3 ms·

People throw around offensive-sounding numbers of millions of dollars for college amenities, but often they work out to pocket change per student This is not t

by 001sky 13y ago

People throw around offensive-sounding numbers of millions of dollars for college amenities, but often they work out to pocket change per student This is not true, generally. The cost of running a modern university (property, plant, energy) is quite material. These costs are an order of magnitude above "pocket change".

meric 13y ago
You're understating unintentionally. Let's take "pocket change" to be around $100, an absurdly high amount for pocket change. An order of magnitude above that would be $100 * 10 = $1000.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Pocket change in this context would be 1-3% of a cost base.[1] >5% is not pocket change, it is a material expense. The expenses in question may be in the 30-40% range ( >10x a "pocket change" amount of 1-2%). Hope this is clearer. [1] ie, a "non-material" expense.
eitally 13y ago
Obviously this isn't granular enough to draw any conclusions from, but my alma mater (University of Virginia) has an annual opex of about $2b. This covers about 12,000 undergrads and 8,000 grad/professional students.
superuser2 13y ago
Physical plant costs are material, yes. However, the issue is specifically the incremental physical plant costs of having nice things like brand new athletic centers. My university has a new $51m gym. $51,000,000 / 12,000 students / 30 years = $142/student/year. Roughly the price of a single science textbook, and that's assuming it only lasts 30 years. Not pocket change on a student's personal expenses budget, but compared to the $65k sticker cost of attendance, it's a drop in the ocean. If administration had refrained from spoiling its students with nice things, cost of attendance would not be markedly less.
- 001sky 13y ago
  In 2013-14, Stanford is a $4.8 billion enterprise Expenditures for FY 2013-14 59% salaries & benefits 31% operating expenses 4% SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 6% financial aid _________ =~$1.5 B on opex. Which is basically garnderers, housekeepers, lawn-mowers, and janitors. That, plus security, heat electric, etc. golf courses, gyms, etc.

by 001sky 13y ago

meric 13y ago

You're understating unintentionally. Let's take "pocket change" to be around $100, an absurdly high amount for pocket change. An order of magnitude above that would be $100 * 10 = $1000.

001sky 13y ago
Pocket change in this context would be 1-3% of a cost base.[1] >5% is not pocket change, it is a material expense. The expenses in question may be in the 30-40% range ( >10x a "pocket change" amount of 1-2%). Hope this is clearer. [1] ie, a "non-material" expense.

eitally 13y ago

Obviously this isn't granular enough to draw any conclusions from, but my alma mater (University of Virginia) has an annual opex of about $2b. This covers about 12,000 undergrads and 8,000 grad/professional students.

superuser2 13y ago

Physical plant costs are material, yes. However, the issue is specifically the incremental physical plant costs of having nice things like brand new athletic centers. My university has a new $51m gym. $51,000,000 / 12,000 students / 30 years = $142/student/year. Roughly the price of a single science textbook, and that's assuming it only lasts 30 years. Not pocket change on a student's personal expenses budget, but compared to the $65k sticker cost of attendance, it's a drop in the ocean. If administration had refrained from spoiling its students with nice things, cost of attendance would not be markedly less.

001sky 13y ago
In 2013-14, Stanford is a $4.8 billion enterprise Expenditures for FY 2013-14 59% salaries & benefits 31% operating expenses 4% SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 6% financial aid _________ =~$1.5 B on opex. Which is basically garnderers, housekeepers, lawn-mowers, and janitors. That, plus security, heat electric, etc. golf courses, gyms, etc.