Comments on Quick Takes: Critic of Colleges Loses Primary, Calif. Regents Back President, Management Wins Career Ed Vote, Dartmouth Help for Grad Students, BU Bars Sudan Stocks, UNLV's Pick, FBI Raid, Doonesbury's College Poll, NCAA Rejects McMurry 'Indians'

• Easy on Penn., Scott
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 19, 2006 at 7:35am EDT

• Regarding the lead item on Pennsylvania --

  Several Republican Penn. incumbents were defeated because of self-approved pay raises, greed, and sloth, not stands on ABOR. Some of those incumbents had been in public office 30+ years.

  So, given their long tenure and the negative financial effect that long tenure had -- are there implications for tenure in higher education? Is that why tuition keeps rising, faster than inflation?

• Tuition and Tenure
• Posted by MDS on May 19, 2006 at 8:40am EDT

• Actually, R.A.S., tenure is not the reason for increases in tuition. Take a look at levels of compensation for university presidents and administrators. Take a look at the explosive growth of middle-management types on nearly every campus. Take a look at the vanity building projects, often in support of vanity sports obsessions, popping up at colleges and universities all around the country. Then, take a look at the declining number of full-time (much less tenured) faculty and the growing dependence on (and exploitation of) part-time faculty. When you have finished your homework assignment, write a comment about the real drivers of tuition increases.

• R.A.S.
• Posted by CD on May 19, 2006 at 8:40am EDT

• “...are there implications for tenure in higher education? Is that why tuition keeps rising, faster than inflation?”

  Take a look at faculty salaries over time, and graph it with tuition over time. Tenure is an easy bete noire for administrations to blame as they jack up tuition, but at the several (private) institutions with which I’ve been associated, faculty salaries barely track with inflation. Somehow I think the money’s going somewhere else.

• Posted by Upper Midwest Asst. Prof. , Asst. Prof. at Upper Midwest on May 19, 2006 at 8:40am EDT

• "So, given their long tenure and the negative financial effect that long tenure had — are there implications for tenure in higher education? Is that why tuition keeps rising, faster than inflation?"

  No. Tenure keeps faculty salaries low (far too low, actually). If tenure were to be abolished, then faculty (especially those in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering) would demand salaries that would be competitive with pay in industry--and rightly so.

  If tenure is abolished, then tuition will skyrocket (quite possibly rising by 50% or more).

• Wrong!
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 19, 2006 at 10:00am EDT

• " .. Tenure keeps faculty salaries low .."

  Really? Where's the proof? AAUP economic study? I can find other economic studies that dispute that statement. Ever heard of Vedder (Ohio U.) or Greene (U-Ark.)?

  Those bleating for tenure obviously do not understand economic markets, including how prices set and re-set, as well as average vs. marginal pricing.

  For example, medical faculty become tenured in return for a (relatively) guaranteed stream of future payments (salary). If, for some reason (like reality), tenure for them were to end, both sides would probably enter into long-term contracts with no cost increase.

  People, if someone with tenure really thinks she/he can make more money without tenure, they should leave. Go. Quit. No one is forcing them to stay in a lower-paying job. Really -- this isn't North Korea or France.

  That also goes adjuncts -- if you don't like being exploited, leave. Go. Quit. You are free do to so. The only adjunct I know who got a tenure spot was Ward Churchill, and look how he turned out.

  Separately, if someone is upset about how much his/her college president makes and its alleged effect on tuition -- quit and start your own college. Put your president out of work, if you're so talented and great. Or, tell the state legislature you can do the job better -- the students will back you.

  Otherwise -- just do your job without the whine, please.

• Posted by Thane Doss on May 19, 2006 at 12:40pm EDT

• R.A.S. seems to have a huge animus against tenure. One wonders what it is that he wishes erased from institutional memory, a conservative mechanism that would cease to exist without tenure.

  (One also wonders why he's so convinced that a secure job is a bad thing that must be abolished in favor of continual job-hopping. While it might be bad for some economic construct--the corporation, say--security actually seems like a good thing for humans. Perhaps his animus is against humans...)

• Posted by PG on May 19, 2006 at 1:40pm EDT

• It seems to me that RAS and others like him do not understand the economics of university salaries. Both professors and administrators are acting rationally. It all boils down to attitudes toward risk aversion.

  In general (and I grant that there are exceptions) people going into university teaching are risk averse. To them, a dollar at age 70 is as important (or nearly so) as a dollar at age 30. . They are willing to take a lower paying job now because they can expect not to be thrown out on the street at 50 with no possibility of finding another job when a reduction in force takes place. That is, they have a low discount rate for the future.

  An administrator, be they a president or a dean or a functionary, however, does not have tenure as an administrator. They therefore must make their money now because they can (and generally will, if you read Inside Higher Ed) be out on the street if they make a misstep. For example, the half-life of a dean of a business school is of the order of five years. As accountability increases, half lives are decreasing (implying risks are increasing) and hence financial incentives are needed to get people to accept the risk.

• Paine
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 19, 2006 at 2:15pm EDT

• Thane Doss seems to be one of the millions of English MAs (or PhDs) who think they are entitled to a lifetime government job without public review.

  One wonders if he and his ilk have a grip on reality. If he came to Flint, with its 200,000 laid-off autoworkers, and displayed that kind of bizarre sense of "gimme, gimme" entitlement, he'd probably have to visit a hospital, shortly thereafter. Ever heard of a Reagan Democrat, Mr. Genius?

  If one wants a secure job -- one could start by having skills that are in demand, as opposed to having skills held by tens of millions. Y'know -- demand and supply? Even the Russians know that, now.

  If one cannot find a secure job -- isn't that their problem? Why should anyone fix someone else's employment problem, if he won't address it himself?

• Rationality v. 200,000+ unemployed PhDs
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 19, 2006 at 2:40pm EDT

• PG,

  Your comments on market rationality were of interest.

  Could you explain why (as noted in IHE), if one TT philosophy position in S. Calif. draws 350 applicants -- why doesn't the price of tuition for those courses reflect the gross oversupply of available, qualified instructors? That is, if markets and all actors are rational? The students, who are carrying big student loan debts, would like to know.

  Thank you.

• The Confusion of RAS
• Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 20, 2006 at 8:00pm EDT

• Folks like RAS are such a sad spectacle - but alas, perhaps proof of a profound failure of economics education in the United States.

  "Free traders" always want their costs low, but their rewards high. So they will argue that, for example, a business can set prices, or business organizations (or even vertical conglomerates) can exist, but refuse to accept unions or any other method of establishing the price of labor. They also wildly misunder-represent costs. In Michigan, for example, our "high-priced" k-12 schools educate students for approximately $6.25 per hour (I'll give transportation time and extra-curricular time for free). RAS can't find a babysitter for that, but he'll whine about those costs I'm sure.

  Now, I think the cost of tuition is a scandal. But it is that because the United States doesn't fund education in any appropriate way. But that's what the Republicans (and free-market types) want - an education system that preserves inherited privilege.

  So, instead of wondering why corporate bookies (stock traders et al) are among the highest paid and lowest taxed Americans, or wondering why those who don't work for their money are taxed less than those who do, or wondering why the US government somehow fails to profit from the rise in oil prices for oil pumped on public land (a unique situation in the world) - any of which could convert our colleges to "free" - he assaults the very logical economic deal universities have made with their faculty.

  What's that deal RAS? Faculty will train for years, stay absolutely current in their fields, teach, advise, research, counsel, write, direct, and generally, propel society forward and build our world's future, in exchange for poor to mediocre salaries, pretty decent benefits, and job security.

  Cut the job security and the pay will need to rise. Raise the pay to "Disney Executive" level, and hey, a whole lot of profs will dump the security.

  And really - if you want to be controversial, have the guts to identify yourself and where you work. Otherwise, well, the unsigned letter carries very little weight...

• You first, sir
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 22, 2006 at 4:00pm EDT

• " .. if you want to be controversial, have the guts to identify yourself ..

  You are politicking at your government job. If you have any courage -- why don't you quit your simple government job and become a full-time politician for higher education taxes? Do others know what you are doing?

  Workers like you enjoy playing the victim, thinking themselves entitled to more. "Oh, I we just raised taxes on the rich, things would be better."

  Guess what, Mr. Genius -- the top 3% of income-earners are already paying more than 70% of personal income taxes! You obviously don't understand economics, or anything having to do with the world outside government.

  Ever heard that high taxes are a disincentive to working? Maybe that's why Michigan has the absolute lowest economic growth rate in the U.S.? No -- you're too busy, complaining how terrible things are.

  Think things are terrible here? Why not move? Mexico -- oh, they don't allow immigration. Cuba -- oh, they have too many jails. Well, keep trying.

  And, for the record pal, I'm an AFT union member. Whiners like you make it boring, but I pay. I am forced to (as an agency fee) -- it's the law.

  BTW: I know something about K-12 pupil payments. Ever heard of the work of Greene (U-Ark.) about how very little has been gained by the increase in K-12 spending by Bush? Obviously not.

  http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_rmn-making_education.html

  As for this -- "RAS can’t find a babysitter for that, but he’ll whine about those costs I’m sure .."

  Hey, pal, I don't have kids -- why the heck would I whine? BTW: I know what Detroit/Novi babysitters get -- $8/hour -- and I've NEVER complained. Markets work, sir.

  Think Reagan caused tuition costs to go up? Hey Kid Einstein -- ever think about the 75% of taxpayers who did NOT go to college, watching all the wasteful navel-gazing going on, in academia? You don't think they ordered Reagan to cut back higher-ed spending?

  Think everyone is entitled to a free college education? Who do you think you are?
  Better than that 75% who decided college is not for them?

  Don't like your working conditions? Quit. Otherwise -- how about just doing your job?

• Guess I got a little close
• Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 23, 2006 at 8:55am EDT

• Oh my, RAS. Still won't identify yourself but now you're really angry.

  Actually, I have a number of jobs. I think I'm highly productive and contributory. And my "navel gazing" (which I call fiction writing) is done after my other two jobs are done.

  But importantly, you really need to go outside. First, even in Michigan - one of the lowest college graduation states - more than 50% of high school seniors go to college (you're only off by 50% - not bad). Many do not finish because of the failure of the state to properly support education, making it far too expensive, causing huge problems for students without inherited advantage. You see radically different results in European nations where college is free, or, for that matter, by tracking the incredible success of the City University system in New York when it was free in building quality higher education for an ever increasing percentage of the population.

  Second, the place Michigan has lost the most jobs to over the past decade is, of course, Canada - where taxes are higher and college is much cheaper. For the third year in a row Ontario alone will build more vehicles than Michigan. You may believe your "markets work - lower taxes" nonsense, but it simply is not true. (For example, why is the Irish economy (with what you would consider both massive taxes and unbelievably high minimum wages) growing faster than the rest of Europe and at twice the rate of the US?)

  Third, the continuous Republican claim that only rich people pay taxes is totally dishonest. So stop it. Ever hear of FICA? (which taxes a millionaire at 1/10 the rate it taxes a Wal-Mart worker)

  Fourth, if you are an AFT member in Michigan, then the poor, through sales taxes, are paying your salary as well.

  But most importantly, markets work in competitive environments in business. We do not have competitive environments in the US, as is illustrated by the fact that Hugo Chavez (Citgo) and Exxon-Mobil sell gasoline for the exact same price across the street from each other. And education, if we want to succeed as a nation, is not a business.

  After all, if Jack Welch ran education he'd close all schools in Michigan - they're simply not paying off very well right now. And if I was to treat my classes in "market style" I could charge students whatever they were willing to pay to get in (that would be especially good for the one that's required), and perhaps charge for better grades - or at least offer an easier path to high grades for students who paid "business class" rates.

  Finally - yes, I'd strip lots of things from American schools - the big sports programs in high schools and colleges to start. I'd cut administrative costs. But really, education is clearly one thing you can fix "simply by throwing money at it." Give k-12 education enough money to cut class size down to 12 or 15 and pay teachers the way Wall Street professionals are paid, and teaching and learning will improve dramatically. Fund universities so students can concentrate on education instead of jobs and far more "disadvantaged" students will succeed.

  I know from your posts that you are an angry, frustrated, person. Fine. Me too. But fighting to create ever larger divisions in American society may not be the best solution for any of us.

• Angry, frustrated government workers
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 23, 2006 at 10:30am EDT

• I know from your posts that you are an angry, frustrated government worker, who enjoys playing the victim. How sad.

  If you had the courage of your convictions, to bring services to people, you would quit your low-productivity government job and start up your own private educational firm. You have not, choosing instead to write fiction.

  That is the root of your frustration and you have only yourself to credit for the position in your are in.

  You appear to know nothing about higher education, outside of "gimme money." If you did, you'd know more than 60% of these postings -- even from tenured law professors capable of litigating until eternity -- are anonymous.

  The level of your lack of knowledge in higher education is unbelievable. Before you post again, read up on topics and save everyone time.

  And if you think NYC and Canada are so wonderful and great -- move there. Leave Michigan. Go. Quit. Get out. Few will care, and no one is irreplaceable. Otherwise, you're just being retromitigent.

• Insanity
• Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 23, 2006 at 12:50pm EDT

• Oh, I'm angry and frustrated with the right-wing insanity in the U.S. I love my jobs. After all, while you were ranting, one of Michigan's most important employers was telling me that the changes my "worthless government job" made in one of their departments increased employee productivity 33% while making the workers happier. I don't get those results all the time - but, hey, it was nice to hear.

  I think I know a great deal about higher education, from the point of view of a student, of an instructor, of a parent paying tuition, as someone who brings hundreds of students into higher ed each year who otherwise could not succeed there - and who follows them through the system. Of course, I've identified myself. I'm not hurling insults from behind a mask.

  The problem America faces is a failure to put education first. This has become obvious to everyone around the world - except for the American right. And instead of investing in education, we invest in testing and babble about "market solutions." The U.S. slogan is really "A Whole Generation Left Behind." It's a shame as we watch our best jobs drain away.

• Tedious
• Posted by R.A.S. on May 24, 2006 at 8:15am EDT

• "The problem America faces is a failure to put education first. .."

  Really? Where's your evidence? Why are people struggling to get here? Your statement is so reality-jejune, it is like mental cotton candy.

  " .. This has become obvious to everyone around the world — except for the American right."

  Of course -- Geo. Will (PhD, Princeton) and Wm. Kristol (PhD, Harvard) both are complete idiots and you are smarter than both of them. And The Washington Post is calling you tomorrow, to take Will's place on the editorial page.

  " .. And instead of investing in education, we invest in testing and babble about “market solutions.”

  My God, repeating this over and over gets, so tedious ..

  First, the U.S. is spending buckets of money and getting nothing for it (Greene, U-Ark.). Second, when you have a public education monopoly that refuses to face the reality of obvious failure, testing is an outcome. Third, about markets: well, Mr. Economics know-it-all, look up "deadweight loss" and you might start to get a clue.

  "The U.S. slogan is really “A Whole Generation Left Behind.” "

  Kristol, Will, and I are fine. If someone has a problem, that's their problem to address first. Then they can call for help.

  " .. It’s a shame as we watch our best jobs drain away."

  Not my fault Clinton and LBJ were presidents. Somebody else's problem.