4 ms·

The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. This seems a much better solution than raising the cost per credit

by Kadin 9y ago

The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. This seems a much better solution than raising the cost per credit hour. Also, some STEM-type departments get grants (public and private) at a rate that's much greater than liberal arts departments, and grant recipients have to tithe back a large portion to their parent institution in a way that defrays facilities costs, etc. So there are other sources of income besides student tuition. If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE.

jogjayr 9y ago
> The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each department as a P&L center. There are bound to be departments that are important but perennially loss-making and knowledge shouldn't be reduced to just dollars and cents. But there does need to be more fairness in the money charged to students. The alternative is that humanities students (with lower earning potential) are subsidizing STEM students (higher earning potential). I know which one I prefer from a fairness point-of-view (speaking as a former STEM student).
- sethrin 9y ago
  Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. What you probably shouldn't do is admit that it doesn't make sense to try to compare the economic value of knowing Milton vs Maxwell, and then suggest doing so anyway.
  - jogjayr 9y ago
    > From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Some companies also pay tuition for employees going to school. > Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. Great Britain doesn't have free higher education. "Make higher education free" is certainly a worthy goal. But there needs to be some debate for how to get there. "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. Something to consider: German universities are free to everyone who passes an entrance exam [1]. But German universities also spend half the amount per student per year as US universities[2]. $10,164 vs $23,064. They also spend more on R&D proportionally, and in absolute terms per student-year. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_... 2. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf (page 215)
    - sethrin 9y ago
      > They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Seriously? > "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. "I've got mine, fuck you Jack" is a popular sentiment across all age brackets, but charity and compassion are also not age-restricted.
  - Kadin 9y ago
    > From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. At least at some points in the past, this was a significant funding source for universities. (In the US, not sure about outside of it.) The number of engineering schools founded by American industrialists is probably not coincidental, either. That companies no longer feel the need to invest in universities in order to ensure a steady supply of workers suggests one of two things: (1) either the planning horizon of private companies has contracted to such an extent that they are no longer willing to make such a long-term investment, or (2) they believe they can just hire sufficiently skilled graduates without investing in the "supply chain" that produces them. Argument 1 is largely a financial question, because it hinges on the long term discount rate; Argument 2 is essentially political, in that it assumes the ability to hire graduates from a large, slack labor pool outside of its immediate community in which it might otherwise invest. My guess is that both of these have played a role in declining private-sector funding of educational institutions vs. the early 20th century and prior.
Fomite 9y ago
Ironically, I have been in several research heavy departments that have been looking enviously at the teaching-heavy, undergraduate centric departments with steady and predictable funding streams. Two things to keep in mind: 1. Grants are difficult to get. The pay lines at both the NIH and NSF have been decreasing for quite some time, and even successful departments don't have the feeling of swimming in cash. 2. Overhead rates (the "tithes" you mention) do not necessarily cover the full administrative cost of a research-heavy department (especially things like capital construction). There are certainly institutions that have built a great deal of monetary success on their research programs, but not as many as one might think. This is why, for example, in my field we're seeing a proliferation of MPH programs - student tuition is a more reliable income stream.

by Kadin 9y ago

jogjayr 9y ago

> The higher cost of delivering classes with a lab component is generally solved via lab fees. That's fair. Just that (again, my experience) you were charged a fixed amount in lab fees every semester regardless of courses. It's probably varies between unis. > If you started treating departments as P&L centers, I don't know that I'd want to be in Anthropology vs. MechE. I don't know if you need to treat each department as a P&L center. There are bound to be departments that are important but perennially loss-making and knowledge shouldn't be reduced to just dollars and cents. But there does need to be more fairness in the money charged to students. The alternative is that humanities students (with lower earning potential) are subsidizing STEM students (higher earning potential). I know which one I prefer from a fairness point-of-view (speaking as a former STEM student).

sethrin 9y ago
Why are we considering universities in terms of the earning potential of their graduates? University is not job training. If anthropology students are being encouraged to continue in academia, it's because that's the purpose of that institution. From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. What you probably shouldn't do is admit that it doesn't make sense to try to compare the economic value of knowing Milton vs Maxwell, and then suggest doing so anyway.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  > From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Some companies also pay tuition for employees going to school. > Since that is unrealistic, the ultimate solution would seem to be making higher education free, like the rest of the civilized world. Great Britain doesn't have free higher education. "Make higher education free" is certainly a worthy goal. But there needs to be some debate for how to get there. "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. Something to consider: German universities are free to everyone who passes an entrance exam [1]. But German universities also spend half the amount per student per year as US universities[2]. $10,164 vs $23,064. They also spend more on R&D proportionally, and in absolute terms per student-year. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Tertiary_... 2. https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator%20B1%20(eng).pdf (page 215)
  - sethrin 9y ago
    > They do, in a way, by paying higher salaries for the graduates they really want. Seriously? > "The government pays your tuition" is unlikely to find much support outside of a certain age bracket. "I've got mine, fuck you Jack" is a popular sentiment across all age brackets, but charity and compassion are also not age-restricted.
- Kadin 9y ago
  > From a "fair" point of view, the industries trying to hire engineers should fund education. At least at some points in the past, this was a significant funding source for universities. (In the US, not sure about outside of it.) The number of engineering schools founded by American industrialists is probably not coincidental, either. That companies no longer feel the need to invest in universities in order to ensure a steady supply of workers suggests one of two things: (1) either the planning horizon of private companies has contracted to such an extent that they are no longer willing to make such a long-term investment, or (2) they believe they can just hire sufficiently skilled graduates without investing in the "supply chain" that produces them. Argument 1 is largely a financial question, because it hinges on the long term discount rate; Argument 2 is essentially political, in that it assumes the ability to hire graduates from a large, slack labor pool outside of its immediate community in which it might otherwise invest. My guess is that both of these have played a role in declining private-sector funding of educational institutions vs. the early 20th century and prior.

Fomite 9y ago

Ironically, I have been in several research heavy departments that have been looking enviously at the teaching-heavy, undergraduate centric departments with steady and predictable funding streams. Two things to keep in mind: 1. Grants are difficult to get. The pay lines at both the NIH and NSF have been decreasing for quite some time, and even successful departments don't have the feeling of swimming in cash. 2. Overhead rates (the "tithes" you mention) do not necessarily cover the full administrative cost of a research-heavy department (especially things like capital construction). There are certainly institutions that have built a great deal of monetary success on their research programs, but not as many as one might think. This is why, for example, in my field we're seeing a proliferation of MPH programs - student tuition is a more reliable income stream.