OT - Columbia raises $6.1 billion

[BlueDogs]

That's BS. Academia is a competitive atmosphere for top professors. You're competing against other top universities and the private sector. If they didn't have the top quality professors, then they wouldn't be Columbia and able to raise that much money. I hated when students whined about this while I was at UConn. If they wanted a cheaper school, where less money was going to the professors and to build up the university, they should have gone to one of the other less respected state universities.

The math is not BS. These institutions are commercial enterprises lining pockets.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

The math is not BS. These institutions are commercial enterprises lining pockets.

Well, I guess I can't argue with that well-presented argument.

 

[Adios]

..and tuition will increase... At 5% on the principal that's 300 Million. That's 30,000 a year for 10, 000 students. Yale is even worse with a 20 billion endowment. It's obscene and morally bankrupt what these schools get away with. The campaigns line the pockets of administrators and professors.

Someone's gotta play the pied piper. Yale athletics is fun. Steeped in history.

 

[BlueDogs]

Well, I guess I can't argue with that well-presented argument.

I would say the best litmus test is the comparative year over year increases versus basic inflation. It tells you that there are vast distortions at play that are not a function of normal, competitive expense controls. We should expect normal human behavior , which is to exploit cash rich environments and play the system. The more they spend, the more they get.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I would say the best litmus test is the comparative year over year increases versus basic inflation. It tells you that there are vast distortions at play that are not a function of normal, competitive expense controls. We should expect normal human behavior , which is to exploit cash rich environments and play the system. The more they spend, the more they get.

Whose pocket are they lining? I mean what percentage of their cost increases is actually due to increases in staff salaries? Or is "lining pockets" just talking about building up an endowment?

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's not the size of the endowment, it's how you use it.

(at least that's what those with smaller endowments like to believe)

 

[upstater]

I would say the best litmus test is the comparative year over year increases versus basic inflation. It tells you that there are vast distortions at play that are not a function of normal, competitive expense controls. We should expect normal human behavior , which is to exploit cash rich environments and play the system. The more they spend, the more they get.

This is wrong. Expenses are not rising above inflation. Tuition does not equal expenses. Heck, it doesn't even equal cost of attendance.

 

[J187Money]

This is wrong. Expenses are not rising above inflation. Tuition does not equal expenses. Heck, it doesn't even equal cost of attendance.

They are when you consider the arms race re: physical buildings. The bonding / donations etc to get something built don't take any account into what all of these facilities cost to run. So great, UCONN / Columbia / whoever builds billions of new buildings, but now they need to be operated / maintained. And the cost of that has FAR outstripped inflation.

 

[upstater]

They are when you consider the arms race re: physical buildings. The bonding / donations etc to get something built don't take any account into what all of these facilities cost to run. So great, UCONN / Columbia / whoever builds billions of new buildings, but now they need to be operated / maintained. And the cost of that has FAR outstripped inflation.

So when they report that expenses have not outstripped inflation, they are lying?

 

[J187Money]

So when they report that expenses have not outstripped inflation, they are lying?

I don't know how they do the math so I can't say.

So what is the main reason that tuition etc has far outstripped the cost of inflation?

 

[upstater]

I don't know how they do the math so I can't say.

So what is the main reason that tuition etc has far outstripped the cost of inflation?

I already posted this in this very thread. Taxpayer support has dropped by 50%. In even the high subsidy states, like California, it's dropped from $16k+ to $9k+ in REAL MONEY over the last 20 years. Compare this to, say, kindergarten subsidy in the very same states. There is 2x as much subsidy for kindergarten as there is for college education. 20 years ago, it was the reverse of that.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

So when they report that expenses have not outstripped inflation, they are lying?

Are capital expenditures included in those expenses? I'd guess not.

 

[J187Money]

I already posted this in this very thread. Taxpayer support has dropped by 50%. In even the high subsidy states, like California, it's dropped from $16k+ to $9k+ in REAL MONEY over the last 20 years. Compare this to, say, kindergarten subsidy in the very same states. There is 2x as much subsidy for kindergarten as there is for college education. 20 years ago, it was the reverse of that.

I get that for publics. How about for privates?

 

[upstater]

Are capital expenditures included in those expenses? I'd guess not.

Yes.

 

[upstater]

I get that for publics. How about for privates?

At this point, only 16% of undergrads attend private schools. So we're talking about a subset of Higher Ed. There are reasons why they have jacked up tuition, but they are private entities, so they're not compelling anyone to attend. The important thing to consider with privates is this: they have jacked up tuition well above the actual cost of attendance (i.e. tuition is MORE than the cost per student). If I had to guess, it's because many of these schools maintain a need-blind admission policy.

This article is old but you'll see all the cost drivers examined: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/costreport.html

This article puts the report into context: http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0598/voices0598-ike.shtml

I can't find the article now but one of the commissioners called for examining whether private institutions should continue need-blind admissions policies since they were considered by him unfair to families paying the full rate.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

At this point, only 16% of undergrads attend private schools. So we're talking about a subset of Higher Ed. There are reasons why they have jacked up tuition, but they are private entities, so they're not compelling anyone to attend. The important thing to consider with privates is this: they have jacked up tuition well above the actual cost of attendance (i.e. tuition is MORE than the cost per student). If I had to guess, it's because many of these schools maintain a need-blind admission policy.

This article is old but you'll see all the cost drivers examined: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/costreport.html

This article puts the report into context: http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0598/voices0598-ike.shtml

I can't find the article now but one of the commissioners called for examining whether private institutions should continue need-blind admissions policies since they were considered by him unfair to families paying the full rate.

Isn't all higher ed voluntary?

 

[RegisteredUconn]

In the EMBA program, you need to get sponsored by your employer. In most cases, the employer pays (and you generally get forced into signing an agreement that you will stay at your company X years after graduation). You need the sponsorship because you will be out of the office every other Friday/Saturday to attend classes and there are 2-3 weeks that you need to attend as well. There might be some aid here and there but based on the people that are in that program the vast majority of that money is coughed up by employers or students. The regular full-time MBA program is also going at the same time and I have no idea how many students are in that program at any given time.

Do you remember who it was that held the gun to your head?

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Columbia pretty much owns except for the Dinosaur BBQ and Fairway Market from 125th Street to 135th St Broadway to the river.

That's not all they own either. In the early 1990s, GE donated its premier property in mid-town Manhattan, the 50-story General Electric building, to Columbia. In announcing the donation, their CFO quipped he didn't know if it was the largest gift Columbia had ever received but he was pretty sure it was the tallest.

 

[upstater]

Isn't all higher ed voluntary?

Not in this economy, where jobs are scarce. Most kids are compelled.

 

[J187Money]

Do you remember who it was that held the gun to your head?

Of course there was no gun to my head. But if I wanted X, I had to agree to Y. There is always a choice. Always.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Of course there was no gun to my head. But if I wanted X, I had to agree to Y. There is always a choice. Always.

When you use the word "force" it doesn't sound like a choice.

 

[J187Money]

When you use the word "force" it doesn't sound like a choice.

Right. In my particular situation there were extenuating circumstances. So it felt forced. But yes, not the best choice of words to describe it when speaking in generalities.

 

[FDNY99]

That's not all they own either. In the early 1990s, GE donated its premier property in mid-town Manhattan, the 50-story General Electric building, to Columbia. In announcing the donation, their CFO quipped he didn't know if it was the largest gift Columbia had ever received but he was pretty sure it was the tallest.

They also bought 3333 Broadway...which at one time was the largest single public housing unit in the world (it still may be)..in one building there is 5 towers all interconnected in the lobby..shortest tower is 25 flrs..largest is 35 flrs. This building was built to house 10,000 residents.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Right. In my particular situation there were extenuating circumstances. So it felt forced. But yes, not the best choice of words to describe it when speaking in generalities.

When the choices are "bad" and "worse" it can seem like you're getting forced into the bad choice .

 

[J187Money]

When the choices are "bad" and "worse" it can seem like you're getting forced into the bad choice .

Actually a good story. But not for a public message board.

 

[BlueDogs]

I already posted this in this very thread. Taxpayer support has dropped by 50%. In even the high subsidy states, like California, it's dropped from $16k+ to $9k+ in REAL MONEY over the last 20 years. Compare this to, say, kindergarten subsidy in the very same states. There is 2x as much subsidy for kindergarten as there is for college education. 20 years ago, it was the reverse of that.

That's not correct, because the same experience in rate of increase in tuition has applied to private schools as well. The only area similar on behavior is healthcare cost increases. In both cases, the markets are distorted by large low cost government money. The unusual inflationary behavior is simply that there is no market driven cost controls. The schools are flooded by money, and each budget is consumed to the last dollar to justify the following year's budget. and need for more support. It's just like government spending. Use it or lose it. So they spend and spend. Student are paying through the nose because borrowing is so easy. That's why we have a trillion dollar junk student loan problem ready to implode. The truth is government employees have raped the taxpayer and students with outrageous benefits that nobody can get outside the public sector. This is compounded by high salaries and lifetime pensions based on their highest pay.

 

[upstater]

That's not correct, because the same experience in rate of increase in tuition has applied to private schools as well. The only area similar on behavior is healthcare cost increases. In both cases, the markets are distorted by large low cost government money. The unusual inflationary behavior is simply that there is no market driven cost controls. The schools are flooded by money, and each budget is consumed to the last dollar to justify the following year's budget. and need for more support. It's just like government spending. Use it or lose it. So they spend and spend. Student are paying through the nose because borrowing is so easy. That's why we have a trillion dollar junk student loan problem ready to implode. The truth is government employees have raped the taxpayer and students with outrageous benefits that nobody can get outside the public sector. This is compounded by high salaries and lifetime pensions based on their highest pay.

Every single point you made here is incorrect.

1. Private school tuition rose because of need blind policies that redistribute money from richer kids to poorer kids. This is easy to see because tuition is above the cost per student, which tells you that kids at private schools (most, not all) are paying more than what they are getting. Not true at public schools where tuition is often only 1/3rd of the cost per student.

2. The link I provided above has many analysts showing the cost drivers. Read the section on student loans.

3. You talk about cost controls but you've confused tuition with costs. They are not the same. Expenditures per student are much higher than tuition. The rise in tuition does not correlate with a similar rise in costs. By the way, 25 years ago, direct student loans (i.e. gov't subsidized) were $3000 a year, and now they are $5500. That's not a huge rise and certainly doesn't account for the rise in tuition. Borrowing outside gov't supported programs is done with private banks, and so it's not taxpayer subsidized.

4. I've worked at several schools and not a single one has offered a pension. There is no pension. That went out about 25 years ago. Salaries are actually pretty low in academia, and that's even taking into account the fact that full-time faculty have dropped from 70% to 30% in 20 years. The salary for full-timers is relatively low given career training and trajectories. You make more money if you took up plumbing out of HS with a career salary average of $45k.

I question almost everything you wrote in that post. You should read the thorough analysis I provided in the link. Although the study is dated, the greatest rise in tuition year-over-year occurred in the late 80s and all through the 1990s. Even tuition has moderated in the last decade, not to mention the costs.

 

[BlueDogs]

Every single point you made here is incorrect.

1. Private school tuition rose because of need blind policies that redistribute money from richer kids to poorer kids. This is easy to see because tuition is above the cost per student, which tells you that kids at private schools (most, not all) are paying more than what they are getting. Not true at public schools where tuition is often only 1/3rd of the cost per student.

2. The link I provided above has many analysts showing the cost drivers. Read the section on student loans.

3. You talk about cost controls but you've confused tuition with costs. They are not the same. Expenditures per student are much higher than tuition. The rise in tuition does not correlate with a similar rise in costs. By the way, 25 years ago, direct student loans (i.e. gov't subsidized) were $3000 a year, and now they are $5500. That's not a huge rise and certainly doesn't account for the rise in tuition. Borrowing outside gov't supported programs is done with private banks, and so it's not taxpayer subsidized.

4. I've worked at several schools and not a single one has offered a pension. There is no pension. That went out about 25 years ago. Salaries are actually pretty low in academia, and that's even taking into account the fact that full-time faculty have dropped from 70% to 30% in 20 years. The salary for full-timers is relatively low given career training and trajectories. You make more money if you took up plumbing out of HS with a career salary average of $45k.

I question almost everything you wrote in that post. You should read the thorough analysis I provided in the link. Although the study is dated, the greatest rise in tuition year-over-year occurred in the late 80s and all through the 1990s. Even tuition has moderated in the last decade, not to mention the costs.

 

[BlueDogs]

Here's a completely different set of facts:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/03/24/college-costs-are-soaring/

Those wed to the educational industrial complex do mental gymnastics to argue against what is plainly obvious.

As for pensions, the state pension system applies. You're simply wrong. http://articles.courant.com/2011-04...nsion-system-pension-payments-uconn-professor
There are nearly 400 uconn pensions over 100k a year. And, that's for the life of the employee and their spouse. Over 10 years that's 1MM per employee, or about 400 million. The numbers with pensions below 100k are just as problematic. These numbers don't include cost of lifetime healthcare. In the private college systems, they use guaranteed retirement annuities that are on top of tax free retirement accounts with matching dollars.

This is all hide and seek, and there is massive pillaging going on.

 

[upstater]

Here's a completely different set of facts:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/03/24/college-costs-are-soaring/

Those wed to the educational industrial complex do mental gymnastics to argue against what is plainly obvious.

As for pensions, the state pension system applies. You're simply wrong. http://articles.courant.com/2011-04...nsion-system-pension-payments-uconn-professor
There are nearly 400 uconn pensions over 100k a year. And, that's for the life of the employee and their spouse. Over 10 years that's 1MM per employee, or about 400 million. The numbers with pensions below 100k are just as problematic. These numbers don't include cost of lifetime healthcare. In the private college systems, they use guaranteed retirement annuities that are on top of tax free retirement accounts with matching dollars.

This is all hide and seek, and there is massive pillaging going on.

You do know Forbes is the Bleacher Report for the news, right? It's where amateurs post their drivel.
But, even in the link you posted, he is looking at tuition increases which, AGAIN, is not expenditures! This is the whole point. To say administrator expenses are up 35% over 20 years is not to say they are a cost driver for tuition, since the total cost of all administrator salaries are still under 1%. It's interesting that even the article acknowledges that full-time faculty is now way down in numbers, but then the author conflates administrator/faculty pay as the same thing, which it's not. There are a lot more administrators, a lot fewer faculty. By combining them both, he shows increased labor costs. It's a deception.

The rest of the stuff is just mind-boggling canards. Sabbaticals every 3 years? Huh? Where? Not at any institution I know of. Where does he come up with that? I suspect he doesn't know the difference between a sabbatical and an unpaid leave (i.e. for a fellowship or project). Sabbaticals are fully paid, and they're only available at R1 research institutions, and they happen about once a decade for more faculty. Those who take more time off from teaching do so with the help of outside grants and fellowships while the university stops paying them salary (though sometimes a school may decide to top off the professor's salary if the fellowship is somewhat lower than the salary).

As for the pensions, you listed retired people. From the Health Center. Those pensions stopped being options for new employees 2 decades ago.

Here's the UConn retirement plan for employees: http://www.osc.ct.gov/empret/tier3spd/letter.htm

It's a 403(b), a non-profit form of the 401(k).