One element in the increase in college costs, not just research, is 
accountability. Congress has passed laws that had good objectives (protecting 
human subjects, protecting animals, ensuring occupational safety, reducing 
campus crime, ensuring no discrimination on campus, ensuring fair value for 
federal student loans, etc etc.). Laws become rules and regulations which are 
monitored and enforced by federal agencies that have no real need to restrain 
themselves, so they add more regulations, the better to enforce the intent of 
the law.  Universities meanwhile, trying to stay in compliance, add senior 
administrators and assistants and assistants to assistants to deal with the 
regulations. These bureaucracies (well any bureaucracy) protect themselves and 
the best way to be protected is to jump through every hoop the agencies put in 
place. Because the university might get in trouble, compliance gets handed what 
is often essentially a blank check.


Whole industries have developed around animal care, human subjects, college 
accreditation etc. These classes and consultants  don't tell the universities 
how to maximize compliance at minimal cost, instead they suggest ever better 
and more expensive ways to be in compliance, selling something the compliance 
bureaucrats are more than happy to buy.  Even more senior administrators are 
brought on board and again, they need more support staff.


For research, the more the university spends on compliance, the higher the 
indirect cost it can charge the federal government, thus providing even more 
money for compliance. Unless the funder is NIH, higher indirect means the 
amount the researcher actually gets is smaller, so research loses. And so it 
goes. With federal funds in short supply, the agencies should be taking a look 
at compliance, but then they have their own compliance empires to support.


Is the compliance industry the only cause of increased tuition costs? No. As 
one of the articles mentioned, higher tuition makes a college more attractive 
(never mind that like hotel room rates the list price is not necessarily what 
you end up paying). State and federal governments no longer feel education is 
so important so they have decreased support. This is in stunning contrast to 
after World War II when the GI Bill jump started American prosperity through 
essentially free higher education for returning vets. Too many Americans, 
politicians and administrators now seem to regard universities as factories 
that produce degrees, learning being incidental. In that case, climbing walls 
and Jacuzzis make sense, making one factory/college more competitive than 
another. So does hiring of 'rock star' professors that, like professional 
athletes, lend their names but not always their teaching skills to the 
university's "brand", while driving up faculty salaries. 


More and more people are telling universities to jump and fewer and fewer 
universities are bothering to ask why before they do. Until faculty and 
students start asking why, the universities won't so things will continue as 
they are, or get worse.


That's the way it is. Happy New Year.


David Duffy





David Cameron Duffy Ph.D.
Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director
PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany
University of Hawaii Manoa



----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Meiss <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:10 am
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv ies'in fiscal peril
To: [email protected]

> Hi, Rick,
>       I don't think the answer is that 
> simple.  I went to a small, private,
> liberal arts college from 1970 through 1974 and it cost my 
> father about
> $3,000 per year for room, board, and tuition.  Now it would 
> cost about
> $42,000, about a 14-fold increase.  Inflation, which I'm 
> guessing has been
> about three-fold since then, obviously only accounts for a small 
> part of
> that, and since it is a private school, declining government 
> subsidies are
> not the reason.  The professors haven't all become 
> millionaires.  The
> campus hasn't been plated with gold.  The students aren't 
> getting an
> education that is ten times better than what I got.  This 
> is a general
> trend, not just a phenomenon of my alma mater, and I really do 
> want to know
> what the hell is going on.  My father had a bachelor's 
> degree, and my
> annual college costs were about on fifth of his annual 
> income.  I have a
> PhD and the costs for my kids would be well over half of my 
> annual income.
> 
> Can someone out there tell my why higher education is becoming 
> somethingonly for the rich?
> 
> Martin M. Meiss
> 
> 
> 2011/12/28 Rick Lindroth <[email protected]>
> 
> > The answer is simple and (nearly) universal: states' support 
> for higher
> > education has declined precipitously over recent decades, 
> especially in
> > recent years. In essence, states are transfering the financial 
> burden of
> > higher education from the general public to individuals 
> (students and
> > parents).
> >
> > Although tuition increases have been high, they cannot close 
> the gap;
> > hence the fiscal peril that public research institutions now find
> > themselves in.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Richard L. Lindroth, Ph.D.
> > Professor of Ecology, Associate Dean for Research, and
> > Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station
> > University of Wisconsin-Madison
> > Madison, WI  53706 U.S.A.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> [mailto:ECOLOG-
> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:29 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] UC-Berkeley and other 'public Iv 
> ies'in fiscal
> > peril
> > >
> > > > The University of California at Berkeley subsists now in
> > > > perpetual austerity. Star faculty take mandatory furloughs.
> > > > Classes grow perceptibly larger each year. Roofs leak;
> > > > e-mail crashes. One employee mows the entire campus.
> > > > Wastebaskets are emptied once a week. Some
> > > > professors lack telephones.
> > >
> > > If all of the above is true, then can someone please
> > > explain why for 20+ years the annual increase in the
> > > cost of college tuition has far outpaced the consumer
> > > price index, heath care, energy costs, etc.
> > >
> > > http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1450
> > > http://tinyurl.com/6xq6hv
> > >
> > > Paul Cherubini
> > > El Dorado, Calif.
> >

Reply via email to