Spending trajectory at many of these institutions is plainly unsustainable.
via Slate
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
.
Unsustainable...that's the problem in a lot of places right now. Thanks for posting this HaverDad.
.
Unsustainable...that's the problem in a lot of places right now. Thanks for posting this HaverDad.
.
One of the dirty little secrets about higher education is the administrative bloat. Keeping hiring full-time admins but keep relying on part-time adjunct professors to do more and more of the teaching.
Initech,
That sounds vaguely familiar. Have you been reading Beer and Circus by Murray Sperber? The book discusses budget bloat, part-time professors being delegated to undergraduate education, graduate professors bring in the big research dollars, and the institutions re-focus on athletics $$ rather than undergrad education.
That sounds vaguely familiar. Have you been reading Beer and Circus by Murray Sperber? The book discusses budget bloat, part-time professors being delegated to undergraduate education, graduate professors bring in the big research dollars, and the institutions re-focus on athletics $$ rather than undergrad education.
As a former grad student who gave up academia when I saw a potential future of adjunct-ness, I have some firsthand knowledge of the situation. I was always struck by how nice the administrative offices were where I went to grad school (Pac 12 school) compared to our dumpy departmental "suite".
If you click the Ohio State link at the bottom of HaverDad's link, you'll see that Ohio State's pres makes $2 million in yearly compensation and has billed $550,000 in travel expenses to the university in the last couple of years.
One of the most notorious recent signs of the triumph of athletics over academics is how Rutgers made cuts like turning off history professors' desk phones (those long-distance calls to the past must be really expensive), but the women's basketball coach gets a monthly allowance for golfing. More here .
If you click the Ohio State link at the bottom of HaverDad's link, you'll see that Ohio State's pres makes $2 million in yearly compensation and has billed $550,000 in travel expenses to the university in the last couple of years.
One of the most notorious recent signs of the triumph of athletics over academics is how Rutgers made cuts like turning off history professors' desk phones (those long-distance calls to the past must be really expensive), but the women's basketball coach gets a monthly allowance for golfing. More here .
A point of emphasis in my college search was finding a school where part-time professors were rare (less than 10 at my college) and non-terminal degree bearing professors were rarer (0 at my college). To be assured that my professors were not overly focused on graduate school and research ambitions, I chose a school that lacks a graduate school. I will say that there is some awesome research going on nonetheless, some of which I've been able to participate in!
Courses are much more demanding than what many of my high school classmates have experienced, but I'm benefiting immensely from it. I even expect one of my non-baseball extracurricular activities to pay for graduate school
Courses are much more demanding than what many of my high school classmates have experienced, but I'm benefiting immensely from it. I even expect one of my non-baseball extracurricular activities to pay for graduate school
I'm not arguing one way or another on this, but just going to put out some food for thought...In short, does the extra money spent on the extra skills above and beyond the absolute minimum pay off in additional revenue? If so, it is the right decision. If not, it isn't.
Let's say you're a university board of regents, willing to pay $1 million annually to your next president. You are going to have a greater candidate pool with more depth than a school that is willing to pay $500,000, and a smaller and shallower pool than a school willing to pay $2 million. Keep in mind, also, that most university presidents also would have qualifications to work similar positions in the private sector.
If your $1 million candidate is better than your $500,000 candidate, and creates a net gain of at least $500,000 a year, then there is no reason not to hire someone at that salary. Likewise, if a $2 million candidate creates a net revenue of at least $1.5 million more than the $500,000 candidate, hire that person.
Let's say you're a university board of regents, willing to pay $1 million annually to your next president. You are going to have a greater candidate pool with more depth than a school that is willing to pay $500,000, and a smaller and shallower pool than a school willing to pay $2 million. Keep in mind, also, that most university presidents also would have qualifications to work similar positions in the private sector.
If your $1 million candidate is better than your $500,000 candidate, and creates a net gain of at least $500,000 a year, then there is no reason not to hire someone at that salary. Likewise, if a $2 million candidate creates a net revenue of at least $1.5 million more than the $500,000 candidate, hire that person.