuses: >UC San Diego offered freshman spots to 10,313 students from other states and countries, up from 8,765 last year; Irvine accepted 9,413 of them, up from 6,564. >UC Irvine spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon said that there is room on campus for more students but state funding won't accommodate more Californians. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-ln-uc-admit-20150702-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-ln-uc-admit-20150702-sto... And: >Even as the University of California accepted a record number of freshman for fall 2014, admission rates at its most selective campuses reached new lows. Huge increases in the number of applicants, changing admissions processes and a growing emphasis on out-of-state and international students are driving them down. >UCLA’s admission rate, which fell to 18.2 percent from 20.1 percent last year, reflected the school’s growing profile and popularity. Applications surged 7.5 percent to more than 86,000, while admission levels held steady. >The drop was even more stark at UC Berkeley – to 17.3 percent this year from 20.8 percent in 2013 – under a new enrollment process that will see the university accept fewer students and then turn to an expanded wait list to fill any remaining open slots. http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2596255.html#storylink=cpy http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2596255.ht...
e40 10y ago
As a taxpayer in CA, with a 16 yr old son that will likely go to a UC school, this outrages me.
gertef 10y ago
Universities need foreign students to fund the school (including tuition subsidies for state residents) because state legislature won't.
- kobeya 10y ago
  No, they need foreign students because they've unsustainable built infrastructure (buildings, stadiums, etc.) using debt financing that the state legislature isn't paying for.
gamblor956 10y ago
The amount of public (i.e., taxpayer) funding for public universities has dropped by more than half in the past few decades. The money has to come from somewhere, so many public universities have resorted to increasing the number of out-of-state and foreign students because they pay higher tuition rates. In effect, the out-of-state students now subsidize the in-state students.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  Or they could cut the administrative bloat and return to affordable staffing levels. These institutions were able to run on a fraction of the head count that balooned after the advent of Corporate U.
  - Armisael16 10y ago
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m... Also, a lot of the increase in administration is essentially legally required. Universities can't get rid of their title IX offices, after all.
    - lsiebert 10y ago
      Universities are required to abide by title IX only if they accept federal funds, fwiw.
- ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  This is an empty talking point. >A 16% (inflation-adjusted) decline in total state and local funding and a 13% increase in enrollment contributed to the sharp per-student funding decline between 2007-08 and 2011-12. Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, an 8% increase in appropriations combined with a 4% decline in enrollment generated a 13% increase in per-student funding. Despite this partial recovery, in 2014-15, appropriations per FTE student were 8% lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than they were a decade earlier, and 11% lower than they were 30 years earlier. https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/total-and-student-state-and-local-funding-and-public-enrollment-over-time https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tabl...
dhfhduk 10y ago
I agree with you 100% about administrations being top-heavy. It's a major problem, not only because of financial reasons, but because it creates an inbalance in power structure between the people administrating and faculty. That is, it amplifies the administrative interests and representation relative to the core members of the institution. I think it goes a lot deeper than that, though. To me, I see three fundamental problems, in addition to what you mentioned, and the problem mentioned in the linked article: 1. Relying on grant money to fund universities, 2. Businesses expecting universities to do their work for them, and 3. The erosion of tenure. All of these have been discussed more and more, but I don't think people realize how deep the problems are, and discussions get hijacked by political issues. Grant funding needs to change. Not only is it nepotistic, but universities have become dependent on indirect costs. Nothing would make me happier if indirect costs got cut from grant budgets. Businesses basically now expect universities to do their work for them. Train their employees, do their research, and so forth and so on. And certain political blocks reinforce this. Let's say you have a corporation trying to maximize its profits. They need R&D but don't want to incur the costs. So they go to the legislature and complain that the university isn't doing enough with "real world value." What sort of "real world research" would they like to see? Well, the corporation is all too happy to tell you. In the end, the corporation gets the state to pay for their R&D budget. The irony about discussions about eliminating tenure is that you can already look at its effects. People focus on liberal arts departments, but in medical schools, tenure is very weak or nonexistent: "soft money" position is a euphemism for "phantom" position, as in "you can have this position if you fund it." All the problems with lack of replication in biomedical research? The result of chasing flashy results to get funding to maintain positions, because of lack of tenure. I have nothing wrong with for-profit research, but there is also a need for nonprofit research, and a firewall between them. Right now, that wall is down, and it's eating away at things. Ironically, I've come to think that one of the things that might save public universities is to cut their ties to government altogether, that is, to become private institutions. It would be nice if legislatures would do their jobs and fund them, but if legislatures are going to play this game and try to dictate what universities are doing anyway, why not call a spade a spade and just sever the tie? What's happening a public universities is akin to what I imagine will happen with the Department of the Interior under Trump: a government run by foxes in the henhouse.

Ar-Curunir 10y ago

Definitely not the case for Berkeley; we've been cutting down on (at least) international student admissions (albeit slowly). Much better than the likes of UMich or such.

diogenescynic 10y ago
Berkeley and UCLA were among first UCs to increase enrollment for foreign students until they got flack for it in recent years and has started to slow down: >The rapid rise in recent years in those students at the two highly selective campuses — to about 30% of the freshmen class — triggered much controversy among legislators and families. However, the problem is still getting worse at other UC campuses: >UC San Diego offered freshman spots to 10,313 students from other states and countries, up from 8,765 last year; Irvine accepted 9,413 of them, up from 6,564. >UC Irvine spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon said that there is room on campus for more students but state funding won't accommodate more Californians. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-ln-uc-admit-20150702-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-me-ln-uc-admit-20150702-sto... And: >Even as the University of California accepted a record number of freshman for fall 2014, admission rates at its most selective campuses reached new lows. Huge increases in the number of applicants, changing admissions processes and a growing emphasis on out-of-state and international students are driving them down. >UCLA’s admission rate, which fell to 18.2 percent from 20.1 percent last year, reflected the school’s growing profile and popularity. Applications surged 7.5 percent to more than 86,000, while admission levels held steady. >The drop was even more stark at UC Berkeley – to 17.3 percent this year from 20.8 percent in 2013 – under a new enrollment process that will see the university accept fewer students and then turn to an expanded wait list to fill any remaining open slots. http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2596255.html#storylink=cpy http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2596255.ht...

e40 10y ago

As a taxpayer in CA, with a 16 yr old son that will likely go to a UC school, this outrages me.

gertef 10y ago

Universities need foreign students to fund the school (including tuition subsidies for state residents) because state legislature won't.

kobeya 10y ago
No, they need foreign students because they've unsustainable built infrastructure (buildings, stadiums, etc.) using debt financing that the state legislature isn't paying for.

gamblor956 10y ago

The amount of public (i.e., taxpayer) funding for public universities has dropped by more than half in the past few decades. The money has to come from somewhere, so many public universities have resorted to increasing the number of out-of-state and foreign students because they pay higher tuition rates. In effect, the out-of-state students now subsidize the in-state students.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
Or they could cut the administrative bloat and return to affordable staffing levels. These institutions were able to run on a fraction of the head count that balooned after the advent of Corporate U.
- Armisael16 10y ago
  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m... Also, a lot of the increase in administration is essentially legally required. Universities can't get rid of their title IX offices, after all.
  - lsiebert 10y ago
    Universities are required to abide by title IX only if they accept federal funds, fwiw.
ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
This is an empty talking point. >A 16% (inflation-adjusted) decline in total state and local funding and a 13% increase in enrollment contributed to the sharp per-student funding decline between 2007-08 and 2011-12. Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, an 8% increase in appropriations combined with a 4% decline in enrollment generated a 13% increase in per-student funding. Despite this partial recovery, in 2014-15, appropriations per FTE student were 8% lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than they were a decade earlier, and 11% lower than they were 30 years earlier. https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/total-and-student-state-and-local-funding-and-public-enrollment-over-time https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tabl...

dhfhduk 10y ago

I agree with you 100% about administrations being top-heavy. It's a major problem, not only because of financial reasons, but because it creates an inbalance in power structure between the people administrating and faculty. That is, it amplifies the administrative interests and representation relative to the core members of the institution. I think it goes a lot deeper than that, though. To me, I see three fundamental problems, in addition to what you mentioned, and the problem mentioned in the linked article: 1. Relying on grant money to fund universities, 2. Businesses expecting universities to do their work for them, and 3. The erosion of tenure. All of these have been discussed more and more, but I don't think people realize how deep the problems are, and discussions get hijacked by political issues. Grant funding needs to change. Not only is it nepotistic, but universities have become dependent on indirect costs. Nothing would make me happier if indirect costs got cut from grant budgets. Businesses basically now expect universities to do their work for them. Train their employees, do their research, and so forth and so on. And certain political blocks reinforce this. Let's say you have a corporation trying to maximize its profits. They need R&D but don't want to incur the costs. So they go to the legislature and complain that the university isn't doing enough with "real world value." What sort of "real world research" would they like to see? Well, the corporation is all too happy to tell you. In the end, the corporation gets the state to pay for their R&D budget. The irony about discussions about eliminating tenure is that you can already look at its effects. People focus on liberal arts departments, but in medical schools, tenure is very weak or nonexistent: "soft money" position is a euphemism for "phantom" position, as in "you can have this position if you fund it." All the problems with lack of replication in biomedical research? The result of chasing flashy results to get funding to maintain positions, because of lack of tenure. I have nothing wrong with for-profit research, but there is also a need for nonprofit research, and a firewall between them. Right now, that wall is down, and it's eating away at things. Ironically, I've come to think that one of the things that might save public universities is to cut their ties to government altogether, that is, to become private institutions. It would be nice if legislatures would do their jobs and fund them, but if legislatures are going to play this game and try to dictate what universities are doing anyway, why not call a spade a spade and just sever the tie? What's happening a public universities is akin to what I imagine will happen with the Department of the Interior under Trump: a government run by foxes in the henhouse.