4 ms·

Yes, and with the money come higher prices and bigger administrative overhead. Because they can get the funds they will charge more.

by emsign 5y ago

gravypod 5y ago
It's unfortunate we live in this world. Harvard takes in ~2k/year. Each student stays for ~4 years. This means ~10k are on campus at any time. Harvard costs ~50k/year. This means it costs ~500,000,000/year for all of Harvard's student bodies. If Harvard has a 38b endowment they can spend on education (they probably don't, probably named buildings) they could fund ~76 years of Harvard without charging a dime to students. I wish we lived in the world that was possible. Also, could we reduce college costs by: mandating college credit transfer and allowing students to test out of unlimited classes. I tested out of 3 classes for my degree (the max) just using my ~8 years of experience as a programmer. I wasted so much time on courses I knew the material for. If I could just get a pile of study materials and tests I would have saved buckets.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Harvard has 21,000 students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University And very generous financial aid. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability#:~:text=If%20your%20family's%20income%20is,%2C%20you'll%20pay%20nothing.&text=For%20more%20than%20ninety%20percent,regardless%20of%20nationality%20or%20citizenship https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordabi....
- dantheman 5y ago
  Harvard isn't the problem; the problem is insane housing costs and crazy administrator salaries at other institutions. Harvard et al aren't the problem with student debt.
- whakim 5y ago
  Ivy+ institutions aren't saddling their students with crippling debt (although many others - including supposedly affordable "public" universities - are). Instead they're simply failing to support students from underprivileged/diverse backgrounds once they're in the door and can be safely put on a campus brochure.
- andi999 5y ago
  And after 76 years? Harvard was founded in 1636 so if they thought like this before they wouldn't have been around anymore.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- gspr 5y ago
  The situation is far better in Europe (minus UK) though. A lot of the negatives portrayed in this thread are also happening here (the esoteric character professors becoming fewer and fewer, the paper production labs with little passion or spark for the actual research, the ever-shrinking time for actual research, etc…), but the situation of unaffordable or crippling-debt-inducing tuition is still not the norm here.
  - jq-r 5y ago
    Add to that a large volume of EU funded "projects" which are just alternative names for transferring money to professors and other administration. So everyone wants to work on a EU project, as they will get a lot of money for very little (if any) work. The money has to be spent on equipment etc, but usually that equipment (IT hardware/software, specialised equipment, vehicles, whatever) just ends up in the private hands. Then it can just be resold to someone else, or bartered for other stuff. There is no or very little oversight. Professors stopped teaching long ago, they just consider it a nuisance while making extremely good money with those projects, a lot of free time and high salaries.
    - gspr 5y ago
      What a load of nonsense! There's plenty wrong with EU research funding, but I think you are missing the mark completely. > Add to that a large volume of EU funded "projects" which are just alternative names for transferring money to professors and other administration Sure. And then the professors hire PhD students and postdocs to do the nitty gritty research, using that money. That's pretty much how grant money works – EU or no EU. It's far from perfect, but not specific to the EU. > So everyone wants to work on a EU project, as they will get a lot of money for very little (if any) work. I mean, they're a giant source for research funding, so of course. I have never experienced them being "little work" though! The oversight seems comparable to that of other grants. > The money has to be spent on equipment etc That's not true. In my field, almost all of it is spent on brains (and their attached life support systems), typically in the form of PhD students and postdocs. > but usually that equipment (IT hardware/software, specialised equipment, vehicles, whatever) just ends up in the private hands Citation needed! The universities I've worked at have had very strict rules about what happens to things like specialized equipment bought on grant money. They definitely do not just end up in private hands – it would be a scandal where I've worked. (IT hardware sometimes, because the depreciation on commodity compute hardware is often so significant that it's just not worth the hassle). > Professors stopped teaching long ago, they just consider it a nuisance while making extremely good money with those projects, a lot of free time and high salaries. The professors I've worked with all had pretty intense teaching loads, and essentially zero free time (in fact, to paraphrase a recent email from a tenured full professor I used to work with: "I finally took a Saturday off, so I didn't have time to look at what you wrote yet, but I will tomorrow"). The more senior ones have had decent salaries indeed, but that's typically after a decade of living on scraps, and often (but, granted, not always) with skills that industry would reward massively.

Yes, and with the money come higher prices and bigger administrative overhead. Because they can get the funds they will charge more.

by emsign 5y ago

Yes, and with the money come higher prices and bigger administrative overhead. Because they can get the funds they will charge more.

gravypod 5y ago

It's unfortunate we live in this world. Harvard takes in ~2k/year. Each student stays for ~4 years. This means ~10k are on campus at any time. Harvard costs ~50k/year. This means it costs ~500,000,000/year for all of Harvard's student bodies. If Harvard has a 38b endowment they can spend on education (they probably don't, probably named buildings) they could fund ~76 years of Harvard without charging a dime to students. I wish we lived in the world that was possible. Also, could we reduce college costs by: mandating college credit transfer and allowing students to test out of unlimited classes. I tested out of 3 classes for my degree (the max) just using my ~8 years of experience as a programmer. I wasted so much time on courses I knew the material for. If I could just get a pile of study materials and tests I would have saved buckets.

MattGaiser 5y ago
Harvard has 21,000 students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University And very generous financial aid. https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability#:~:text=If%20your%20family's%20income%20is,%2C%20you'll%20pay%20nothing.&text=For%20more%20than%20ninety%20percent,regardless%20of%20nationality%20or%20citizenship https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordabi....
dantheman 5y ago
Harvard isn't the problem; the problem is insane housing costs and crazy administrator salaries at other institutions. Harvard et al aren't the problem with student debt.
whakim 5y ago
Ivy+ institutions aren't saddling their students with crippling debt (although many others - including supposedly affordable "public" universities - are). Instead they're simply failing to support students from underprivileged/diverse backgrounds once they're in the door and can be safely put on a campus brochure.
andi999 5y ago
And after 76 years? Harvard was founded in 1636 so if they thought like this before they wouldn't have been around anymore.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gspr 5y ago
The situation is far better in Europe (minus UK) though. A lot of the negatives portrayed in this thread are also happening here (the esoteric character professors becoming fewer and fewer, the paper production labs with little passion or spark for the actual research, the ever-shrinking time for actual research, etc…), but the situation of unaffordable or crippling-debt-inducing tuition is still not the norm here.
- jq-r 5y ago
  Add to that a large volume of EU funded "projects" which are just alternative names for transferring money to professors and other administration. So everyone wants to work on a EU project, as they will get a lot of money for very little (if any) work. The money has to be spent on equipment etc, but usually that equipment (IT hardware/software, specialised equipment, vehicles, whatever) just ends up in the private hands. Then it can just be resold to someone else, or bartered for other stuff. There is no or very little oversight. Professors stopped teaching long ago, they just consider it a nuisance while making extremely good money with those projects, a lot of free time and high salaries.
  - gspr 5y ago
    What a load of nonsense! There's plenty wrong with EU research funding, but I think you are missing the mark completely. > Add to that a large volume of EU funded "projects" which are just alternative names for transferring money to professors and other administration Sure. And then the professors hire PhD students and postdocs to do the nitty gritty research, using that money. That's pretty much how grant money works – EU or no EU. It's far from perfect, but not specific to the EU. > So everyone wants to work on a EU project, as they will get a lot of money for very little (if any) work. I mean, they're a giant source for research funding, so of course. I have never experienced them being "little work" though! The oversight seems comparable to that of other grants. > The money has to be spent on equipment etc That's not true. In my field, almost all of it is spent on brains (and their attached life support systems), typically in the form of PhD students and postdocs. > but usually that equipment (IT hardware/software, specialised equipment, vehicles, whatever) just ends up in the private hands Citation needed! The universities I've worked at have had very strict rules about what happens to things like specialized equipment bought on grant money. They definitely do not just end up in private hands – it would be a scandal where I've worked. (IT hardware sometimes, because the depreciation on commodity compute hardware is often so significant that it's just not worth the hassle). > Professors stopped teaching long ago, they just consider it a nuisance while making extremely good money with those projects, a lot of free time and high salaries. The professors I've worked with all had pretty intense teaching loads, and essentially zero free time (in fact, to paraphrase a recent email from a tenured full professor I used to work with: "I finally took a Saturday off, so I didn't have time to look at what you wrote yet, but I will tomorrow"). The more senior ones have had decent salaries indeed, but that's typically after a decade of living on scraps, and often (but, granted, not always) with skills that industry would reward massively.