College Presidents Making $1M Rise with Tuition and Student Debt

The demand for funds in insatiable, regardless of whom.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13382263

EDIT: Reading a bit more through the thread, there's one or two people saying they didn't rate it and lots saying they did.

Stop plowing tax dollars into multi-million dollar executive salaries, that do nothing to improve higher education. All of the boards of trustees in the article brazenly brag about how the compensation for these people is only based on "fund raising", not about providing quality educations at low cost.

So let them continue charging independently wealthy individuals $50,000 / year to educate their children, but it is obscene that a single dime of public money is being handed to these people.

What might explain why appropriations have such weak effect on tuition? Again, the studies discussed above do not offer much explanation, but two theories come to mind: perhaps universities look to exploit their pricing power in the market leading them to raise tuition whether appropriations rise or fall; or maybe when faced with a reduction in state funding, universities cut spending instead of raising tuition dollar for dollar. Those are excellent theories for future research to test.

To be sure, the research on the effects of state disinvestment is severely limited, and further work may yet find a stronger effect on tuition. But limitations are not a reason to continue assuming the effects are as large as many have claimed. Just the opposite.

The fact that the research is limited, and that it shows state disinvestment is not a major cause of rising tuition, are reasons to doubt the state disinvestment argument and the policy agenda attached to it. Researchers should see this as a call to action. They should be putting at least as much effort into measuring the effects of state appropriations on tuition as they do the Bennett Hypothesis—and employing the same rigorous analytical methods. They can also help determine what factors really are the primary drivers of tuition increases at public colleges if appropriations matter so little. Journalists should also change their approach in light of the evidence on state disinvestment. They should hold claims about the effects of state disinvestment on tuition to the same standards of evidence as they do claims about the Bennett Hypothesis.

Meanwhile, it is time to start calling the claim that state funding cuts are the primary driver of rising tuition what it really is: the state disinvestment hypothesis.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-disinvestment-hypothe...

State financing affects revenue, but requiring $50k per student just to operate is a problem that lies exclusively on the expenditure.

Throwing more money at this problem won't fix it. It will only make it worse.

I'm not defending high salaries at all non-profits. Yes, some people are overpaid despite being at a non-profit. But don't be confused about what the term "non-profit" means.

I knew I was covering my college tuition and even in 2000, I couldn't understand how I could ever afford out of state tuition and room and board. I had near perfect grades and solid test scores, but the financial obligation scared the hell out of me and I had no idea private schools handed out big scholarships for good students.

I ended up staying in town and going to my local state college and had a good experience, but I completely missed out on the prospect of going to a top university where I would meet other ambitious and curious people. I worked part-time to full-time for four years to pay for my tuition, and it was tough. I wish I could've been immersed in college and academia and even college-life, but the cost just felt like a huge barrier when I was 18 years old.

TL;DR: I fear poorer people may be more afraid to attend college because of the costs, causing an even greater gap between the haves and have-nots.

An internship helped me, I was enrolled in a state school yet was pushing pencils the same as a Princeton student, this made realized the school name wasn't going to change anything in this path, just whatever technicality lets me get the degree.

For business, capital and investment banking, Ivy League puts you very far ahead, but outside of that, especially if your life involves working for someone else, the trade and the school are largely irrelevant compared to just having a degree, which also has limited relevance in many fields.

...which funnels those students into state schools that are usually forced by state regulation to allow CCs in the same state to operate feeder programs. The rich kids go to private schools or stick around to get masters and we're back where we were decades ago only all the numbers are much bigger, the minimum amount of degree is higher (a 2yr is the new high school diploma, a masters is the new bachelors, etc.) the average person gets being an adult pushed back by about four years and whether society is better for it depends on who you ask.

So basically it's a circle.

Including finance in a basic math education for every high-school student would IMO make a significant difference. Listing interest paid as both a percentage and a total over the lifetime of a loan might also discourage people.

That said, I took a few very low interest loans, but I at least had the tools to do some basic cost benefit analysis. I watched many people spend way to much money for a sub par education.

If schools didn't have athletic programs, would the donations have been made to the university at large?

College football programs are often very big profit centers. They typically pay for the other sports programs as well. That's why football coaches are paid the way they are.

College players should obviously be compensated in some manner as well. All that will do is reduce the profitability (or increase ticket prices a lot higher to offset, which may not be possible); it's unlikely to eliminate the business being quite profitable given the scale & ticket prices.

That's incorrect. Most major football programs transfer a large percentage of their revenue above operating expenses, back to the university. Texas for example, which is typically one of the top five college football businesses (and nearly a pro level business), transfers about half of its revenue after expenses (ie profit) back to the university.

The responsibility you mention is delegated down to the next level.

I really don't think this is found in the data. Among the general population, incomes are quite stagnant, and job quality is considered to be falling. At best, it is no better than in the past. With the rising rates of educational attainment, if what you say is true, incomes should be rising along with job quality. That does not appear to be happening.

What we do see that those with higher educational attainment are the ones who are more likely to have the higher paying and better jobs, but that is not the same thing as incomes increasing and job quality improving with increased levels of schooling. All that really tells us is that those who have the most difficulty in the workplace (those with mental disabilities, for instance) are also most likely to have less formal education. Which comes as no surprise to, well, anyone.

> That's a bizarre outlook that excludes every middle class job that increasingly tends to require a college degree.

That is a bizarre outlook. Employers are not a charity to help out those with college debt. Unless the law requires it, employers couldn't care less about where you went to school. And the jobs that do require it by law are vanishingly small. We covered why those with post-secondary educations are more likely to get those better jobs (high achievers tend to be high achievers in everything they do), but that does not mean it is a requirement or is increasing as a requirement.

The only thing increasing is the rate of post-secondary attainment, which understandably will result in more and more jobs filled with college graduates. Of course. That's just basic math.

> Hell, most college administrators don't make more than middle class salaries.

Along with everyone else. Why would you take on that massive debt if you knew you were guaranteed to end up in the same place as you otherwise would? Especially when education is a life-long endeavour. You can always go to college once you have saved up the necessary cash. There is no rush.

The only reasonable explanation I see here is that people see the small chance of significantly improving their situation beyond the average middle class person. Which, given the costs of post-secondary education, is a pretty big gamble. There has to be some kind of substantial reward potential given the high stakes. Not just another middle class lifestyle like almost everyone else in the country. That would never justify the costs.