Making money off housing will disproportionately affect students of differing income backgrounds, so this is not the same as moving that cost to tuition fees.
Schools shouldn't have to run themselves like a traditional business, yet that is exactly the model most are forced to follow in order to survive.
Edit: "shouldn't" not "should"
Having trouble parsing this. What do you mean?
IMO the problem is that many colleges are not focused on education to begin with. They compete with each other by building the most luxurious facilities, sports programs, and so forth. Then they pay execs crazy salaries while leaving the actual instructors in the dust:
"Auditors said salaries paid to staff in the UC president’s office are much higher than the pay of comparable positions in other state government jobs. Administrative salaries amounted to a combined $2.5 million more than the maximum annual salaries for comparable state employee positions, auditors found.
For instance, the UC system’s chief investment officer has a base salary of $615,000, while the top investment officer with the state’s teachers’ retirement system is paid $568,000, the audit found."
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-uc-audit-2017042...
Now you're stating what? That F500 companies have general lack of funding? So who has? Mom & Pop shop?
I'll also remind that the UC system isn't just "education", so it's difficult to draw direct comparisons from top-line numbers in terms of staff and finances with most other universities.
They run Los Alamos (with Texas A&M + Battelle), Lawrence Berkeley, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, which cumulatively have a budget in the billions.
They also run 5 major medical centers, which represents ~$13bn of their revenue and a large portion of their staff as well.
----------------------
It's a massive enterprise, and if you were drawing the private-sector comparison I've seen elsewhere, it would be in the Fortune 100 in terms of revenue.
I'm not sure what the "right" number is for that job, but it does seem reasonable to think the top couple roles in that enterprise ought to command some sort of high 6-figure salary if you want to get executives of an appropriate caliber to do that job.
----------------------
Some of the lines in that article, like:
> University of California’s executive vice president and chief financial officer is paid $412,000, while an executive doing a comparable job with the California State University system makes $341,000.
Seem ridiculous, given that CSU has a budget 1/6th the size to manage. If anything, one would think the difference in salaries ought to be far larger given the vastly different scope and complexity of the two entities.
-----------------
I'm sure there's plenty of waste and plenty of reform that could be needed, but I'm not exactly convinced on the basis of these claims.
Why? I can't imagine the UC executive needs to, as an individual, do anywhere near six times the work just because they're managing a budget that's six times larger. I want both executives to do their jobs as well as they can, and that means they should be working about as hard as each other.
- Those at the low end, eligible for financial aid. May be eligible for complete housing/tuition financial aid, but likely to leave school with some amount of debt
- Those in the middle, above meaningful thresholds for financial aid. Perhaps family pays for some tuition/housing, but student is saddled with some amount of debt (full cost of tuition/housing or some fraction depending on family contribution)
- Students in the highest tier have education and housing covered by family or another source. No student loans after graduation.
My issue here is that graduate in the first two categories have less freedom to pursue their career goals compared to a student unburdened by debt. Paying off student loans becomes a driving factor for decisions made after graduation.
Agree that sports and similar are likely unnecessary money sinks, but I don't know whether in some cases these actually bring in more money than they cost (via donations, reputation, or otherwise), but I doubt it.
Even in a no-limits, fully-government-paid education system, Tidmarsh Community College is going to have to convince students to come there instead of Harvard or State U. They'll have different resources.
You'd have to reduce student choice, or socialize college assets, to have a world where colleges just don't care about running like a business. It's not about level of funding, it's allocation.
The current system misallocates by hiding the true cost and benefits from students. You go to the school with fancy-pants dorms because you think it has been successful! Aren't those dorms and gyms built with successful alumni donations and clever investments?
No! Those amenities are being paid with the loan payments you'll make in your 30s and 40s.
I think your argument here is missing the fact that places like Harvard have a competitive admissions process and carry a reputation which will continue to attract distinguished faculty and high-achieving students, regardless of funding scenario.
If a student living near Tidmarsh doesn't get in to Harvard and still wants to attend a school, they may be forced into a second choice school anyway. The top university in many countries is often partially or completely linked to the state (point being gov't funded), and admissions are gated based on academic achievement.
I'm not really sure why you think this system would break down if suddenly if budget worries were suddenly eliminated. Not everyone can go to Harvard in either scenario, and for that matter, not everyone wants to go to Harvard either. If I wanted to be a welder, there are likely dozens of schools better equipped than Harvard to teach me those skills.
I'm a little unclear why socializing university assets would be problematic, but open to clarification on that point if you care to provide it. In my view, a vigorous and stable educational system benefits society as a whole, and seems a reasonable thing to socialize as a "public property" of sorts.