Most important reforms needed for College/ University sector?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

OP - isn’t that more of a thing for privates such as a Harvard who want to make sure alumni keep on donating?

My understanding is that athletic recruits usually have strict rules for maintaining a decent GPA. Is that not the case?

I have never heard of doctor’s children getting preferential treatment - just that many people no longer want to practice medicine due to all the political and insurance company interfering in their work.

Agree that donors’ children should not get preferential admissions but that will probably never go away for privates …

No, there are no strict rules for GPA for college athletes. At most schools, the football team are at the very low end of the admitted student stats (Not at Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, and the likes but at most schools). DO you really think at Clemson the majority of the football team had a 1310+ SAT (that's Clemson average)? At most schools the only reqs to keep playing is maintaining a 2.0---and that is made easier if you major in a very simple major. Communications is a popular major---very easy relatively speaking

OP - OK I take your point: the athlete scholars I am familiar with were not footballers and they were top students.

However, after looking into this issue, I found that you or other PP who cited college athletic program cost issue was right: the majority of college sports programs cost more than the revenues they bring in. There are non monetary values at play also such as fostering school pride and community. The costs need to be better rationalized though and I believe it is scandalous for coaches to be paid so much more than professors and adjuncts .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

Everyone at my university works until late 70s because we have a pitiful retirement plan. Two percent of our low salary per year is our university contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

Everyone at my university works until late 70s because we have a pitiful retirement plan. Two percent of our low salary per year is our university contribution.

OP - Wow - that is meager employer contribution for retirement plans especially given cost of living hikes.

Does your university have expensive sports programs? Are the tuition costs very high? Where do you think the money is being spent unwisely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

Specifically, what staff? You have NO idea what these people do, so using your "knowledge" be specific, in terms of who should be cut.

Yes---most have no clue. Just think, during covid most administrators took on double/triple the work to make education happen, all while trying to figure out how to maintain employees who were not as "needed" for 6 months to a year (food service when dorms and campus were closed) all while working with millions less in budget (because most schools refunded R&B for the end of Spring 2020) and many schools with "2-4 years of living on campus requirements" allowed student stop remain at home fall of 2020. Those administrators worked their asses off to keep the schools functioning in a totally new environment, all while everyone around them complained no matter what they did.

OP - good point .. I am sure there are many admin staff who perform essential services to support teaching faculty and students but there are probably Some who do not add value.

I don’t know how universities should evaluate that but presumably teaching faculty should be on cost evaluation committees to weigh pros and cons for various positions that cost a lot of money - perhaps starting with athletic jobs since so many college sports programs cost more than revenues they bring in

Well yes, the athletic jobs on many campuses are costly and do not bring in $$$ (outside of Big10 or SEC by and large). But most other positions are essential, most add value to the overall college experience---there is so much more that goes into running a college campus than most people even think about. And during Covid most schools had to make cuts, even in areas that are needed. Key people lost jobs because the universities were in the red financially. The work doesn't disappear when they cut people, they just save money and make the current workers overworked.

If you want college without all the added value, try a Community college, where there often are no dorm, no on campus experiences beyond the academic and a few clubs, etc. And the professors are really just lecturers, many times without even a PHD (not always but many times) and certainly are paid even lower salaries.

During 2020/2021 I listened to the zoom presentations at my kid's university as they detailed everything they were doing for covid (including refunding R&B about 1 week after they cancelled on-campus for spring 2020), I saw the financials, they lost over $50M. Because while the dorms are empty, you still have to maintain them (and most are older), you still have to heat them and fix broken pipes/etc. They worked hard to find positions for the cafeteria staff elsewhere within the university, as over 50% of the staff came from the surrounding neighborhood (which is extremely poor---Jesuit university, located in one of most needy neighborhoods in the city and uni tries to employ those in the neighborhood), all while providing support to the faculty and staff who are trying to transition to online learning (hint: it's costly and requires training and TONS of IT staff to make it happen---lets just say unless it's an engineering/CS prof not all professors are technically inclined). Those in management (top 20-30 administrators) were working overtime for months (I'd say thru spring 2021 easily). They had on campus classes fall of 2020, but with "reduced class sizes". Can you imagine for a moment how you create enough classrooms to have all students be 6 ft apart? They turned the gym and every available space into "classrooms". Oh, and to keep students 6 ft apart, meant that instead of all 50-60 kids attending classes MWF, only 15-20 could attend on M, another 15-20 on W and remainder on F. Someone had to manage this and ensure they were in compliance with the city and state protocols. Then someone had to manage covid testing and handling outbreaks, etc. 2 ENTIRE Dorms were shut down before Thanksgiving---as in completely shut down, you have 6-8 hours to leave and go home for 10 days or remain in isolation in that dorm. I can only imagine the level of staff/administration work needed to make this happen, to keep kids safe, to provide food, outdoor time (yes they had an outdoor area where kids were allowed 6 ft apart during certain hours) and mental health support.

If anything in the last 3 years, college staff and administrators have worked overtime to make college happen for your kids and have not been compensated for the extra work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

Specifically, what staff? You have NO idea what these people do, so using your "knowledge" be specific, in terms of who should be cut.

Yes---most have no clue. Just think, during covid most administrators took on double/triple the work to make education happen, all while trying to figure out how to maintain employees who were not as "needed" for 6 months to a year (food service when dorms and campus were closed) all while working with millions less in budget (because most schools refunded R&B for the end of Spring 2020) and many schools with "2-4 years of living on campus requirements" allowed student stop remain at home fall of 2020. Those administrators worked their asses off to keep the schools functioning in a totally new environment, all while everyone around them complained no matter what they did.

OP - good point .. I am sure there are many admin staff who perform essential services to support teaching faculty and students but there are probably Some who do not add value.

I don’t know how universities should evaluate that but presumably teaching faculty should be on cost evaluation committees to weigh pros and cons for various positions that cost a lot of money - perhaps starting with athletic jobs since so many college sports programs cost more than revenues they bring in

Well yes, the athletic jobs on many campuses are costly and do not bring in $$$ (outside of Big10 or SEC by and large). But most other positions are essential, most add value to the overall college experience---there is so much more that goes into running a college campus than most people even think about. And during Covid most schools had to make cuts, even in areas that are needed. Key people lost jobs because the universities were in the red financially. The work doesn't disappear when they cut people, they just save money and make the current workers overworked.

If you want college without all the added value, try a Community college, where there often are no dorm, no on campus experiences beyond the academic and a few clubs, etc. And the professors are really just lecturers, many times without even a PHD (not always but many times) and certainly are paid even lower salaries.

During 2020/2021 I listened to the zoom presentations at my kid's university as they detailed everything they were doing for covid (including refunding R&B about 1 week after they cancelled on-campus for spring 2020), I saw the financials, they lost over $50M. Because while the dorms are empty, you still have to maintain them (and most are older), you still have to heat them and fix broken pipes/etc. They worked hard to find positions for the cafeteria staff elsewhere within the university, as over 50% of the staff came from the surrounding neighborhood (which is extremely poor---Jesuit university, located in one of most needy neighborhoods in the city and uni tries to employ those in the neighborhood), all while providing support to the faculty and staff who are trying to transition to online learning (hint: it's costly and requires training and TONS of IT staff to make it happen---lets just say unless it's an engineering/CS prof not all professors are technically inclined). Those in management (top 20-30 administrators) were working overtime for months (I'd say thru spring 2021 easily). They had on campus classes fall of 2020, but with "reduced class sizes". Can you imagine for a moment how you create enough classrooms to have all students be 6 ft apart? They turned the gym and every available space into "classrooms". Oh, and to keep students 6 ft apart, meant that instead of all 50-60 kids attending classes MWF, only 15-20 could attend on M, another 15-20 on W and remainder on F. Someone had to manage this and ensure they were in compliance with the city and state protocols. Then someone had to manage covid testing and handling outbreaks, etc. 2 ENTIRE Dorms were shut down before Thanksgiving---as in completely shut down, you have 6-8 hours to leave and go home for 10 days or remain in isolation in that dorm. I can only imagine the level of staff/administration work needed to make this happen, to keep kids safe, to provide food, outdoor time (yes they had an outdoor area where kids were allowed 6 ft apart during certain hours) and mental health support.

If anything in the last 3 years, college staff and administrators have worked overtime to make college happen for your kids and have not been compensated for the extra work.

OP

Thank you for illuminating the complexities of non teaching staff contributions to university functions. Running a university is indeed far from obvious.

So do you think there is little room for private colleges to trim fat? And college tuition prices realistic in your view ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

OP - isn’t that more of a thing for privates such as a Harvard who want to make sure alumni keep on donating?

My understanding is that athletic recruits usually have strict rules for maintaining a decent GPA. Is that not the case?

I have never heard of doctor’s children getting preferential treatment - just that many people no longer want to practice medicine due to all the political and insurance company interfering in their work.

Agree that donors’ children should not get preferential admissions but that will probably never go away for privates …

No, there are no strict rules for GPA for college athletes. At most schools, the football team are at the very low end of the admitted student stats (Not at Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, and the likes but at most schools). DO you really think at Clemson the majority of the football team had a 1310+ SAT (that's Clemson average)? At most schools the only reqs to keep playing is maintaining a 2.0---and that is made easier if you major in a very simple major. Communications is a popular major---very easy relatively speaking

Richard Sherman, a top football player at Stanford barely had over a 1000 on his SAT. All schools in D1 conferences, even the very good ones, have drastically lower requirements for football players. If Stanford and Duke had to field a team at even the 25th percentile of admitted students they would never come close to winning a game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious as to what different stakeholders (students, parents, HS college counselors, college admissions staff, tutors and SAT/ACT prep workers) think are the biggest reforms needed to reduce obstacles for bright, hard working students from disadvantaged backgrounds gaining admission to, and completing studies at, well-resourced universities/ colleges ?

I will post some suggestions from center-right and more left wing thinkers - to give ideas and get the ball rolling. Obviously, this is a huge and complicated topic. So please focus on the what you consider to be the most important reforms needed.

Thanks in advance for any constructive discussion.

It's been fascinating to watch the conversation on this thread.

I'm most intrigued by the conversation around cost.

The "most well-resourced universities/colleges" have a finite number of seats for undergraduate students. If we're talking about the "most elite" (which from the commentary it sounds like we are), and if we are only talking about PRIVATE institutions (I think public institutions should and do serve their own state citizens first and foremost, so putting them aside for the moment), we're talking about maybe 50k seats every year for incoming freshmen.

These are ALSO the schools that for the most part are free or cheaper-than-state-public for low-income students. (I've interpreted "disadvantaged" = "low-income" ... if you meant something else please clarify). Many without loans.

These are also the schools that provide things like...
*Financial aid covers tuition but also room, board, fees, and even study abroad
*Book stipends/free books and technology
*Funds for internships, summer experiences, winter coats, museum tickets, enrichment activities, etc.
*Cover health insurance costs plus "free" health care (including mental health care) on campus
*Travel funding (transportation to/from college)
*et. al.

All of these things cost a lot of money. Most very low income students at these schools (T20 universities & top LACs) pay nothing or close to nothing. Middle income students pay a larger share but still disproportionately less than the cost of their experience.

I am not suggesting low and middle income students should pay *more*, but who is paying for it if we reduced the overall cost of attendance for students who CAN afford to pay?

People often trot out the aft-repeated line about "administrative bloat." This complaint has been circulating for 50 years. Most staff at colleges and universities are paid peanuts compared to faculty.

These staff also serve vital roles, especially given the disconnect between faculty expectations (of what their job is) and the realities of what 18-22 year olds need and demand/expect in higher education. No, I'm not talking about climbing walls and lazy rivers.

There are MANY, MANY things that faculty USED to do decades ago that they don't do at most "elite" universities anymore AND/OR things that colleges never provided years ago. For example -- advise students, manage study abroad application processes and counsel students, run/serve in libraries, provide disability accommodation management services, oversee grant funding, provide student services to facilitate student life (e.g. someone has to help student clubs that want to bring a speaker, sign a contract, buy something, etc.), comply with federal regulatory reporting requirements, crunch data for required reporting requirements, respond to lawsuits, administer disciplinary actions, offer mental health counseling, et. al. That's not even touching huge areas (financial aid, registrar, admissions, bursar, dining, residence life, human resources, IT, etc.).

Consider this -- librarians or academic affairs staff people (non-instructional - so NOT faculty) average salary at Columbia in the most recent Chronicle study was $78,540/yr and for the service category (this is a broad category that includes most student services) the average pay was $57,556. I can pretty much guarantee most folks in these categories have at least a master's degree. I chose Columbia specifically because it's also in a competitive (geographically) market re: salary.

By contrast, the average (all ranks) faculty pay at Columbia is $179,871. For untenured but tenure-track faculty, it's $131,397. For full professors, it's $237,919.

(In case anyone is concerned that NYC is inflating things at Columbia, the numbers for Northwestern are $163,111 for all faculty average pay; untenured faculty at $107,134; and full professors at $217,881. And the librarian or academic affairs staff average pay is $69,148 and the "service" category average pay is $58,028)

Are there probably a handful of people at some schools whose jobs are unnecessary? Of course. Higher education is like any other organization. I would wager you could say the same thing about Google, McKinsey, Skadden, or the government of your local municipality.

However I'd argue the argument that "fixing administrative bloat" would reduce college costs is tired AND ignorant of the realities involved.

You could fire an academic advisor ($65k) and the disability services manager ($65k) and save $130k, but who is going to advise students and how much is the disability law non-compliance lawsuit going to cost you? (If you think faculty...you should ask any faculty you know how they feel about advising 200 students for no extra pay on top of their current jobs...or even if they were paid more, how they felt about understanding the intricacies of the process for registration, degree requirements, online registration system, etc)

Complaints about administrative bloat are, in my opinion, really pushback about the reality of what higher ed in the US has become -- they are attacking the symptom (staffing to address the situation) not the "root source."

OF COURSE elite education was a hell of a lot cheaper in the 1950s. Universities didn't have substantive medical staff or mental health counselors (maybe they had a nurse), or IT folks, or disability services. They probably didn't have many staff dedicated to student life (that's what fraternities were for). They didn't get swamped with lawsuits. Research labs were dramatically cheaper to start up. Buildings were cheaper to build. They didn't enforce student conduct. They had minimal federal compliance or reporting requirements.

Eliminating college athletics probably WOULD have a net-positive impact on the bottom line for most universities (though I'll note that for some schools, these programs are budget-neutral...in other words, TV revenue and alumni giving offset any expenditures). We'll let that float out there, but realistically, it does little from an enrollment perspective. Consider a place like Harvard -- student-athletes make up about 20% of the student body. If you replace those 1200 students with non-athletes, do more disadvantaged students enroll? Maybe some.

However I'll also throw out there this idea -- there are smart, accomplished, hardworking kids at ALL income levels. So if we put those 1200 seats "back in the pot" for the admissions process, don't we imagine statistically that SOME of the enrolling students "replacing" them are going to be from middle- or upper-income households?

I'd argue priorities ought to include:
A) improving k-12 education broadly across the country so that all students are equipped to succeed in college (elite or not)
B) improving quality of life issues (healthcare, income disparity, housing instability, etc.) broadly across the country so that the "non-academic" demands on institutions are lessened (cost savings and improves our country generally)
C) Whatever we can do to improve higher ed broadly across the country

I've always found this contrast depressing:

Low-income, talented student John who ends up at (elite school here) finds themselves in a position to free access to great healthcare, mental health counseling, money for books and a winter coat, resources to study abroad, housing/food (probably available/guaranteed/offered/funded), great libraries, free technology, free gym, tickets to cultural enrichment, support over breaks, funding for travel to college, etc.

Meanwhile their equally talented low-income classmate Jane who ends up at the local CC gets no help with housing or food, probably doesn't have any access to any health services through their college, no funding for enrichment/books/coat/study abroad, no laptop, perhaps a library, maybe a gym they have to pay to access?

Have we thought about how to reduce barriers and support low-income student enrollment at the most elite schools BUT ALSO really put our heads down about improving the opportunities for all at ALL higher education institutions?

^ this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only obstacle is that there are not enough seats for all of the qualified students who want to attend. Unless colleges want to address that (and I can't say that they do -- it would certainly change a lot about campus life, class size, facilities, etc.) this is how it's gonna be.

There are plenty of seats available for "qualified students"---just look outside the T20 schools. The differences between a T20 and a T60 school are minimal. Plenty of really really really smart kids at schools ranked 30-60. Once you realize that, not much needs to change. Just you broadening your definition of acceptable schools.

The Fiske guide covers about 320 schools that the authors have determined to be the best and most interesting colleges in the United States. That only about 10% of colleges but includes a number of worthy, really underrated institutions.

Yup---totally agree. Any of those schools will get you an excellent education. More importantly, many of them will be very affordable.

I really wish people would focus on the Princeton Review or Fiske guide rather than USNWR. They are all reputable strong schools--they help you avoid problematic ones and offer enough of a range of choices of types of schools.
The USNWR rankings are composed of often miniscule differences --hundredths of a point difference on qualities that may or may not matter to you and it ends up pushing people into a lot of unneeded stress about admissions and finances. Going to a very top school will give advantages, sure, so if you can get in and it's affordable, kudos to you. But as you move even a little down the list, the distinctions between the schools are really minor and fluid--often depending on how a school has gamed the rankings. A school ranked 100 just sounds so much worse than one ranked 40--but it literally may just mean tenths of a point difference on some metrics. A state school or an LAC ranked 40 is just not that materially different than one ranked 70 but it may cost you a lot more and be a worse fit. Stretching academically and financially to be in a school that is so impressive that everyone knows how good it is (e.g., HYPSM) might be worth it, but anywhere "below" that often just means that you don't stand out to faculty enough to get the richest opportunities and you have more debt or less assets to use for other purposes than if you weren't as 'rankings conscious.'

+1. I suspect USNWR rankings has cost the U.S. many, many billions with no benefit. Its focus on resources (spending) has been one of the significant factors in the 40 year period where higher education has outpaced inflation by 3X.

[Anonymous]

Read something a while ago that talked about how in the 1950’s the male professors all had wives that basically worked for free at the university. They entertained and organized events and welcomed international students and picked up the job candidate at the airport etc. The reason they didn’t have so many admin staff was because they were exploiting women and not paying them. Not sure that’ls the model we need to revert to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read something a while ago that talked about how in the 1950’s the male professors all had wives that basically worked for free at the university. They entertained and organized events and welcomed international students and picked up the job candidate at the airport etc. The reason they didn’t have so many admin staff was because they were exploiting women and not paying them. Not sure that’ls the model we need to revert to.

I think I’ve see this system in a few old movies. It usually goes something like this:

“Wow, honey you look great! Is that a new dress? You sure it’s the right size? It looks kind of snug.”

“Well aren’t you nice for noticing! I’m just giving that nice student from Italy a ride to the airport.”

“Oh, Antonio? The captain of the soccer team? Yes, very nice boy. The girls are just crazy about him. Quite the looker.”

“Oh really? I hadn’t noticed. Are my seams straight?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest factor is price. Both university administration and parents/students are responsible for this. Administration because they keep hiring more administrators at salaries higher than professors ("administrative bloat"). Parents/students because they choose colleges based upon things like how nice a dorm is, the availability of fancy food. Finally--and this is controversial, I understand--the shockingly high numbers of students with learning disabilities that require accommodations, additional staffing, and space (because the kids have to take their tests somewhere--so these offices need to be larger and larger).
FWIW, faculty are not paid well in general, and the cost of adjuncts is cheap. Universities should implement mandatory retirement at 72 (five years past the recommended 67), IMHO. Lots of old, expensive faculty hanging around.
-College Professor

+1

The administrative bloat is real, and enormous. No one wants to hear about it. Most colleges could get rid of half their (likely remote and likely DEI) staff. DP here.

Everyone at my university works until late 70s because we have a pitiful retirement plan. Two percent of our low salary per year is our university contribution.

+1

Agree. Also, many departments are too top heavy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - for those who say that excessive tuition costs are main problem - what measures do you think would be most effective and realistic for reducing financial burdens on students and their families ?

As PP already mentioned - cut the staff and admin at universities, to start.

Specifically, what staff? You have NO idea what these people do, so using your "knowledge" be specific, in terms of who should be cut.

Yes---most have no clue. Just think, during covid most administrators took on double/triple the work to make education happen, all while trying to figure out how to maintain employees who were not as "needed" for 6 months to a year (food service when dorms and campus were closed) all while working with millions less in budget (because most schools refunded R&B for the end of Spring 2020) and many schools with "2-4 years of living on campus requirements" allowed student stop remain at home fall of 2020. Those administrators worked their asses off to keep the schools functioning in a totally new environment, all while everyone around them complained no matter what they did.

OP - good point .. I am sure there are many admin staff who perform essential services to support teaching faculty and students but there are probably Some who do not add value.

I don’t know how universities should evaluate that but presumably teaching faculty should be on cost evaluation committees to weigh pros and cons for various positions that cost a lot of money - perhaps starting with athletic jobs since so many college sports programs cost more than revenues they bring in

Well yes, the athletic jobs on many campuses are costly and do not bring in $$$ (outside of Big10 or SEC by and large). But most other positions are essential, most add value to the overall college experience---there is so much more that goes into running a college campus than most people even think about. And during Covid most schools had to make cuts, even in areas that are needed. Key people lost jobs because the universities were in the red financially. The work doesn't disappear when they cut people, they just save money and make the current workers overworked.

If you want college without all the added value, try a Community college, where there often are no dorm, no on campus experiences beyond the academic and a few clubs, etc. And the professors are really just lecturers, many times without even a PHD (not always but many times) and certainly are paid even lower salaries.

During 2020/2021 I listened to the zoom presentations at my kid's university as they detailed everything they were doing for covid (including refunding R&B about 1 week after they cancelled on-campus for spring 2020), I saw the financials, they lost over $50M. Because while the dorms are empty, you still have to maintain them (and most are older), you still have to heat them and fix broken pipes/etc. They worked hard to find positions for the cafeteria staff elsewhere within the university, as over 50% of the staff came from the surrounding neighborhood (which is extremely poor---Jesuit university, located in one of most needy neighborhoods in the city and uni tries to employ those in the neighborhood), all while providing support to the faculty and staff who are trying to transition to online learning (hint: it's costly and requires training and TONS of IT staff to make it happen---lets just say unless it's an engineering/CS prof not all professors are technically inclined). Those in management (top 20-30 administrators) were working overtime for months (I'd say thru spring 2021 easily). They had on campus classes fall of 2020, but with "reduced class sizes". Can you imagine for a moment how you create enough classrooms to have all students be 6 ft apart? They turned the gym and every available space into "classrooms". Oh, and to keep students 6 ft apart, meant that instead of all 50-60 kids attending classes MWF, only 15-20 could attend on M, another 15-20 on W and remainder on F. Someone had to manage this and ensure they were in compliance with the city and state protocols. Then someone had to manage covid testing and handling outbreaks, etc. 2 ENTIRE Dorms were shut down before Thanksgiving---as in completely shut down, you have 6-8 hours to leave and go home for 10 days or remain in isolation in that dorm. I can only imagine the level of staff/administration work needed to make this happen, to keep kids safe, to provide food, outdoor time (yes they had an outdoor area where kids were allowed 6 ft apart during certain hours) and mental health support.

If anything in the last 3 years, college staff and administrators have worked overtime to make college happen for your kids and have not been compensated for the extra work.

OP

Thank you for illuminating the complexities of non teaching staff contributions to university functions. Running a university is indeed far from obvious.

So do you think there is little room for private colleges to trim fat? And college tuition prices realistic in your view ?

The above was at a T100 school (closer to the 100). They already "trimmed the fat" during covid and even before with the anticipation of "less students after the class of 2022" (the millennium baby class). Sure they could cut some more, but most cuts will come with less services for the students, they won't come without a cost. Fact is most universities are really not that bloated. It costs a lot to run a university on all levels.

I wish college tuition prices were lower. But for everyone complaining about that, you also get parents who complain "the dorms don't have AC". Honestly had a several parents (a few years ago) who do not get why the university doesn't spend millions on retrofitting older dorms with AC for the 2-3 weeks per year the students would need it (school really is somewhere it's not needed much---I've done May pickup when it's 55 as a high). Fact is it would cost millions to do that, and most dorms simply cannot easily be retrofitted because the electrical system could not handle it. It would almost be cheaper to tear the dorm down and start over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

OP - isn’t that more of a thing for privates such as a Harvard who want to make sure alumni keep on donating?

My understanding is that athletic recruits usually have strict rules for maintaining a decent GPA. Is that not the case?

I have never heard of doctor’s children getting preferential treatment - just that many people no longer want to practice medicine due to all the political and insurance company interfering in their work.

Agree that donors’ children should not get preferential admissions but that will probably never go away for privates …

No, there are no strict rules for GPA for college athletes. At most schools, the football team are at the very low end of the admitted student stats (Not at Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, and the likes but at most schools). DO you really think at Clemson the majority of the football team had a 1310+ SAT (that's Clemson average)? At most schools the only reqs to keep playing is maintaining a 2.0---and that is made easier if you major in a very simple major. Communications is a popular major---very easy relatively speaking

Richard Sherman, a top football player at Stanford barely had over a 1000 on his SAT. All schools in D1 conferences, even the very good ones, have drastically lower requirements for football players. If Stanford and Duke had to field a team at even the 25th percentile of admitted students they would never come close to winning a game.

Stanford, Duke and Northwestern tend to be the schools consistently with "the best students". But they still have many who are lower quartile or below. At NU ~97% of football players actually get their degrees, and many have "real degrees", not just communications. Stats are similar for Stanford and duke. But yes, they still have outliers