Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, I agree with the poster who commented about ADEA's exemption expiration in 1993 (since January 1, 1994, universities are legally barred from having a mandatory retirement age -- previously they could force retirement age 70) being an issue.

Tenured faculty (who on average at "well-resourced" schools are making $175k+/year) can keep working indefinitely, teaching their 2 classes a semester. Some are fantastic. Some are not.

Before someone interjects that I've wildly overstated faculty pay, let's consider the average full professor pay at the most-resourced schools (focus of this thread) in 2021:

Harvard: $252,991/yr
Columbia: $237,919/yr
Princeton: $266,262/yr
Brown: $195,420/yr
Yale: $250,192/yr
Stanford: $268,304/yr
Rice: $206,550/yr
Northwestern: $217,881/yr
MIT: $250,011/yr
UPenn: $246,410/yr
Duke: $207,338/yr
Notre Dame: $193,373/yr
UChicago: $251,975/yr

And for some publics:
UCLA: $237,735/yr
UC Berkeley: $228,809/yr
UVA: $190,762/yr
UT Austin: $186,330/yr
UMichigan: $180,274/yr
UMD: $170,619/yr

On the other end of the spectrum you have low-paid adjuncts making criminally low wages at many institutions (though admittedly not those listed above - they tend not to use adjuncts frequently). I think this disparity is heightened due to pressures of tenured faculty working indefinitely.

I'm a professor, and I can tell you that these tables are misleading for the general public. These salaries include faculty from law schools, business schools, and medical schools--faculty whom your children will not work with as undergraduates. The better data is from the AAUP: https://data.aaup.org/ipeds-faculty-salaries/ . Full professors, by the way, is a title that is granted to tenured, senior faculty. Tenure is increasingly rare these days, so your children are likely to be educated by contract faculty (full or part time) or adjuncts.

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, I agree with the poster who commented about ADEA's exemption expiration in 1993 (since January 1, 1994, universities are legally barred from having a mandatory retirement age -- previously they could force retirement age 70) being an issue.

Tenured faculty (who on average at "well-resourced" schools are making $175k+/year) can keep working indefinitely, teaching their 2 classes a semester. Some are fantastic. Some are not.

Before someone interjects that I've wildly overstated faculty pay, let's consider the average full professor pay at the most-resourced schools (focus of this thread) in 2021:

Harvard: $252,991/yr
Columbia: $237,919/yr
Princeton: $266,262/yr
Brown: $195,420/yr
Yale: $250,192/yr
Stanford: $268,304/yr
Rice: $206,550/yr
Northwestern: $217,881/yr
MIT: $250,011/yr
UPenn: $246,410/yr
Duke: $207,338/yr
Notre Dame: $193,373/yr
UChicago: $251,975/yr

And for some publics:
UCLA: $237,735/yr
UC Berkeley: $228,809/yr
UVA: $190,762/yr
UT Austin: $186,330/yr
UMichigan: $180,274/yr
UMD: $170,619/yr

On the other end of the spectrum you have low-paid adjuncts making criminally low wages at many institutions (though admittedly not those listed above - they tend not to use adjuncts frequently). I think this disparity is heightened due to pressures of tenured faculty working indefinitely.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, I agree with the poster who commented about ADEA's exemption expiration in 1993 (since January 1, 1994, universities are legally barred from having a mandatory retirement age -- previously they could force retirement age 70) being an issue.

Tenured faculty (who on average at "well-resourced" schools are making $175k+/year) can keep working indefinitely, teaching their 2 classes a semester. Some are fantastic. Some are not.

Before someone interjects that I've wildly overstated faculty pay, let's consider the average full professor pay at the most-resourced schools (focus of this thread) in 2021:

Harvard: $252,991/yr
Columbia: $237,919/yr
Princeton: $266,262/yr
Brown: $195,420/yr
Yale: $250,192/yr
Stanford: $268,304/yr
Rice: $206,550/yr
Northwestern: $217,881/yr
MIT: $250,011/yr
UPenn: $246,410/yr
Duke: $207,338/yr
Notre Dame: $193,373/yr
UChicago: $251,975/yr

And for some publics:
UCLA: $237,735/yr
UC Berkeley: $228,809/yr
UVA: $190,762/yr
UT Austin: $186,330/yr
UMichigan: $180,274/yr
UMD: $170,619/yr

On the other end of the spectrum you have low-paid adjuncts making criminally low wages at many institutions (though admittedly not those listed above - they tend not to use adjuncts frequently). I think this disparity is heightened due to pressures of tenured faculty working indefinitely.

Do you think 250k is an unreasonable salary for a tenured full professor at an Ivy League or equivalent school? They’re almost certainly a PhD and probably one of the most respected in their fields. I just had a kid that works for me go to google and make 230k with a bachelors degree from a big SEC school and three years of experience.

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, I agree with the poster who commented about ADEA's exemption expiration in 1993 (since January 1, 1994, universities are legally barred from having a mandatory retirement age -- previously they could force retirement age 70) being an issue.

Tenured faculty (who on average at "well-resourced" schools are making $175k+/year) can keep working indefinitely, teaching their 2 classes a semester. Some are fantastic. Some are not.

Before someone interjects that I've wildly overstated faculty pay, let's consider the average full professor pay at the most-resourced schools (focus of this thread) in 2021:

Harvard: $252,991/yr
Columbia: $237,919/yr
Princeton: $266,262/yr
Brown: $195,420/yr
Yale: $250,192/yr
Stanford: $268,304/yr
Rice: $206,550/yr
Northwestern: $217,881/yr
MIT: $250,011/yr
UPenn: $246,410/yr
Duke: $207,338/yr
Notre Dame: $193,373/yr
UChicago: $251,975/yr

And for some publics:
UCLA: $237,735/yr
UC Berkeley: $228,809/yr
UVA: $190,762/yr
UT Austin: $186,330/yr
UMichigan: $180,274/yr
UMD: $170,619/yr

On the other end of the spectrum you have low-paid adjuncts making criminally low wages at many institutions (though admittedly not those listed above - they tend not to use adjuncts frequently). I think this disparity is heightened due to pressures of tenured faculty working indefinitely.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue, though not to the DCUM crowd, is the for-profit colleges, diploma mills, and predatory lenders that go after lower income and people unfamiliar with their options.

Most people don’t want to hear it, but the vast majority of loan debt is being held by people who got advanced/terminal degrees, people who owe six figures. Newly minted doctors and lawyers are carrying most of the debt.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about eliminating some of the vicious anti-Semitism alive and well on college and university campuses? That would go a long way.

So you think banning anti semitism is the biggest reform needed to reduce obstacles for bright, hard working students from disadvantaged backgrounds gaining admission to, and completing studies at, well-resourced universities/ colleges ?

How about we go SES blind? The highlights of campus anti-semitism I've seen would be better characterized as boorish (and not vicious), but I guess that's open to debate. Vicious is physically, violently attacking someone, or maiming someone. Have we seen that yet? Hopefully not. Hopefully never.

As for the response, FFS ... what more must be done to reduce barriers? Priority admissions at no cost to T20 schools. Priority admissions through "holistic hocus hocus" at all schools. As what point is enough, enough?

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?

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?

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.