3 ms·

> The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top student

by dap 4y ago

> The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top students (and athletes). To attract these students they invest in massive infrastructure projects (new buildings and renovations), often with the support of earmarked donations from wealthy alumni. These new facilities must then be staffed with administrators and maintenance workers. Along with the new facilities come new departments and schools of X and Y which also need their own administration. > The short answer is: administrative bloat. I don't get it -- you're saying it's "bloat" and bad that the competitive market for students is causing universities to invest in themselves? You've actually convinced me that a large chunk of costs for nameless "administrators" might be going to useful purposes because investing in buildings and programs requires non-educational staff to keep things going.

chongli 4y ago
It's a zero sum game. Bob the student can either attend Charles State or Derek University, not both. If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. The building itself may have been donated by some magnanimous billionaire, but the water to fill the pools and run the showers, the chlorine and other chemicals, the electricity to run the pumps and keep the lights on, the lifeguards, the cleaning crew, the maintenance crew, the swim team coaches, management, HR staff, and so on are all part of the school's operating costs. It is these costs that are paid for by tuition money.
- dap 4y ago
  > If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. Why do you think it's zero sum? Everything I've read suggests the total number of college students is increasing while school count isn't. Schools are increasing capacity, but not necessarily fast enough. Bob may not matriculate, but many others might because of the aquatic center. I can't imagine schools are building an aquatic center for one individual who might not even matriculate. I can imagine schools building an aquatic center to increase the overall matriculation rate. If it works, and this example is representative, then what you're describing sounds like a competitive market causing all the producers to make investments to improve their product. (You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate.) If it doesn't work, then it sounds like it was just a bad decision, and possibly one with long-term costs for upkeep. But as far as I can tell, on average these things _are_ working, because colleges are only getting more selective.
  - chongli 4y ago
    You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate. That is my argument. Society is a whole is spending more and more on education but not getting more education in the deal. We’re getting more aquatic complexes and climbing walls and sports stadiums. None of these things help society achieve higher levels of education. They merely allow one school to lure students away from another: zero sum.

by dap 4y ago

chongli 4y ago

It's a zero sum game. Bob the student can either attend Charles State or Derek University, not both. If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. The building itself may have been donated by some magnanimous billionaire, but the water to fill the pools and run the showers, the chlorine and other chemicals, the electricity to run the pumps and keep the lights on, the lifeguards, the cleaning crew, the maintenance crew, the swim team coaches, management, HR staff, and so on are all part of the school's operating costs. It is these costs that are paid for by tuition money.

dap 4y ago
> If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. Why do you think it's zero sum? Everything I've read suggests the total number of college students is increasing while school count isn't. Schools are increasing capacity, but not necessarily fast enough. Bob may not matriculate, but many others might because of the aquatic center. I can't imagine schools are building an aquatic center for one individual who might not even matriculate. I can imagine schools building an aquatic center to increase the overall matriculation rate. If it works, and this example is representative, then what you're describing sounds like a competitive market causing all the producers to make investments to improve their product. (You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate.) If it doesn't work, then it sounds like it was just a bad decision, and possibly one with long-term costs for upkeep. But as far as I can tell, on average these things _are_ working, because colleges are only getting more selective.
- chongli 4y ago
  You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate. That is my argument. Society is a whole is spending more and more on education but not getting more education in the deal. We’re getting more aquatic complexes and climbing walls and sports stadiums. None of these things help society achieve higher levels of education. They merely allow one school to lure students away from another: zero sum.