Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

No, No, NACUBO

August 6, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

My name is Wick, and I have been a NACUBO member.

The National Association of College and University Business Officers last week nailed at least $4 million to the fall tuition bills going out to strapped families and students this month. NACUBO gathered more than 1,000 higher education business officers and 200-plus vendors at a Mardi Gras in New Orleans.... I mean, an annual meeting, “Crossroads: New Beginnings Built on Valued Traditions.” Those traditions being, for example, free food, an umbrella from Microsoft in the registration bag and a golf tournament with the Beverage Cart sponsored by Higher One, a cash-card company, I think.

I missed the meeting. I toured the meeting Web site, and I wept. I don’t think college in the U.S. will ever be anything but even more expensive. What’s exasperating is that I like the hundreds of NACUBO members I know. These are men and women who are kind, good people. The sum of the parts, though, is a black hole.

I could be at least a million low in my costs, but I rounded down and did not estimate the costs of parties at tony restaurants like Bacco and Bourbon House or the giveaways of iPods and other gadgets in the exhibit hall. Fair’s fair. My $4 million all-in cost for the convention is from the NACUBO meeting Web pages, plus plugging in airfare (coach), hotels and sundries for those attending. Booths and sponsorships based on the information on the web pages come to at least another $1.5 million from vendors, and I assumed the minimum 100 square feet for all vendors, though some were much larger. (Note: Inside Higher Ed was among the exhibitors.) All this money goes back to students via expense accounts and whatever vendors add, from the meeting, to their cost of goods sold. I have no quarrel with business or advertising. This meeting, though, must come off everyone’s budget.

Consider:

  • Did NACUBO negotiate premiums as high as 58 percent for hotel rooms in New Orleans? I was looking up prices on Web hotel sites, and I scrolled down to the featured hotels on the NACUBO pages. I thought I’d made a mistake – NACUBO prices were higher. How hard can negotiating a deal be in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans? Take a look.
  NACUBO Price Web Price Difference Premium
Hilton $175 $119 $56 47%
Wyndham $169 $109 $60 55%
W New Orleans $169 $107 $62 58%
Marriott $167 $129 $38 29%
  • Any meetings on the big questions? How to put twice as much knowledge into students at half the cost? Not that I found. One quote from the Web, “NACUBO-Your Key to the Higher Education Market -- What's the most effective way to access the $211 billion higher education marketplace? The NACUBO 2007 Annual Meeting is the industry's largest and best attended event for college and university business officers. The business potential it offers you is enormous!”
  • Even NACUBO can’t size this glorious market. Also from the Web: “The NACUBO Annual Meeting offers unparalleled access to administrative decision-makers in the $400 billion higher education market.”
  • How would anyone explain this to a students crushed in credit-card debt? “Relaxation Station Rejuvenate and recharge with an upper body massage. Enjoy a complimentary neck, back, shoulder, arm, or hand massage in the exposition hall during exhibit hours. Sponsored by Bank of America.”
  • Students everywhere paid, too, for a speech by the Freakonomics boys, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. (No lecture price I could find on their agent’s Web page.) I have this fine book right here on my desk. Published in 2005, this has been a bestseller for two years. If this book is news to college and university business officers, I despair.

I have yet to meet anyone who accepts accountability for the ever-rising costs of a higher education. As a society, we’ve never known more about the mind and learning and cognitive science. New knowledge and great need in other fields breed innovation. How about a better way to deliver an education? The four-year bachelor’s degree, the big cost driver in higher education, is a construct from the University of Bologna in the 1400s. The pedagogical constraint was the virtual absence of books. Education required gathering students in a room and the professor reading the book to them. I pitched this idea many times to NACUBO chiefs. Not the answer, but let’s tackle the question. No luck, and costs keep rising, and back interest on student loans compounds.

My anguish arises from my certainty that those who gathered this week in New Orleans are the ones to reinvent higher education at a rational cost. One on one, business officers agree that there are better ways. They say no one has asked them for a solution, or “We must do what the crazy provosts want.” Large meetings with other professions -- investment bankers, hedge fund bosses, lawyers -- leave me certain that the problems will only worsen. These business officers, though, are fine, fine people.

If I had to oversee an overhaul of higher education for the new century -- more learning, lower cost, access for the poor -- I’d take any NACUBO members and be delighted to have them. At any NACUBO meeting I’ve attended, the brainpower and the ability and knowledge of those present has inspired me. That all that brain capital is dormant for the big questions has discouraged me, more than once. Who better to lead than these men and women?

Somewhere is a 12-step program to show business officers the way to delivering what they know is the best higher education system in the world to millions more for millions less.

Perhaps next year at a rehab center? Have a golf tournament. I’ll sponsor the beverage cart, and I’m not selling anything.

Wick Sloane’s column, The Devil’s Workshop, appears as needed. He was recently awarded a fellowship from the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media to write about community college finance and equity issues.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on No, No, NACUBO

  • Costs v. tuition
  • Posted by Sherman Dorn , Associate Professor at University of South Florida on August 6, 2007 at 6:55am EDT
  • I'm not going to defend NACUBO, but I am tired of the sloppy use of "costs" as a synonym for "tuition." Tuition isn't the same as cost for either families or colleges. For families, the cost of college includes fees, books, living expenses, and the opportunity cost of wages when students forgo work to attend. (Think about the credit-card debt students incur for all things other than tuition.) For institutions, tuition only pays a portion of the true costs of a student's education. At least in public institutions, a large proportion of increasing tuition is not increasing costs to the institution but cost-shifting to families as state legislatures have cut back on support for higher education.

  • Time out for reality
  • Posted by L.L. on August 6, 2007 at 8:15am EDT
  • " .. At least in public institutions .."

    As they are taxpayer-supported ..

    " .. a large proportion of increasing tuition is not increasing costs to the institution but cost-shifting to families as state legislatures have cut back on support for higher education."

    Because (1) there were economic studies showing the education of those in higher-income brackets were being subsidized by those in lower-income brackets and (2) administration and faculty in many fields were unable to tangibly show any value for their work (viz., Ward Churchill, Nick diGenova, Duke's "Gang of 88").

    Wick makes a good point, about controlling costs. Public colleges that promise to keep college tuition to the average rate of inflation (e.g., Peter McPherson's MSU tenure) are almost non-existent. And if higher-ed executive management won't try -- no one else on campus will. And it shows.

  • with all due respect, Wick...
  • Posted by Blind Man on August 6, 2007 at 8:35am EDT
  • You jump to the same mistaken conclusion as NYAG Cuomo does with the so called "student loan scandel". You argue that a student's college costs are increased because Nacubo goers got an umbrella and perhaps a massage and that vendors are all evil doers for having provided these in the first place and should have known better. I would argue that there is another possibility as to what vendors would do with the money if they did not spend it at the conference.
    They would simply keep it and increase their profits!!!
    You and Cuomo seem to think that a for profit business is somehow magically compelled to give it back to students. Hello, Disconnect! It seems to be a trust in behavior that seems to me to be wholly misplaced given our capitalist system. If vendors are so evil would not my conclusion, be perhaps more plausible? There are no laws compelling any vendors to return any portion of profits to any customer. Have you filled your gas tank lately?

  • Wick 1, Blind Man 0
  • Posted by finaidfollies on August 6, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • We all get Blind Man's name: he (and by extension he supposes we, too) sees only part of the elephant, but he modestly doesn't presume too much. Given his arguments, he has much to be modest about.

    Blind Man, Wick is far too gentlemanly to whack you over the head with the obvious implications of his post, so allow me.

    $4 million isn't being spent out of bonhomie. There is the expectation that it will channel orders of magnitude more revenue to the largesse-providers. $4 million might be a lot of money in some quarters, but here it's chump change.

    Lenders are drastically scaling back sponsorships, scholarships, tchochkes, perks, meals, and all kinds of filthy lucre. These savings go, just as you describe, straight to the bottom line. But you're fooling yourself if you think this comes anywhere close to the amount of profit that lender-enabler management expects from their student loan division.

    Giving away pens, meals, and even full-frontal junkets does, as Wick points out, add to the cost of college, but that addition is a puny part of the revenue that the largesse is chasing. That larger prize, derived in large part from loan interest and fees, stings students and families a lot more.

    Yet even that sting, Blind Man, is only a pinprick compared to what colleges are charging. The interest and fees on the loans simply wouldn't be there if a college education wasn't so expensive that folks must borrow, and how, to procure it.

    Schools set the price. The lenders are mere enablers. Wick asks, quite directly, why so many genuinely good and intelligent people can't figure out a better way to provide a college education, one that doesn't depend on oceans of cash chasing a 13th century education model. Here I must share Wick's skepticism that we'll ever see the tectonic shifts required if we are to rein in costs.

    You state that "[Wick] and Cuomo seem to think that a for profit business is somehow magically compelled to give it back to students". If billions in federally-guaranteed and interest-subsidized loans were not the issue, perhaps I would agree.

    But these are taxpayers' dollars involved, Blind Man. It is not a slam against FFELP to say that lenders should realize profit, just not unchecked profit. Student loans are made infinitely less risky than most other investment options banks could pursue, because Uncle Sam's underwriting the risk.

  • Posted by Sherman Dorn , Associate Professor at University of South Florida on August 6, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • L.L. writes,

    "(1) there were economic studies showing the education of those in higher-income brackets were being subsidized by those in lower-income brackets."

    If state legislators were being so rational, why would they simultaneously cut state support and also create programs (such as George's HOPE or Florida's Bright Futures programs) that subsidized higher-income parents even more? It would make greater sense to raise tuition and shovel millions into need-based scholarships.

    "(2) administration and faculty in many fields were unable to tangibly show any value for their work."

    Reductions in state subsidies started a few decades ago, when both liberals and conservatives were besotten with human-capital arguments for higher education and long before the scandals you mention. Were legislators clairvoyant?

  • Hello, Wal-Mart
  • Posted by L.L. on August 6, 2007 at 1:35pm EDT
  • " .. There are no laws compelling any vendors to return any portion of profits to any customer .."

    This has to be one of the oddest posts.

    Yo -- you have described Wal-Mart's strategy -- low costs (no free umbrellas), low prices.

    Yet, the Michael Moore/Socialist Democrats criticize Wal-Mart for low prices.

    Plus -- no one is forcing anyone to go to Wal-Mart. As compared to how conveniently Democrat governors quietly deter vouchers for private colleges. Nice.

    "Stop making sense" -- never more true than today.

  • Facts is hard
  • Posted by L.L. on August 6, 2007 at 3:10pm EDT
  • Union president Dorn:

    " .. If state legislators were being so rational, why would they simultaneously cut state support and also create programs (such as George’s HOPE ..) .."

    Gee, wouldn't that require actually explaining some of the details of the programs? Like, the top 10% of all H.S. classes rule? Which your servants, the Democrats, thought would be a way around SAT-based financial aid? Why don't you ask them?

    " .. long before the scandals you mention. Were legislators clairvoyant?"

    I'm not as old as you. All I see, are cuts from Nick diGenova era.

    But after looking up data missing from your post -- I began to wonder, did you miss how the 1960s Berkeley riots ushered out Pat Brown and brought in R.R.? I guess so.

    Facts is hard, ain't they?

  • FinAidFollies
  • Posted by Blind Man on August 6, 2007 at 3:10pm EDT
  • Isn't it interesting that folly feels the compulsion to interpret everything for all the readers as though you are all a bunch of idiots and unable to think for yourself. Wait, I will answer;no it's not!

    It wouldn't be so bad if folly actually were good at it, but the arguments that folly put forth don't even make sense from sentence to sentence to wit:

    "$4 million isn’t being spent out of bonhomie. There is the expectation that it will channel orders of magnitude more revenue to the largesse-providers. $4 million might be a lot of money in some quarters, but here it’s chump change."

    Which is it Folly, bonhomie or chump change? Is it important ot unimportant? Make up your mind for once.

    And follys rather longwinded response was all just to agree with a fairly simple idea which I put forth.

    "These savings go, just as you describe, straight to the bottom line."

    Not only did I not address this next issue in my original post, but it is a nonsequitor.

    "But you’re fooling yourself if you think this comes anywhere close to the amount of profit that lender-enabler management expects from their student loan division."

    "Yet even that sting, Blind Man, is only a pinprick compared to what colleges are charging."
    (Let me interpret, Folly) Colleges are even greedier than banks.

    "Schools set the price." Not always,Folly many times it is the legislature.

    "But these are taxpayers’ dollars involved, Blind Man. It is not a slam against FFELP to say that lenders should realize profit, just not unchecked profit. Student loans are made infinitely less risky than most other investment options banks could pursue, because Uncle Sam’s underwriting the risk."

    Again, I never argued that profit should be unchecked, I merely noted that it is not.

    I must apologize to the readers for it seems that whatever my various post's do not touch on you can best believe follies will make it up as he goes along.

    Somewhere along the line I seem to have picked up an attack poodle.

    To quote Dilbert, "Your jeolousy is transparent".

  • A Breath of Fresh Air
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at StudentLoanJustice.Org on August 6, 2007 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Finally, someone "on the inside" not addicted to sophistry and doublespeak for the sake of lifestyle preservation. I applaud Mr. Sloane's courage for telling it like it is.