3 ms·
But why would the university bother? The students are paying to go to <top name school>, not (very often) because they want to be taught by <top name professor
by mabbo 7y ago
But why would the university bother?
The students are paying to go to <top name school>, not (very often) because they want to be taught by <top name professor>. From the university's perspective, there's little financial incentive to retain that top talent. Making it worse, the professor isn't being stolen by a competitor (another university) where students might spend their money instead.
In short, if you're asking for the free market to solve this problem, it has- from the professors' perspective.
Edit: put another way, these professors can earn the private industry far more money than they can the university. Often a lot more. Salary competition between such pairs of actors will always result in the same thing.
- bradleyjg 7y agoIf universities are profit maximizing entities why do they get preferential tax treatment?
- ldoughty 7y agoPaying employees more is not profit-centric... I'm not sure about your argument here .. University athletics is certainly a profit center, but research and general operations is devoid of cash, even at R1 institutions. I struggle to find money for salary and most private industries will offer 20% more for any employee I hire
- bradleyjg 7y agoQuoting the grandparent post: The students are paying to go to <top name school>, not (very often) because they want to be taught by <top name professor>. From the university's perspective, there's little financial incentive to retain that top talent. If that’s how a university makes decisions then I don’t think it ought to get tax advantages.
- throwawayjava 7y agoThe top schools aren't the ones who need to worry, and it's not the famous professors who need to be retained. It's the mid and low ranked schools who are facing competitive pressures from alternative options.