Behind the mystery of soaring tuition fees at American universities

In a recent Wall Street Journal article: “Spending money from increased staff strengthens college bureaucracy and encourages soaring tuition fees.” Many parents may be sick of the recent rise in college costs. Regardless of whether you save or save, the tuition fees are rising faster than you can save, so you can’t keep up. Is college really worth the cost? I’ve come to hear that question a lot. Why do college costs keep rising so much? Is the quality of the lessons improving as the costs soar? What does it mean to increase the number of staff or bureaucratic constitution? ??

The idea that “it is natural to go to university”, “it is the responsibility of parents to receive university education”, and “it must be at university …” is common in the Japanese and other Asian communities. What is asked. If a child passes the university that he or she has longed for, it would be a parent’s desire to let him or her go through whatever force he or she wants to do. Also, it is natural that even children want to go to school even if they are forced to borrow a little. “University education is an investment in the future.” If you don’t have enough money, there are student loans that you can easily borrow.

Given this, I’m not the only one who thinks of the real estate bubble. A house that I borrowed and bought a lot for “a great investment in the future”. However, the real estate market where people can no longer pay and now have debts that exceed the value of their homes. On the other hand, a university that graduated by borrowing a lot of money for “a wonderful investment in the future”. However, there are people who cannot pay their loans and cannot live independently as members of society. There is something double. The delusion that “a wonderful investment in the future” should definitely pay off even if you overdo it now. No matter how fast the price of home or university education rises, its value will continue to rise, so it’s okay. How is it? Is that so? What is the “value” of high tuition fees? .. ..

The following is an excerpt from the Wall Street Janal article.

An example of the University of Minnesota (State).

  • When Kaler became president, he sought to address the ever-increasing tuition problem by reducing administration costs. No one knew exactly how much budget he needed to run the university, even if he wanted to know.
  • Over the last decade, thanks to state funding and rising tuition fees, university employment has continued to grow, finally reaching 19,000, or even three and a half students to one.
  • From 2001 to the spring of 2012, 1000 managers were added, which was about twice the growth in the number of students.
  • The bureaucratic constitution also gives rise to various other splurge. Millions of dollars have been spent planning an energy and environmentally friendly housing community, 20 miles away from the campus, which promotes university leadership in this area.
  • The proportion of high-paying university positions in managerial positions continues to increase. The number of employees with an annual income of $ 200,000 or more is 353 (of which 81 are managers), an increase of 57% compared to 2001 (39 managers). The number of managers with an annual income of $ 300,000 or more has increased from 7 to 17.

The following is the story of the entire United States.

  • At US universities, costs unrelated to classroom lessons are expanding, the first factor being manager salaries. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of managers hired to control the various laws that people, programs, or universities must comply with has increased by 50% in the number of instructors who actually teach. Increased in.
  • In addition to the manager’s salary and other overheads, there are other factors that contribute to the increased cost of running the university, such as healthcare and retirement costs, as well as research costs and compliance with disability facilities. The cost of the is also included.
  • Universities are in a competitive environment like any other business. In order to raise the university’s rankings and attract students, we must spend money on luxury dormitories, cafeterias, gyms and other amenities. “Just as Lexus and Benz are competing for customers, so are universities competing for students,” said one expert.
  • Due to competition, the university increased its debt to expand its facilities. Total public four-year college debt more than tripled between 2002 and 2011. Along with this, annual interest costs will also increase.
  • State universities have not been forced into meticulous financial management over the past few decades, thanks to stable and growing state funding. However, in recent years, funding from these states has declined or stopped.

I’m still going to continue the article, but I’ll end it here.

Below is the data from another source.

  • The average student who graduated from college in 2011 has a $ 26,600 student loan. It is expected that two-thirds of all students will graduate with a student loan.
  • Total student loans across the United States have grown to $ 1 trillion, surpassing credit card debt.
  • Student loan default rates (payment delays of 90 days or more) across the United States now exceed 10.5% of credit card debt default rates to 11%.

Whether paid by parents or by students themselves, it would seem unavoidable if the ever-increasing college costs correlate with the quality of high education. However, when it is said that it is a bureaucracy that you do not know what you are managing, fancy dormitories and gyms, small work costs and marketing costs for university ranking up, “Can you make me sloppy? I want to say “!” If the university is “competing for Lexus and Benz to compete for customers,” I think we, as consumers of undergraduate education, must scrutinize the university to compare Lexus and Benz. increase. No matter how much Lexus, if you say “this car costs 10 million yen”, you will ask “it’s too expensive”. The good news is that there is no such consumer question or scrutiny, and I suspect that the university is neglecting meticulous financial management. “If you run out of money, you can raise your tuition fees. Everyone will pay.”

By the way, it seems that the annual income of President Karler of the University of Minnesota mentioned in the above article is $ 610,000, but Forbes magazine listed the top 10 presidents and annual income of American universities. Like this.

  1. Bob Kerrey,The New School (New York), $ 3.05 million
    2.   Shirley Ann Jackson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, $ 2.34 million
    3.   Dr. G. David Pollick, Birmingham-Southern College, $ 2.31 million
    4.   Mark Wrighton, Washington University (St. Louis), $ 2.27 million
    5.   Nicholas Zeppos, Vanderbilt University, $ 2.23 million
    6.   Steven B. Sample, University of Southern California, $ 1.96 million
    7.   Lee Bollinger, Columbia University, $ 1.93 million
    8.   Richard C. Levin, Yale University, $ 1.62 million
    9.   Robert J. Zimmer, University of Chicago, $ 1.59 million
    10. Jack Varsalona, Wilmington University (Delaware), $ 1.55 million

I don’t have the power to judge if this is too expensive. Compared to the CEO compensation of a company, one or two zeros are different . However, at least if you are paid at this level, you will be provided with sufficient quality classes for your students (some universities do not offer enough classes due to budget cuts and are compulsory subjects. I can’t take it regardless, so I can’t graduate in 4 years as a result), and I think I’m responsible for creating a system that sends students to society without taking a student loan as much as possible. What about the reality?

The people who lent money steadily based on the delusion that the price of the house is going up, and the people who are rich behind it are rich, but the people who bought the house by borrowing it without knowing it are the sadness of Folk Roger. I pray that such a figure does not apply to university education. May American universities be such a place to carefully educate and nurture young people who will lead the future of the United States so that they can stand alone in society.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.