Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | December 3rd 2008 09:52 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio


College tuition has increased 439% since 1984, and the net yearly cost of college at a 4-year public university is 76% of the median family income, according to a story in today's NY Times. Even community colleges don't end up being a much better deal. It's a scandal. We're pricing most people out of college at a time when middle-class income is stagnating and education is more critical than ever for career success.

What is responsible for the soaring costs? These reports never seem to put their finger on the problem - the NY Times story suggests that, at public schools, the increases are due to declining state-level support. That doesn't explain the enormous cost increases at private universities, and I'm not sure that accounts for the increase in public university costs either.

I bristle when I occasionally hear people blame faculty salaries for the problem. There is this idea out there that professors are getting rich while students are shouldered with heavy tuition burdens. Some faculty are paid extremely well, such as clinical medical school faculty, but most of these faculty members bring in more money to the university than they earn. And most professors are far from rich - a typical assistant humanities professor at a typical Arts&Sciences campus, after spending 6-10 years in poverty earning a PhD, doesn't earn much more than the US median income; such professors have a lot of financial ground to make up before they can send their own kids to college.

Life sciences professors at research schools have it a little better, but it's still not a good way to get rich. In my case, my hope is to find a faculty job after nearly 6 years of grad school and almost 4 years of a postdoctoral fellowship. I will start this job in my mid-30's, with zero savings for retirement or my children's college education, thanks to the subsistence-level 'stipends' you earn in your long training to become an independent scientist. That's ok, I'm not complaining, I knew what I was getting into, but this does mean that if faculty salaries in my field were much lower, this career wouldn't be sustainable. (And in some lower-paid fields it already is unsustainable, at least for people who are trying to provide for their children's future.)

The problem could be faculty salaries, not because professors are getting paid too much, but because universities hire too many of them. But it could be other things: administrative costs, costs of dealing with new regulations, or simply the fact that more student loans means that universities don't have to cut back on their prices. I have no clue, and I have yet to see any study which pins down exactly why the price of a college education has increased so much more over the last 30 years than the price of just about everything else.

Comments

jgerke's picture
Yes, stipends are so bad that I have to shoot my own food ;)

The answer is quite simply the high rate of returns of a college education. Technological progress over the last 30 years has increased the demand for skilled workers. Thus students flock to colleges, and colleges are able to charge high tuitions. Gary becker has written quite a few papers summarizing the evidence for this trend. His posts give you the basic argument:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/06/the_boom_in_col_1.html
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/04/the_benefits_of.html
Similar reasoning has been used to explain the rise in income inequality
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/the-upsi...

HedgehogFive's picture

The Hodja’s Donkey


(A Middle Eastern folk tale, as applied to Science Departments, ca. 1 Sept 1997)

Regarding the necessity of departments charging for services, it is now officially near the end of the silly season, so I though I would like to share with you all this little story. I hope you find it amusing!

I will now go back a few hundred years to the Middle East, to visit a man called Nasr-ed-Din. He was a local official who worked as a town clerk, magistrate, and letter writer, since he was the only learned man in his town or village. A man in his position would have been called a Mullah in Persian, and in Turkish a HODJA, which is how I will call him from now on.

The Hodja had heard about some Sufis who claimed that they could achieve enlightenment by going for a long time without food, and he thought that this sounded like a good idea. But it also seemed a bit dangerous, so he thought he would try it on his donkey first. He normally gave the animal 20 scoops of grain a day, so for the next week he gave it 19, then the week after 18, and so on. By the time he had reached 10, the donkey was beginning to get weak and to wander about as if in a dream

“Excellent” thought the Hodja, “it is beginning to learn the art of meditation!”

But just before he was getting down to 3 scoops a day, the donkey died.

“Inconsiderate beast” he cried. “Dropping dead before the experiment was complete. If only it had lived a few weeks longer, it might have achieved full enlightenment!”

All over the world, in university science departments, numbers have been falling. Typically, since around 1970;

– Student numbers have dropped to about 75% of their original number;
– Teaching staff to about 50%;
– Technical staff to 25%.

This last figure has put an enormous burden on the research as well as the teaching effort. Whenever A retires, the government body says “You don’t need a replacement - can’t B and C share his job?” And so on ... it is predicted that by the year 2010 such a department will be running on no staff at all! But it must expire before then, once it gets below a critical (m)ass.


(The department from where this came is now scheduled for closure in 2010.)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.