4 ms·

Well this is a private institution so I am little less concerned about its spending habits. For some college students might decide not to fork over the money. B

by bruceb 12y ago

Well this is a private institution so I am little less concerned about its spending habits. For some college students might decide not to fork over the money. But for U of Chicago probably not as their "..undergraduate admission rate of 8.4% is among the country's most selective universities" (wikipedia) They will get people to pay for a while to come. That being said the board of regents for state U. seem to be a chummy affair with those who sit on them appointed by the governor (at least in my state). I don't have a great deal of faith in individual board members to rock the boat and risk giving up the prestige of sitting on the board of a large university.

geebee 12y ago
While I wouldn't try to argue that there is no distinction between public and private, a huge amount of government money does flow into both. Private really just mean that it is not operated by the government, and probably means that it doesn't receive direct operational funding from the government. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/universities-government-money_n_3165186.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/universities-govern... Private universities do receive a huge amount of government funding, particularly where it comes to research grants. They are also tax exempt where it comes to endowment growth. These two elements do amount to considerable government support for research universities. Some very high profile public research universities (such as UC Berkeley and UCSF) actually receive a small enough percentage of their budget from the state that they are tempted, now and then, to withdraw and privatize. This temptation is particularly strong at UCSF, which doesn't have undergraduates to support and might very well come out ahead if it gave up state support, already a minimal part of the budget, in exchange for the right to behave like a private institution.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  > They are also tax exempt where it comes to endowment growth. And they're often exempt from property taxes too, which is why many elite universities now own substantial portions of whole towns or cities and charge rent to the actual tax-payers for use of the space. MIT and Harvard own much of Cambridge, and Columbia has been on a buying spree in Manhattan. According to the facts I've managed to find, they do pay some property tax, but they also seem to cut deals with their home cities to give reduced "payments in lieu of taxes" rather than pay their full property tax burdens -- depending on where. It ought be asked why tax-exempt nonprofit institutions receiving public funding for educational purposes can now act as landlords.
markc 12y ago
The top 50 highest salaries in Massachusetts are all at UMass: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/16/once-again-state-list-top-wage-earners-dominated-umass-employees/XMgv3K777DVH40yP2aPdiN/igraphic.html?p1=Article_Graphic http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/16/once-again-state... Here's the top 5 (from 2012) Collins, Michael F Chancellor & SVP Hlth Sciences $784,468 Flotte, Terence R Exec Dep Chanc Provost & Dean $712,041 Lovley, Derek R Associate Dean CNS $664,636 Kellogg, Derek W Head Basketball Coach $628,624 Murphy, Joyce A Exec VC, Commonwealth Medicine $590,320 Collins also got a $700k+ home to live in free. Meanwhile the governor of the state was making about $140k. I assume a $400k/yr professor must be bringing in some serious grant bucks, but wow, I had no idea you could make that much as a prof.
araes 12y ago
While I can't say I'm concerned about the University of Chicago (not a direct impact on my life), I am concerned about the overall trend that it represents. The fact that students are willing to pay for it doesn't mean too much (IMO) as the economics and incentives of higher education (2008 downturn, skimpy state budgets, tuition grants, non-dischargeable loan debt, graduate research funding) have driven most schools to a challenging place where students are mostly choosing between institutions that are kind of mercenary, and ones that are blatantly mercenary. This story comments on the University of Chicago mostly because its one of the extremes. However, the issue is really the trend - The move to run schools like big business. To gauge success by non-student oriented metrics like year-over-year recruitment growth or annual profit. To compete for, and try to hire big shot administrators / executives (cause that $1M (Example) Harvard guy is worth 10x more than some $100k random dude). To vote large administrative / executive pay raises or parachutes (not general faculty) while the main public story is the rapidly rising cost of tuition. To tailor the school towards showing good metrics, rather than educating students and letting metrics flow from that. To focus primarily on research output because its more profitable / efficient than educating a bunch of undergrads. IMO, its all the problems that we're vaguely aware exist in higher education, but the University of Chicago is just particularly egregious about it and could make Obama look bad if he puts his library in it while talking about how important educating all our students (not just the wealthy ones) is.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >To gauge success by non-student oriented metrics like year-over-year recruitment growth or annual profit. To compete for, and try to hire big shot administrators / executives (cause that $1M (Example) Harvard guy is worth 10x more than some $100k random dude). To vote large administrative / executive pay raises or parachutes (not general faculty) while the main public story is the rapidly rising cost of tuition. To tailor the school towards showing good metrics, rather than educating students and letting metrics flow from that. To focus primarily on research output because its more profitable / efficient than educating a bunch of undergrads. All while squeezing graduate-student stipends and replacing tenured faculty with poverty-wage adjuncts.

by bruceb 12y ago

geebee 12y ago

While I wouldn't try to argue that there is no distinction between public and private, a huge amount of government money does flow into both. Private really just mean that it is not operated by the government, and probably means that it doesn't receive direct operational funding from the government. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/universities-government-money_n_3165186.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/universities-govern... Private universities do receive a huge amount of government funding, particularly where it comes to research grants. They are also tax exempt where it comes to endowment growth. These two elements do amount to considerable government support for research universities. Some very high profile public research universities (such as UC Berkeley and UCSF) actually receive a small enough percentage of their budget from the state that they are tempted, now and then, to withdraw and privatize. This temptation is particularly strong at UCSF, which doesn't have undergraduates to support and might very well come out ahead if it gave up state support, already a minimal part of the budget, in exchange for the right to behave like a private institution.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
> They are also tax exempt where it comes to endowment growth. And they're often exempt from property taxes too, which is why many elite universities now own substantial portions of whole towns or cities and charge rent to the actual tax-payers for use of the space. MIT and Harvard own much of Cambridge, and Columbia has been on a buying spree in Manhattan. According to the facts I've managed to find, they do pay some property tax, but they also seem to cut deals with their home cities to give reduced "payments in lieu of taxes" rather than pay their full property tax burdens -- depending on where. It ought be asked why tax-exempt nonprofit institutions receiving public funding for educational purposes can now act as landlords.

markc 12y ago

The top 50 highest salaries in Massachusetts are all at UMass: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/16/once-again-state-list-top-wage-earners-dominated-umass-employees/XMgv3K777DVH40yP2aPdiN/igraphic.html?p1=Article_Graphic http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/16/once-again-state... Here's the top 5 (from 2012) Collins, Michael F Chancellor & SVP Hlth Sciences $784,468 Flotte, Terence R Exec Dep Chanc Provost & Dean $712,041 Lovley, Derek R Associate Dean CNS $664,636 Kellogg, Derek W Head Basketball Coach $628,624 Murphy, Joyce A Exec VC, Commonwealth Medicine $590,320 Collins also got a $700k+ home to live in free. Meanwhile the governor of the state was making about $140k. I assume a $400k/yr professor must be bringing in some serious grant bucks, but wow, I had no idea you could make that much as a prof.

araes 12y ago

While I can't say I'm concerned about the University of Chicago (not a direct impact on my life), I am concerned about the overall trend that it represents. The fact that students are willing to pay for it doesn't mean too much (IMO) as the economics and incentives of higher education (2008 downturn, skimpy state budgets, tuition grants, non-dischargeable loan debt, graduate research funding) have driven most schools to a challenging place where students are mostly choosing between institutions that are kind of mercenary, and ones that are blatantly mercenary. This story comments on the University of Chicago mostly because its one of the extremes. However, the issue is really the trend - The move to run schools like big business. To gauge success by non-student oriented metrics like year-over-year recruitment growth or annual profit. To compete for, and try to hire big shot administrators / executives (cause that $1M (Example) Harvard guy is worth 10x more than some $100k random dude). To vote large administrative / executive pay raises or parachutes (not general faculty) while the main public story is the rapidly rising cost of tuition. To tailor the school towards showing good metrics, rather than educating students and letting metrics flow from that. To focus primarily on research output because its more profitable / efficient than educating a bunch of undergrads. IMO, its all the problems that we're vaguely aware exist in higher education, but the University of Chicago is just particularly egregious about it and could make Obama look bad if he puts his library in it while talking about how important educating all our students (not just the wealthy ones) is.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>To gauge success by non-student oriented metrics like year-over-year recruitment growth or annual profit. To compete for, and try to hire big shot administrators / executives (cause that $1M (Example) Harvard guy is worth 10x more than some $100k random dude). To vote large administrative / executive pay raises or parachutes (not general faculty) while the main public story is the rapidly rising cost of tuition. To tailor the school towards showing good metrics, rather than educating students and letting metrics flow from that. To focus primarily on research output because its more profitable / efficient than educating a bunch of undergrads. All while squeezing graduate-student stipends and replacing tenured faculty with poverty-wage adjuncts.