Most important reforms needed for College/ University sector?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

It’s not just DEI, it’s that now every school has to offer the same thing to every affinity group. The schools will have housing and faculty for every race, religion, orientation, etc…Im not saying that should be taken away but that it’s greatly added to the administrative bloat not to mention the added infrastructure needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

Agree. I'm a very liberal, progressive Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, and I'm a professor. Unfortunately, DEI offices often replicate what is already being done by deans' offices and multi-culture student centers. Universities have DEI offices in order to seem up-to-date with the latest liberal political demands, but the DEI staff I've worked with, although very nice, seem like window dressing. Students don't go to see them for anything, faculty rarely consult them. Because every university wants a DEI person, DEI people are in high demand so universities take whom they can get. Because they are typically not academics themselves, however, they don't understand the university as a faculty member (deans are, OTOH, usually professors who have agreed to take on administrative duties); at best, they understand the university through the lens of a student. Look at how the Hamline University DEI officer handled their fiasco.
To be sure, I'm not saying that some universities could use a great DEI office, but I have yet to come across one that is a true value-added.

OP -

Thanks for replying - I am paying particular attention to what professors say as you are dealing with higher education issues every day.

I don’t really know much about DEI except that it was highly controversial at a younger DC private school. People felt like it created more divisions than it helped to reduce. How is DEI a problem at the college level? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be used for admission purposes ?

What reform)s) do you think is most important for helping more bright motivated students from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed?

For example, I am skeptical that colleges would pass on any savings from not building fancy dorms and less admin staff onto reducing student tuition or mitigating terms for student loans to be less onerous.

There has to be some thing we as a society can do though,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I strongly believe that market reform will happen when people who CAN affort 85K+ per year decide that that price tag is not actually worth it. Boston University vs University of Maryland - one might argue that it isn't worth 200K more to go to BU. As upper middle class truly start to embrace research that getting a degree from good public is just as predictive of good outcomes, the market will boost up the publics and cause a strain on the privates.

One of the ways good publics finance themselves is out of state students that they charge comparable tuition rates to top privates.

In California, many students with very strong GPAs/ test scores/ ECs cannot get into the UCs. I think they capped OOS students but it is still highly competitive to gain admission Even here in Maryland, I have heard many UM alumni say their own children did not get in.

It is really competitive to get in a UC school AND many of the CSU schools, which used to be easy to get into. A lot of kids go to CC and transfer in, in both systems.

My husband works for a CSU. They are planning for a drop in enrollment in the coming years and may be consolidating admin jobs, etc. I think the competition level will stay the same. During the 2008 recession era, they admitted more out of state and international students due to budget cuts.

OP - interesting thanks!

Maybe we need more high quality CCs and two year programs to work as bridges?it would also save a lot of money I imagine …

[Anonymous]

Colleges and universities should realize their true mission, that they are in business to educate students. They should stop constructing luxury dorms and offering country club amenities and arboretum style landscaping. Thus they should cut expenses and in turn reduce cost of attendance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

Agree. I'm a very liberal, progressive Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, and I'm a professor. Unfortunately, DEI offices often replicate what is already being done by deans' offices and multi-culture student centers. Universities have DEI offices in order to seem up-to-date with the latest liberal political demands, but the DEI staff I've worked with, although very nice, seem like window dressing. Students don't go to see them for anything, faculty rarely consult them. Because every university wants a DEI person, DEI people are in high demand so universities take whom they can get. Because they are typically not academics themselves, however, they don't understand the university as a faculty member (deans are, OTOH, usually professors who have agreed to take on administrative duties); at best, they understand the university through the lens of a student. Look at how the Hamline University DEI officer handled their fiasco.
To be sure, I'm not saying that some universities could use a great DEI office, but I have yet to come across one that is a true value-added.

OP -

Thanks for replying - I am paying particular attention to what professors say as you are dealing with higher education issues every day.

I don’t really know much about DEI except that it was highly controversial at a younger DC private school. People felt like it created more divisions than it helped to reduce. How is DEI a problem at the college level? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be used for admission purposes ?

What reform)s) do you think is most important for helping more bright motivated students from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed?

For example, I am skeptical that colleges would pass on any savings from not building fancy dorms and less admin staff onto reducing student tuition or mitigating terms for student loans to be less onerous.

There has to be some thing we as a society can do though,

GW had earmarked $100 million for dorm renovations and the construction of a new dorm pre-pandemic. I don't think you understand how much money goes into these projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

Agree. I'm a very liberal, progressive Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, and I'm a professor. Unfortunately, DEI offices often replicate what is already being done by deans' offices and multi-culture student centers. Universities have DEI offices in order to seem up-to-date with the latest liberal political demands, but the DEI staff I've worked with, although very nice, seem like window dressing. Students don't go to see them for anything, faculty rarely consult them. Because every university wants a DEI person, DEI people are in high demand so universities take whom they can get. Because they are typically not academics themselves, however, they don't understand the university as a faculty member (deans are, OTOH, usually professors who have agreed to take on administrative duties); at best, they understand the university through the lens of a student. Look at how the Hamline University DEI officer handled their fiasco.
To be sure, I'm not saying that some universities could use a great DEI office, but I have yet to come across one that is a true value-added.

OP -

Thanks for replying - I am paying particular attention to what professors say as you are dealing with higher education issues every day.

I don’t really know much about DEI except that it was highly controversial at a younger DC private school. People felt like it created more divisions than it helped to reduce. How is DEI a problem at the college level? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be used for admission purposes ?

What reform)s) do you think is most important for helping more bright motivated students from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed?

For example, I am skeptical that colleges would pass on any savings from not building fancy dorms and less admin staff onto reducing student tuition or mitigating terms for student loans to be less onerous.

There has to be some thing we as a society can do though,

GW had earmarked $100 million for dorm renovations and the construction of a new dorm pre-pandemic. I don't think you understand how much money goes into these projects.

OP - you right that I don’t know much about this -/ but do you think the university would pass on any savings to students even if they stopped building such fancy dorms?

Are they responding to student demand or trying to improve their yield? It is hard to imagine students and parents basing college decisions on forms but maybe some do? I know a lot of people complain about poor student accommodations at Georgetown and it does not seem to hurt demand for its prestigious programs …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

No, that does not reflect my opinion at all. My response is that people need to stop being prestige whores and shift their focus away from the T50 or so schools and apply to the roughly 4,000 colleges that accept the majority of their applicants.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

You can get an adequate education that will get you almost anywhere even at the colleges down to at least #200 in US News national universities & comparable liberal arts colleges. At that level level the tuition is cheaper, the merit aid is easier to get, and they often admit over 80% of applicants. So there really isn’t a cost problem; there is a prestige problem.

OP - fair point. However, I do think the quality of education at some low ranked universities is actually inferior.

Studies show that a majority of black students fail to graduate and still retain life long debt - and often from lower ranked universities that accept with very low GPAs but probably do not do enough to help catch them up to the demands of four year programs .

However, is the problem that they accept so many students with very low GPAs who are not ready for college or because they do not support struggling students enough with students resources and help?

Honest question; why do you think all these kids should go to college? In my opinion, many kids are steered to college who simply aren’t college material. We need vocational programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what motivation to colleges have to do any of this?

FWIW, I've been saying for 21 years, since our first was born and our financial advisor told us to put away $1600 a month for college (equivalent to our then mortgage payment and no way could we do that), that something would have to change by the time our kids went to college. And, nothing has changed, prices are huge and growing, and we are paying $80-plus thousand per year for each of our college age kids.

Why are you doing this? Why weren't state schools an option?
NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

“The University of Michigan will spend more than $18 million this academic year on salary and benefits for its diversity, equity, and inclusion staff, according to an analysis by economics professor emeritus Mark Perry.

That figure, which amounts to the cost of in-state tuition for 1,075 students, will be paid out to more than 142 staff during the 2022 to 2023 school year, according to Perry’s analysis of public data. “

Imagine giving scholarships to 1000 Michigan kids instead. That might actually do some good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP - yes I have been reading about that recently - the auS has far fewer slots for well ranked colleges than in many other countries.

So is it accurate to categorize your response as the only reform needed is to create more universities or to expand programs within existing universities to allow more students to enroll?

No, that does not reflect my opinion at all. My response is that people need to stop being prestige whores and shift their focus away from the T50 or so schools and apply to the roughly 4,000 colleges that accept the majority of their applicants.

OP - I am trying to understand your position.

How does this belief that parents and students need to shift focus to applying to lower ranked schools (I think many of us are doing that already BTW with your earlier statement that

“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.”

Because your initial question was about "well resourced universities," by which I assumed -- perhaps erroneously -- that you meant the T50 or so. There aren't enough seats in the T50 for every student who is qualified to attend and would like to attend, so unless colleges want to increase the number of seats available, students will have to look at other schools.

But if I misunderstood which schools you consider well resourced, please correct me.

OP No I would agree there are many well resourced universities/ colleges outside of T50 schools. It also depends on what major students wish to pursue.

So in terms of buggiest reforms needed - is it fair to say you believe the main issue is that students and parents need to adjust their expectations beyond admission to T50 schools?

You can get an adequate education that will get you almost anywhere even at the colleges down to at least #200 in US News national universities & comparable liberal arts colleges. At that level level the tuition is cheaper, the merit aid is easier to get, and they often admit over 80% of applicants. So there really isn’t a cost problem; there is a prestige problem.

OP - fair point. However, I do think the quality of education at some low ranked universities is actually inferior.

Studies show that a majority of black students fail to graduate and still retain life long debt - and often from lower ranked universities that accept with very low GPAs but probably do not do enough to help catch them up to the demands of four year programs .

However, is the problem that they accept so many students with very low GPAs who are not ready for college or because they do not support struggling students enough with students resources and help?

Honest question; why do you think all these kids should go to college? In my opinion, many kids are steered to college who simply aren’t college material. We need vocational programs.

OP - more high quality and two year programs are probably part of what is needed.

But there seem to be a lot of poor quality and expensive vocational programs out there as well …

[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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

DP. The PP is absolutely correct. DEI has become a huge distraction and money pit. You can disagree, but we're certainly allowed to express our opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

It’s not just DEI, it’s that now every school has to offer the same thing to every affinity group. The schools will have housing and faculty for every race, religion, orientation, etc…Im not saying that should be taken away but that it’s greatly added to the administrative bloat not to mention the added infrastructure needed.

DP. I wonder what colleges would be like without affinity group housing. Just, you know, house all students together regardless of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. What a novel idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

“The University of Michigan will spend more than $18 million this academic year on salary and benefits for its diversity, equity, and inclusion staff, according to an analysis by economics professor emeritus Mark Perry.

That figure, which amounts to the cost of in-state tuition for 1,075 students, will be paid out to more than 142 staff during the 2022 to 2023 school year, according to Perry’s analysis of public data. “

Imagine giving scholarships to 1000 Michigan kids instead. That might actually do some good.

OP - good point.

U Mich Ann Arbor has a huge endowment for a public school so they could afford to do that anyway. It is telling to see what schools will use their endowments for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love the way DEI is the bogeyman.



Seriously, stop with it.

I also think DEI needs to be cut. Drastically.

“The University of Michigan will spend more than $18 million this academic year on salary and benefits for its diversity, equity, and inclusion staff, according to an analysis by economics professor emeritus Mark Perry.

That figure, which amounts to the cost of in-state tuition for 1,075 students, will be paid out to more than 142 staff during the 2022 to 2023 school year, according to Perry’s analysis of public data. “

Imagine giving scholarships to 1000 Michigan kids instead. That might actually do some good.

+1
This actually makes my stomach turn.

[Anonymous]

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