5 ms·

One thing I've noticed about American universities compared with universities in other countries (Japan, Korea, UK), is that almost every decent American univer

One thing I've noticed about American universities compared with universities in other countries (Japan, Korea, UK), is that almost every decent American university I've seen seems to be really well-maintained, in that the campus is very clean, in good repair, frequently renovated, etc, even the out-of-the-public-eye spaces (grad student offices and the like). Japanese and Korean universities, on the other hand, are often rather shabby, even the top-tier ones (Toudai etc). They're still perfectly fine places for the intended purpose, mind you, just maybe a little worn. I dunno how much of a part money maintenance and construction play in university costs, but I imagine it's labor-intensive, and so not exactly cheap...

morcheeba 12y ago
The author of the article is from Boulder... they just started on a $63M rec center renovation and they have a pool in the shape of a buffalo. There are only 30,000 students, so right there is $2,000 per student on a portion of the facilities that isn't involved in teaching. http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_25916902/cu-boulder-buffalo-shaped-pool-opens-monday http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_25916902/cu-boulder-bu...
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  A rec center lasts for more than a year doesn't it? I'm sure there are (will be) ongoing maintenance costs, but I doubt they are also $63M/year.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    A $63M rec center doesn't maintain itself. I'm sure the yearly operational costs are much larger than what they had before as well.
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  It an expense, not necessarily a cost. Their property values just rose for example. Over time the equipment ages which leads to breaking, and replacement because it's not state of the art anymore. If you expect it to last 20 years, then you can write off 1/20th every year, which are your actual costs. Meaning it's $100 per student per year, which is reasonably cheap because those are essentially your costs to have state of the art equipment available to you every year. Things like heating & lighting, employees, cleaning etc is added to that, but it's mostly independent from renovation as you had to pay that anyway before you renovated. It might go up a bit, it might go down because of more sustainable engineering for example. There's a lot more to it, of course, don't get me wrong. But $2k per student for non-teaching isn't quite the truth, either. But I think the notion of building decent public facilities and amenities is one of the best things we ought to do. It sadly doesn't happen often. But universities do it, libraries, rec centers, I think it's great. It has to happen in a smart way, of course, I don't support some of the ridiculous over the top projects you sometimes see. A pool in the shape of a buffalo, ugh, great example right there. Sadly it's often in the pursuit of collegiate sports and not really providing awesome amenities and facilities to the general student body. Reminds me of the piece about Alabama in this great Last Week Tonight [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0
  - sp332 12y ago
    If you're not planning to sell property, high property values are bad because they just increase your taxes. There's no upside.
mdasen 12y ago
Economists sometimes talk about different types of quality: actual quality and perceived quality. There has been a lot of spending that has been directed toward perceived quality at American Universities. That includes a lot of new buildings, a lot of maintenance, etc. In a certain way, it becomes a race to spend more. The more you spend, the better students you can attract, the better your status is and your alumni and industry donations are. All of this spending to entice 16 and 17 year olds to choose your university over another based on a cool study area, the prospect of free concerts, lots of student life staff to talk to and handle your needs, etc. In the United States, university education is extremely hierarchical. If you're fairly well off (parents earning $120,000/year), you can easily get a free education at one of the top schools. However, go to a school closer to 25th and there will be fees even for those whose parents earn less. I don't think most countries third-level systems are nearly as hierarchical. As such, it's a big deal for universities to compete for students (and students to compete for universities) in the US. A lot of that probably comes from American universities being completely independent of one another. I mean, sure, Imperial College London is independent from University College London, but they're ultimately responsible to the UK government. I don't think unbridled spending to court students from one government institution to another (via perceived, not actual quality) would really be looked upon well. To be fair, the lack of coordination can also put American universities in an awkward position. As soldiers came home and took advantage of the GI Bill, universities greatly expanded their capacity to teach them. As that large increase in students dropped off, universities were left with a lot of excess capacity. A lot of the increase in spending can be traced back to that period as universities tried to keep their enrolment steady. Ultimately, American universities are a combination of school and summer camp. Generally students live in university-owned dorms, they eat in university-owned cafeterias, and go to university-sponsored social events. All of that costs money, but in a competitive environment where students travel across the country to go to the university they perceive as best (that let them in), those costs are necessary from the university's perspective.
- dikaiosune 12y ago
  Rose-colored version: Competition! Freedom! Murrica! On a more serious note, it's also worth noting that 16/17 year-old students aren't making their decisions in a vacuum. Parents may be on the actual campus once (if at all) before the student attends, and I think that perceived quality measures are as much targeted at winning parental approval via first impressions as they are targeted at winning over high school kids on cool factor.
HeavenFox 12y ago
This. It basically holds true for any product: price doesn't increase linearly as quality goes up. I go to college in U.S., and a lot friends of mine attend one of the best universities in China. I have the freedom to take practically any course in the university, and my friends basically know what their four years look like before freshman year. I never worry about finding seats in the library, and my friends sometimes have to camp outside before it opens near finals. I have plenty of resources (Profs, TAs, advisors, peer tutors) when I get stuck, whereas my friends mostly have to figure it out on their own. I've been living in singles since freshman year, and my friends have dorm rooms that are slightly larger than mine, but with four students living in it. They don't even have shower in the dorm and have to go to a communal facility. Their bathrooms are dark, dirty and don't have bowls (squat toilets), while ours are some of the cleanest I've seen. On the other hand, I pay almost $50k in tuition alone each year, while my friends pay <$1000. I pay $8k a year for housing, and my friends pay ~$150, per year
- ollebro 12y ago
  I went to college in Sweden and had all that you had, I didn't pay anything. I received about 1000-1500$ a month for attending school from the government.
  - dikaiosune 12y ago
    I like the way Sweden does many things, but: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG/1280px-Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Tax... It's political suicide in the US to raise taxes in any significant way, and so we suffer through the nonsense we've got.
    - xorcist 12y ago
      It's important to put numbers in perspective. Every US citizen spends $98k over their expected lifetime on the military, for example. An average Swedish citizen spends $46k on state funded university and higher education over their expected lifetime (which is only slightly higher). That said, it should be obvious that the Sweden model doesn't suit conditions in the US (one is a small country in Northern Europe, one is almost a continent), but one should be able to discuss these things without the straw man of how state spending is impossible in the US. After all, military spending is possible, and that is probably the most socialistic system of them all, in the sense that it is state planned and politically mandated.
cowsandmilk 12y ago
Some might even argue more run-down buildings allow for better science. When you believe your building is cramped and in bad shape, changing its form slightly to get an experiment working is more acceptable. Cutting holes in walls, exposing beams to add supports for chemical reactors, and general experimentation. At least that's the idea behind the fetishization of Building 20 at MIT[1-3]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/31/science/last-rites-for-a-plywood-palace-that-was-a-rock-of-science.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/31/science/last-rites-for-a-p... [2] http://newsoffice.mit.edu/1998/b20main-0401 http://newsoffice.mit.edu/1998/b20main-0401 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20
jkestner 12y ago
Those are the things that administrators care about. Can't bring in more money if you don't have good-looking brochures. Like a lot that administrators do (including replicate themselves), it's considered a marketing expense. Because building reputation takes too much time.

morcheeba 12y ago

The author of the article is from Boulder... they just started on a $63M rec center renovation and they have a pool in the shape of a buffalo. There are only 30,000 students, so right there is $2,000 per student on a portion of the facilities that isn't involved in teaching. http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_25916902/cu-boulder-buffalo-shaped-pool-opens-monday http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_25916902/cu-boulder-bu...

jsprogrammer 12y ago
A rec center lasts for more than a year doesn't it? I'm sure there are (will be) ongoing maintenance costs, but I doubt they are also $63M/year.
- r00fus 12y ago
  A $63M rec center doesn't maintain itself. I'm sure the yearly operational costs are much larger than what they had before as well.
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
It an expense, not necessarily a cost. Their property values just rose for example. Over time the equipment ages which leads to breaking, and replacement because it's not state of the art anymore. If you expect it to last 20 years, then you can write off 1/20th every year, which are your actual costs. Meaning it's $100 per student per year, which is reasonably cheap because those are essentially your costs to have state of the art equipment available to you every year. Things like heating & lighting, employees, cleaning etc is added to that, but it's mostly independent from renovation as you had to pay that anyway before you renovated. It might go up a bit, it might go down because of more sustainable engineering for example. There's a lot more to it, of course, don't get me wrong. But $2k per student for non-teaching isn't quite the truth, either. But I think the notion of building decent public facilities and amenities is one of the best things we ought to do. It sadly doesn't happen often. But universities do it, libraries, rec centers, I think it's great. It has to happen in a smart way, of course, I don't support some of the ridiculous over the top projects you sometimes see. A pool in the shape of a buffalo, ugh, great example right there. Sadly it's often in the pursuit of collegiate sports and not really providing awesome amenities and facilities to the general student body. Reminds me of the piece about Alabama in this great Last Week Tonight [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0
- sp332 12y ago
  If you're not planning to sell property, high property values are bad because they just increase your taxes. There's no upside.

mdasen 12y ago

Economists sometimes talk about different types of quality: actual quality and perceived quality. There has been a lot of spending that has been directed toward perceived quality at American Universities. That includes a lot of new buildings, a lot of maintenance, etc. In a certain way, it becomes a race to spend more. The more you spend, the better students you can attract, the better your status is and your alumni and industry donations are. All of this spending to entice 16 and 17 year olds to choose your university over another based on a cool study area, the prospect of free concerts, lots of student life staff to talk to and handle your needs, etc. In the United States, university education is extremely hierarchical. If you're fairly well off (parents earning $120,000/year), you can easily get a free education at one of the top schools. However, go to a school closer to 25th and there will be fees even for those whose parents earn less. I don't think most countries third-level systems are nearly as hierarchical. As such, it's a big deal for universities to compete for students (and students to compete for universities) in the US. A lot of that probably comes from American universities being completely independent of one another. I mean, sure, Imperial College London is independent from University College London, but they're ultimately responsible to the UK government. I don't think unbridled spending to court students from one government institution to another (via perceived, not actual quality) would really be looked upon well. To be fair, the lack of coordination can also put American universities in an awkward position. As soldiers came home and took advantage of the GI Bill, universities greatly expanded their capacity to teach them. As that large increase in students dropped off, universities were left with a lot of excess capacity. A lot of the increase in spending can be traced back to that period as universities tried to keep their enrolment steady. Ultimately, American universities are a combination of school and summer camp. Generally students live in university-owned dorms, they eat in university-owned cafeterias, and go to university-sponsored social events. All of that costs money, but in a competitive environment where students travel across the country to go to the university they perceive as best (that let them in), those costs are necessary from the university's perspective.

dikaiosune 12y ago
Rose-colored version: Competition! Freedom! Murrica! On a more serious note, it's also worth noting that 16/17 year-old students aren't making their decisions in a vacuum. Parents may be on the actual campus once (if at all) before the student attends, and I think that perceived quality measures are as much targeted at winning parental approval via first impressions as they are targeted at winning over high school kids on cool factor.

HeavenFox 12y ago

This. It basically holds true for any product: price doesn't increase linearly as quality goes up. I go to college in U.S., and a lot friends of mine attend one of the best universities in China. I have the freedom to take practically any course in the university, and my friends basically know what their four years look like before freshman year. I never worry about finding seats in the library, and my friends sometimes have to camp outside before it opens near finals. I have plenty of resources (Profs, TAs, advisors, peer tutors) when I get stuck, whereas my friends mostly have to figure it out on their own. I've been living in singles since freshman year, and my friends have dorm rooms that are slightly larger than mine, but with four students living in it. They don't even have shower in the dorm and have to go to a communal facility. Their bathrooms are dark, dirty and don't have bowls (squat toilets), while ours are some of the cleanest I've seen. On the other hand, I pay almost $50k in tuition alone each year, while my friends pay <$1000. I pay $8k a year for housing, and my friends pay ~$150, per year

ollebro 12y ago
I went to college in Sweden and had all that you had, I didn't pay anything. I received about 1000-1500$ a month for attending school from the government.
- dikaiosune 12y ago
  I like the way Sweden does many things, but: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG/1280px-Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Tax... It's political suicide in the US to raise taxes in any significant way, and so we suffer through the nonsense we've got.
  - xorcist 12y ago
    It's important to put numbers in perspective. Every US citizen spends $98k over their expected lifetime on the military, for example. An average Swedish citizen spends $46k on state funded university and higher education over their expected lifetime (which is only slightly higher). That said, it should be obvious that the Sweden model doesn't suit conditions in the US (one is a small country in Northern Europe, one is almost a continent), but one should be able to discuss these things without the straw man of how state spending is impossible in the US. After all, military spending is possible, and that is probably the most socialistic system of them all, in the sense that it is state planned and politically mandated.

cowsandmilk 12y ago

Some might even argue more run-down buildings allow for better science. When you believe your building is cramped and in bad shape, changing its form slightly to get an experiment working is more acceptable. Cutting holes in walls, exposing beams to add supports for chemical reactors, and general experimentation. At least that's the idea behind the fetishization of Building 20 at MIT[1-3]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/31/science/last-rites-for-a-plywood-palace-that-was-a-rock-of-science.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/31/science/last-rites-for-a-p... [2] http://newsoffice.mit.edu/1998/b20main-0401 http://newsoffice.mit.edu/1998/b20main-0401 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20

jkestner 12y ago

Those are the things that administrators care about. Can't bring in more money if you don't have good-looking brochures. Like a lot that administrators do (including replicate themselves), it's considered a marketing expense. Because building reputation takes too much time.