Absolutely true. Then, we mostly expected a single family member to be able to support a family on one salary. Of course, another change is that women have more nearly the same opportunities as do men. In fact, in biology, new faculty hires are women as often as men. There was a time when women would routinely get questioned about their family situation, and whether they could do the job while taking care of a family. Or, the questions would go unasked but the answers assumed to be "no," and that was that. But the point that a person who taught at a university or college could expect to pay the bills on his salary then, but not now, is accurate. My undergraduate professors generally lived in upper middle income neighborhoods, had good cars, had kids who could expect to attend good colleges and universities ................, on one salary. I know junior faculty who have been happy that they could buy a small house in what was a working class neighborhood, drive ten-ye! ar-old vehicles and use public transportation (for those who have access to it), and so on.
mcneely ---- R Omalley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm... My father earned enough as a junior faculty member to support a wife > and three kids. My junior colleagues certainly cannot, at least in > California. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:49 PM, "Judith S. Weis" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Another element is that now faculty earn a reasonable living wage, while > > several decades ago they didn't. > > > > > >> 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. > >>>> > >> -- David McNeely
