Perhaps the best bet for elites who don't want to go to college and risk injury.
This falls in line with my idea of becoming a developmental program, but for players not quite making that top shelf status.
It's pretty logical, although the kid is still misguided in my view by missing out on a magical year of basketball.
IDK Even in one year a young man can grow a lot as a person given a well rounded education and the social interactions at university. Kids play basketball year round from an early age, many cut out all other sports and specialize early on. They didn’t do that before. Jordan played golf in the off season, not pickup basketball...and it didn’t seem to hold him back. Interesting topic, I just don’t know where the line should be. Even the pros should be taking more time away to let their body recover.
There's plenty of studies out there that pretty strongly indicate specialization in sports and playing year round is pretty detrimental to the long term development of an athlete.
Wiggs, Embiid, and Ben Mac loved being in college. Ben had to go, poverty, he didn't want to. I don't remember anyone being so happy to be in college. Food, hot shower, a bed, heat and ac. He gives back so much too. He needs something good to happen for him!
I think college would be fun for most guys, you get treated like rock stars and get a chance to win games and championships. This is an interesting route but I think it could be better than RJ's to go overseas. If you train for 12 months and keep it under wraps, then go workout from teams. You may not have as many knocks on your game but you won't have as much experience in a team setting. On RJ's deal, it's very risky in alot of ways. He could get injured as he could in college of course. He could show that he isn't as good against players that probably are below major D1 college skill level. You also have to figure that it is a huge change to up and move to another country especially for a teenager.
It's an interesting concept. I know I think it would be a better choice than playing a year overseas. Talk about risk...
Thinking just about the top shelf players... why not be "all in?" It's your ticket to fame and fortune.
Do you think players lift their public relations stock by playing a year of college ball? Usually doesn't produce a national championship.
Why not refine your game at a higher rate?
The window of opportunity can be so small. That one big contract is a game-changer concerning income over their lives.
I think college ball shows all their weaknesses. Might as well spend a year with the coaches who know how to find and work through weaknesses.
I don't know... think out loud.
@drgnslayr Being a college star is great publicity. Personally I don’t much care for the nba, but I do follow former Jayhawks.
College is a scam. The more guys that realize that they don’t need college, the better it is for the college game.
I follow what you are saying.
For those top shelf players... what good does it do to go to a school for 8 months? Are any of those guys diehard for the school they play for? Probably few.
And what does that do for the fans? Really? If we land several top shelf guys because we know how to recruit... just what does that say for our school?
What does it say when we win a national championship with a bunch of 4-year guys who grew up eating-breathing KU?
What does it say when we win one with a bunch of guys who never heard of KU before a year ago?
The game is littered with "win at any cost."
I appreciate the NBA more now because it isn't putting on any misconceptions. It's pure capitalism and not ashamed of it.
Well, you can let kids avoid college altogether, but that can seriously hamper them later. Maybe schools can work with education specialists (and the certifiers, to avoid being like UNC).
Schools could, for example, create 1 and 2 year certificate programs that actually give them help in transitioning to adulthood, with classes in modern communications, math, basic financials and insurance, life planning, health, etc. Make them available to the regular student population as part of major requirements. Set them up as attractive alternatives for players who think they are OADs and TADs, so they have some practical benefit from going to college. And if they end up having a reason to stay, they can still progress toward more.
Enrolling 1-year kids in classes that are just designed for traditional 4-year students does no one any good.
@mayjay You’re intentions are good, but we’re going to put these institutions that scam regular students out of many thousands of dollars each, in charge of these certifications? Maybe at JUCO rates.
Just related to the athlete, I will always be opposed to adjusting for these prima donnas. Go pro. If college BB is so unfair, go do something else. If you want to come to college and be a student, then do that.
Why is it always the search for ways change CBB to fit the demands of a few, or to benefit them? Keep the focus on the Garretts and the Agbajis, and you have a wonderful sport.
College, at these exorbitant rates, with the easy grants and student loans, is the biggest scam going.
@HighEliteMajor education has about a 10% increase in hourly earnings per year of schooling. If we run a giant scam we’re absolutely horrible at it.
@FarmerJayhawk Sorry, but post secondary education is a scam because there's no reason attending a 4 year public university should cost what it does. It's also a scam in that it's total BS that society says you have to go to a university in order to be successful in life.
College/university isn't for everyone and that's okay, but the message corporate America and the government put out there is that you can't be successful in life without going to college. That mentality is why there are so many unfilled skilled labor positions out there. Too many people fail to tell students that aren't academically fit for college there are alternatives to college. There needs to be more technical and trade schools promoted to kids who either can't afford college or don't have the grades for college so they can get trained and certified in a trade and make really good money that way without going so deep into debt that they're paying for it decades later.
I will also say definitively that the quality of teaching for gen. ed. classes at universities and community colleges is negligible.
So I will say that universities are a scam and a racket because there's no good reason they should cost what they cost other than greed.
Texas Hawk 10 said:
@FarmerJayhawk Sorry, but post secondary education is a scam because there's no reason attending a 4 year public university should cost what it does. It's also a scam in that it's total BS that society says you have to go to a university in order to be successful in life.
College/university isn't for everyone and that's okay, but the message corporate America and the government put out there is that you can't be successful in life without going to college. That mentality is why there are so many unfilled skilled labor positions out there. Too many people fail to tell students that aren't academically fit for college there are alternatives to college. There needs to be more technical and trade schools promoted to kids who either can't afford college or don't have the grades for college so they can get trained and certified in a trade and make really good money that way without going so deep into debt that they're paying for it decades later.
I will also say definitively that the quality of teaching for gen. ed. classes at universities and community colleges is negligible.
So I will say that universities are a scam and a racket because there's no good reason they should cost what they cost other than greed.
There are a few reasons for the major increase in costs (which are a problem). Administrative bloat and disinvestment from the states. Faculty salaries aren't going up much, and there are fewer tenure track faculty positions per FTE than there were back in the day. And the off-tenure track positions have grown 18x quicker than tenure-track. In real terms, spending per pupil has significantly declined, so universities have pushed some of those costs to students. To put some numbers to it, the best estimates we have are that for every dollar states cut higher ed expenditures, schools raise tuition by about 20 cents.
I've also always been beating the drum that more people should go to trade schools and JuCo's. I did my first 45ish hours as a dual enrollment student while I was in HS so I was able to graduate much quicker. But it's absolutely a fact that the wage returns to a college degree are increasing as the economy changes and a higher share of jobs require a BA+. Despite its warts, and there are a few, a college degree is more than worth it for almost everyone who gets one.
If you want to follow how a state is really going to suffer by disinvesting in higher education, follow Alaska. The state is cutting expenditures by about $150 million immediately. They're shuttering entire campuses and canceling programs.
So the tl;dr version: are our universities absolutely as efficient as possible? No. Are they still a great investment for most students? Absolutely.
The main reason that tuitions have increased so dramatically is the easy money available through federal grants and student loans. The universities have a nearly blank checkbook. No standards on what degrees the money can be used for. Go major in classical dance and French literature, and then, amazingly, you can’t get a job worth squat (see, @FarmerJayhawk, your 10% stat is an AVERAGE. Many, many folks waste their time).
Now, supposedly, it’s a crisis (student loan debt). Folks using fed loans, to pay for useless degrees, and they can’t payback the money because they’re resulting jobs are inadequate vs the money owed.
Reminds me of the mortgage loan crisis ... when the government loosened loan standards so much that folks that had no business buying a home were given loans. When the rubber met the road, they couldn’t pay.
College is a scam — colleges paid millions in lobbying fees related to opening up and loosening student loan and grant standards.
HighEliteMajor said:
The main reason that tuitions have increased so dramatically is the easy money available through federal grants and student loans. The universities have a nearly blank checkbook. No standards on what degrees the money can be used for. Go major in classical dance and French literature, and then, amazingly, you can’t get a job worth squat (see, @FarmerJayhawk, your 10% stat is an AVERAGE. Many, many folks waste their time).
Now, supposedly, it’s a crisis (student loan debt). Folks using fed loans, to pay for useless degrees, and they can’t payback the money because they’re resulting jobs are inadequate vs the money owed.
Reminds me of the mortgage loan crisis ... when the government loosened loan standards so much that folks that had no business buying a home were given loans. When the rubber met the road, they couldn’t pay.
College is a scam — colleges paid millions in lobbying fees related to opening up and loosening student loan and grant standards.
Fully aware what an average is. To be more precise, it's the average treatment effect in this context.
The high quality research on impacts of student loans on tuition are on extremely narrow programs that comprise a small fraction of university revenue. In a former life I reviewed and critiqued their budgets. Met with their lobbyists, CEO’s, or financial people if I wanted.
Lobbying expenses for the entire education industry was about $40 million last year, and the vast majority is for appropriations related to research, not Title IV financial aid. For example, KU employs exactly 2 people to lobby (one state, one federal) and doesn’t contract out. They’re both nice people. I’ve personally been lobbied by one of them. KSU has exactly one person lobbying. Her name is Sue, she’s great. They also hire a firm to handle more of their ag business. Their salaries are accessible via KPI’s database of state employee payroll if you’re interested.
The proportion of students that “waste their time” is really low. The underemployment rate for college graduates is well under 10%. While many graduates' first jobs don't always require a college degree, the data suggest almost all move up the ladder to jobs that do relatively quickly (<5 years). Otherwise the 10% average return would be MUCH lower.
Some disciplines in the academy are sick. I’ve been on that beat for years. Grievance studies, for example. Google it. But the vast majority of us do high quality work on research and teaching. Do you mind showing your actual data distribution of the returns to a BA+? I’m a scientist. I don’t care for anecdotes.
Some of the lowest paying majors play vital roles in society. For example, social work always ranks very low on salary (unfortunately) but social work is a crucial part of our society. The mission of the university isn’t just to train people to get work and make money. There’s more to education than vocation. The role of the university is to preserve and advance human knowledge, not simply train workers.
KU has one of the best special education programs on the planet. Those folks don’t make much. And in fairness to KU, they were constrained by KBoR on admissions standards for years. They wanted to take fewer marginal students, but the state board imposed low standards on the university.
We absolutely need loan reform. There are many things we can do: make them pay some debt if the borrower defaults, tie loan eligibility to outcomes and price increases, and the like.
If our public institutions really are a scam, maybe the country would be better off without us? Like I mentioned earlier, keep an eye on Alaska's workforce over time. The state is radically disinvesting in higher education at a time when it needs more educated workers. Maybe we should let the for-profit folks take over with their sky high default rates, predatory lending practices (mostly targeting veterans), and just as low quality instruction.
Bwag said:
Came across this reference today
https://www.greatjobsmn.com/ ↗
with this out of the NY Times
Eh, I think Stephens vastly overestimates the amount of radicals that seek to purify campuses ideologically. I'm not on the political left for the most part, and have never had a student do anything like what Stephens describes. The vast, vast majority of students are here for the right reasons and behave like adults. There are a few nutcases that get outsized attention (like at Evergreen) but things are generally very peaceful and open exchange of ideas is welcome.
I'm all for alternatives to college if it's the right choice for the individual. Like I said earlier, more should go the trade school/JuCo route since many come in unprepared for the rigor and culture of a university.
@FarmerJayhawk See, you have no objectivity. You're taking it personally. You can't objectively look at the scam that is college education, and recognize the deficiencies. Please don't take it personally. No one is saying "all" of it. No one is implicating you.
And you gave a sentence to loan reform. Which is the point. Which is why college costs have ballooned. Easy money. It's simple economics, no different (generally) than when reason prices go up at an auction when there are more bidders. Rapids when the channel narrows. More available purchasers.
What we should do is govern the public institutions. Pare them back. Place significant limits. Understand that public institutions are like the government. They bloat. They aren't operated like private business (generally). Colleges are on the positive end of that, though, meaning, they adhere much better to the bottom-line than other government run ventures. But they are ever-expanding.
The fact is that the costs for a well-rounded education are now too high. There is value to four years, a broad scope of knowledge, the experience, maturing. We all agree there. But the cost now is too high. You're right, there is more to education than the dollars earned. But there is a point (that we are well past) where that consideration becomes minimized. Taking the useless classes now is not worth it given the cost, given the alleged student loan crisis. Heck, KU shuffles off many freshman/sophomore to teaching assistants. A glorified JUCO.
And look, I'm sorry, but for what "social workers" do -- they could take an 18 month certification program with a semester internship and be fine. But no, they need Algebra, they need two sciences, they need electives, etc. When college was reasonably priced, sure. Now, the money spent for that luxury is prohibitive.
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk See, you have no objectivity. You're taking it personally. You can't objectively look at the scam that is college education, and recognize the deficiencies. Don't take it personally. No one is saying "all" of it. No one is implicating you.
And you gave a sentence to loan reform. Which is the point. Which is why college costs have ballooned. Easy money. It's simple economics, no different (generally) than when reason prices go up at an auction when there are more bidders. Rapids when the channel narrows. More available purchasers.
What we should do is govern the public institutions. Pare them back. Place significant limits. Understand that public institutions are like the government. They bloat. They aren't operated like private business (generally). Colleges are on the positive end of that, though, meaning, they adhere much better to the bottom-line than other government run ventures. But they are ever-expanding.
The fact is that the costs for a well-rounded education are now too high. There is value to four years, a broad scope of knowledge, the experience, maturing. We all agree there. But the cost now is too high. You're right, there is more to education than the dollars earned. But there is a point (that we are well past) where that consideration becomes minimized. Taking the useless classes now is not worth it given the cost, given the alleged student loan crisis. Heck, KU shuffles off many freshman/sophomore to teaching assistants. A glorified JUCO.
And look, I'm sorry, but for what "social workers" do -- they could take an 18 month certification program with a semester internship and be fine. But no, they need Algebra, they need two sciences, they need electives, etc. When college was reasonably priced, sure. Now, the money spent for that luxury is prohibitive.
Of course I'm objective about it. I'm a professional that studies education for a living. If my work is biased or shoddy, I don't get published and I get fired. To say my employer is running a scam is factually incorrect.
The empirical evidence is that public disinvestment and administrative bloat are the two major drivers of the increase in costs. There's great work out there on how Pell Grant expansions have actually lowered tuition. On your assertion that increases in aid drive increases in tuition, you're partially right. That effect is VERY strong in the for-profit sector, much less so in the non-profit piece of the market.
Just paring the institutions back won't do much. It'll accelerate placing students in classes taught by adjuncts and TA's, not tenured professors. Universities need to spend more on instruction and research, less on administration. Again, the research shows disinvestment reduces the proportion of students who graduate and wages later in life.
I believe a well-rounded education is good for people, and a degree should be more than job training. I've said costs are too high many times (especially since I just finished paying tuition 4 years ago). The drivers of those costs are many and complex. But the best research out there shows the opposite of what you suggest.
@FarmerJayhawk I'd be very interested in the info on the Pell Grant connection. Not something I'd seen before but would like to review, if you have it handy. If not, now worries. I'll look for it.
Just one article, this one from Forbes, that has some decent info.
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk I'd be very interested in the info on the Pell Grant connection. Not something I'd seen before but would like to review, if you have it handy. If not, now worries. I'll look for it.
Just one article, this one from Forbes, that has some decent info.
I'll track it down. I'm buried in papers at the moment but I'll find it. Good review from Forbes. Preston does good work too (AEI types are usually top notch).
Off the top of my head, Doug Webber's work on passthrough is interesting as well. John Bound and Sarah Turner's work is really good too. But this has been a fun discussion. Always a good sparring partner, HEM.
@FarmerJayhawk Likewise ... appreciate the conversation.
This whole segment is precisely why we should only talk about football, basketball and when extremely bored, baseball.
Oh - and cartoons. Specifically the Angry Beavers.
@nuleafjhawk I've always liked you, but not so sure anymore. Your disparaging of the national pastime is chagrining me.
KUSTEVE said:
@wissox I was an original Royals fan until they decided to fleece the fans, and run out a triple A team instead of a major league team. And I lived in Houston for years, so it was a natural fit for me.
Didn't the Astros fleece the fans for while .. tanking, and building a championship level squad? They won less than 60 games in 2011, 2012, or 2013. Kinda like the Royals? We're big tent, us Royals fans, would welcome you back. But man, the Astros are fun to watch and going all in grabbing Greinke was awesome.
@HighEliteMajor They were real bad for like two years, but then they improved. It wasn't a way of life like KC. I still root for KC against every other team in baseball except the Stros. i was glad they didn't give away Merrifield, who i like a lot.
@HighEliteMajor We're (Sox) in the 3rd year of a rebuild and it's been painful and there's question marks whether it will really lead us to glory like the Royals and Astros, and Cubs. Sox are pantsing the Tigers right now and when it's over the Tigers record will be 32-77. They are on pace for a historically bad season. Heck if they go .500 in their remaining 51 games they will still only win 57 games, and they are highly unlikely to play .500. It's bad for baseball. This team sucks. They're a bunch of no names, but apparently Detroit has a good farm system.
What shocks me is how quickly the Royals slunk back into bad baseball. Even though they're a rival to me I hope they don't go another 25 years before another playoff birth like they had.
@nuleafjhawk 1996-2008.
@mayjay - interesting comment. I grew up supporting the old Kansas City A’s and have retained my fan-ship. Fortunately, I lived in Oakland for quite a while when one could buy outstanding seats on the cheap just by walking up before game time. I continue to follow/cheer for KC area teams, but my baseball fandom has shifted to the Dodgers because I live in the area. They’re consistently good and the stadium is usually full. However, they are only on subscription TV, so I follow online and via radio. Y’all have it really good to get Royals and Chiefs games locally!
I’m a homer fan of sorts as well. Live in SW Kansas and I cheer for the KC Missouri Chiefs 7 hours away, KC Missouri Royals 7 hours away, true love Kansas Jayhawks 6 1/2 hours away, and occasionally the okc thunder 5 hours away. I don’t hate the Rockies 5 1/2 hours away either. If St Louis was closer I’d be a cardinals fan. Hands down the best baseball experience I’ve had (very limited experience though I’ve just visited the 3 aforementioned teams stadiums).
@dylans We are grateful you aren't a fan of a closer team to you. It would be Shockering, to say the least.
I would guess we could accept you being a fan of the NWOSU Rangers in Enid.
@Gorilla72 I live in SC now. Left KU in 78 for UMichigan Law, and moved from KC to DC area in 1981. I never adopted my father's fandom philosophy, thank goodness! Proud KC fan all the way. My last game at Royals Stadium was when Cal Ripkin was making his farewell tour. Gonna get back to AFH (1979!) this coming year, I hope!
dylans said:
@KUSTEVE Houston is the 4th largest TV market. The Astros should do better than they historically have, but man are they good now.
The Astros have historically been a pretty good franchise. They've ready only had two era's of consistently being a bad franchise. 1962-1968 before divisional play existed and 2009-2014 when the current core was being drafted, signed, and developed. Other than those two windows, the Astros have never had more than 2 consecutive losing seasons.
The Astros just have never been an elite franchise, but they have historically been a good franchise.
Outside of my 2 years at KU, I've lived in Houston since 1991.
Pro football in Houston has always been far more disappointing than baseball has been here. Soccer has been a huge disappointment the past few years as well because the Dynamo owner refuses to spend any money on good players or refuses to re-sign the good players we have.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I guess it depends upon your definition of success. The Astros didn’t even win their division from 87-96 and from 2002-2016. The market indicates they should have a blue blood level of success. I’d be flat out pissed if that was KU basketballs results.
Baseball to baseball the Yankees didn’t win their division from 83-93 and 2008-2018, but won more than one World Series also. Dodgers are the other bigger market team and they’ve have more success in their division, although not too many World Series wins of late.
I do half way expect the astros to win it all this year, so they’re coming up, but vastly underachieved more than just in the tanking years.
My Royals on the other hand have been a much more consistent cellar dweller.
@dylans Astros have consistently had winning records for most of their history. I'm not calling their history great, but just good. If we're talking best franchises since 1962, Astros are probably around tenth or so. There's also not a lot of franchises with 11 playoff appearances in the past 40 years.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I know you love all things Texas, but the Astros history is kinda pathetic. Even the lowly Royals have more World Series appearances in your defined timeframe.
Tied for 19th in World Series appearances with 2 lol. Even the Florida Marlins have won 2 World Series. A trip this year and the Aston can claim that 19th spot to themselves and another trip and they’ll tie the small market Royals for series trips.
The Astros are better than the Angels who only have 1 World Series appearance, but the other two largest market teams NY and La dodgers have 40 and 20 World Series appearances.
Underachieving doesn’t mean the Astos are horrid, they’ve just never been as good as they should’ve been -until recently. Now they’re amazing and unlike the Royals have the funds to hold on to their team.
@dylans Astros don't have the funds to compete with top spending clubs. The Grienke deal means now that the Astros won't be able to keep Gerritt Cole this off-season when he hits the market. The Astros have always been a medium market franchise. Houston is the 7th biggest TV market (not 4th like you claim) behind 3 markets with multiple franchises.
Based on your criteria of defining team success related to the size of the media market, the Astros have achieved about where they should be historically.
HighEliteMajor said:
What we should do is govern the public institutions. Pare them back. Place significant limits. Understand that public institutions are like the government. They bloat. They aren't operated like private business (generally). Colleges are on the positive end of that, though, meaning, they adhere much better to the bottom-line than other government run ventures. But they are ever-expanding.
Amen.
The Dept. of Education has all the leverage in the world, yet they don't use it.
I have a lot of experience working with and in the Administration side of Higher Education. It's an ugly, egotistical, bloated place. It breeds waste, and as you pointed out, most of it is because they know they can raise tuition the next year and federal loans will foot the bill.
Any school that wants to take federal loan money should have to adhere to very strict rules regarding tuition price and tuition increases.
There is no real reason that KU should be 25% higher in tuition than KSU. 33% higher than WSU. All three are major public schools in the state of Kansas. Yet the cost to attend is wildly different.
I would fully support any candidate on either side of the aisle willing to more heavily govern any institutions that receive money from federal loans. It's an issue that needs to get fixed, and soon.
@Kcmatt7 KU is less than 10% more than KSU and about 25% more than WSU. Much of that is higher faculty salaries for KU than KSU, and much higher than WSU because they just play in different sandboxes. Research institutions charge more all around the country because their mission is different.
To drive the efficiency point home, I was part of the effort in 2017 that mandated every single public university in Kansas hire independent firms to conduct efficiency studies that will be made public and presented to the Board of Regents and the legislature. Looking forward to seeing what the private sector folks come up with. I really hope they turn out better than the giant study the state commissioned, because it was a steaming trash fire.
@Kcmatt7 Great point about our in state universities. Base scholarships at KSU also are better. What I love about this discussion point (not holding my breath) is that many more kids would go to JUCOs or Community colleges. That's where the real value is, particularly for the first year (when you get TAs for the most part anyway at KU/KSU type schools). I've long said that every kid can afford to go to college. Work and go to school at a JUCO or CC for your first two years (or maybe first 50 or so credits if you need university credits as you get deeper in the process). That would really cut student loans, plus working while going to a JUCO/CC is much easier. Also, I'd love to see universities charge less for intro classes per credit hour. If you have a full professor, higher level classes, that goes at a higher rate (but should be less than it is now). Again, paring back the mission and thing universities have their hands in would create a more efficient and less expense product. The cost of living in a dorm, for example, is outrageous for mass housing in a public university setting.
@HighEliteMajor most any student I know that is serious about education will accrue 1-2 semesters worth of college credit while in high school. I only needed 1/2 credit in an elective to graduate and took nothing but college (Juco) course my Sr year. My roommate graduated with a mechanical engineering degree from ku in 3 years, by putting in a year at juco + college credits in Hs. Only suckers pay the advertised price for a 4 year college degree, but maybe that’s part of the education.
I'll also add KU provides as much or more merit aid in 4 of 5 achievement categories (ACT + GPA). KSU has a much better deal if you're a 29 ACT, and that's about it. I believe KSU offered me marginally more aid just because of extracurriculars, but KU's base was higher. The two schools always fight about it and it's pretty funny.
FarmerJayhawk said:
@Kcmatt7 KU is less than 10% more than KSU and about 25% more than WSU. Much of that is higher faculty salaries for KU than KSU, and much higher than WSU because they just play in different sandboxes. Research institutions charge more all around the country because their mission is different.
To drive the efficiency point home, I was part of the effort in 2017 that mandated every single public university in Kansas hire independent firms to conduct efficiency studies that will be made public and presented to the Board of Regents and the legislature. Looking forward to seeing what the private sector folks come up with. I really hope they turn out better than the giant study the state commissioned, because it was a steaming trash fire.
12 credit hours:
- KU: $5,057.00
- KSU: $4,222.50
- WSU: $3,623.28 - (This could be missing a fee, but max it's $4k a semester).
That's right in line with what I said. And it doesn't include fees for certain departments which could easily be more at KU than the other two.
I am an accountant and I have worked in Higher Education Institution myself. I've seen and processed the invoices/payroll. I know the waste is rampant. Bloated salaries for positions that shouldn't exist are everywhere. Professors getting paid $150K plus per year are teaching basic courses. Travel expenses for faculty are outrageous and basically just funding family vacations. "Retention bonuses" are paid to some staff and faculty every single year for no apparent reason other than they can be (Fun fact: They don't actually prevent anyone from leaving). Schools pay thousands for memberships for faculty members that mean nothing and don't benefit the school whatsoever. Hundreds of Thousands are paid for subscriptions to databases that nobody ever uses. The list could go on if I kept thinking about it.
I'm glad to hear that they're conducting the study, however I don't expect many results if each institution got to pick who the independent firm was. It is similar to public companies firing their auditor because they didn't like their opinion. But even if they don't have results, I can tell you with 100% certainty that KU should not have over $1B in operating expenses.
We spend $400M a year on "instruction" when we only bring in $315M in Tuition and Fees. This margin dumbfounds me. It makes no logical sense. We have TA's doing a ton of work and getting paid almost nothing. We have Grad Assistants teaching classes for very cheap. We have adjunct professors getting paid squat and doing online classes. We have giant lecture halls where the Student to Teacher ratio is as high 350 to 1. They don't even provide books! Yet somehow we are still spending $400M. It just makes absolutely no sense.
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 Great point about our in state universities. Base scholarships at KSU also are better. What I love about this discussion point (not holding my breath) is that many more kids would go to JUCOs or Community colleges. That's where the real value is, particularly for the first year (when you get TAs for the most part anyway at KU/KSU type schools). I've long said that every kid can afford to go to college. Work and go to school at a JUCO or CC for your first two years (or maybe first 50 or so credits if you need university credits as you get deeper in the process). That would really cut student loans, plus working while going to a JUCO/CC is much easier. Also, I'd love to see universities charge less for intro classes per credit hour. If you have a full professor, higher level classes, that goes at a higher rate (but should be less than it is now). Again, paring back the mission and thing universities have their hands in would create a more efficient and less expense product. The cost of living in a dorm, for example, is outrageous for mass housing in a public university setting.
I went to KCKCC my first year. And I worked 30 hours a week almost the entire time I lived at KU. And I lived at home my Junior year and commuted an hour every day.
And I still came out with $30k in debt.
It's just insanely expensive to go to college, imo.
@approxinfinity Not at all, they can pay out the ass for an education that they won't need and won't use if they want to.
Marco said:
@Kcmatt7 I think it is priced about right. If too cheap we would have the most degreed waiters, waitresses and bartenders in the world, but it would do next to nothing for the economy or nation - could, in fact, even hurt both. But, yes, it is expensive....
So, in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, when someone could pay for tuition, rent, food and gas with a part time job, this country must have really sucked huh?
Please explain to me how a more affordable education would hurt the economy.
Please explain to me how the middle class having more dollars in their pocket would hurt the nation.
Please explain to me how having a more educated society is a bad thing.
@Marco even if there were a correlation to making education cheaper and more people not using their education in lieu of taking unskilled jobs, it would not necessarily be the same people that education would be made affordable for.
Also, assuming that a large number of people would spend years getting a degree to not attempt to use it professionally is hard to believe.
Furthermore a more educated populace is a good thing, employment aside.
@Kcmatt7 Please explain to me why I have to explain everything to you? Our system is not broken. We are becoming a nation of whiners. "I want free education and healthcare!" Fine, and they can go ask someone else to pay for it because I am not going to.
Upward mobility, ofcourse, is fine. I've been to Australia a few times, met a beautiful (....indeed) bartender in Perth, she was thirty years old and held a masters in anthropology - they have free university there. She didn't offer much in the way of conversation.
Marco said:
@Kcmatt7 Please explain to me why I have to explain everything to you? Our system is not broken. We are becoming a nation of whiners. "I want free education and healthcare!" Fine, and they can go ask someone else to pay for it because I am not going to.
Upward mobility, ofcourse, is fine. I've been to Australia a few times, met a beautiful (....indeed) bartender in Perth, she was thirty years old and held a masters in anthropology - they have free university there. She didn't offer much in the way of conversation.
First, you won't explain it because your argument makes no sense.
And, again, nobody here has said anything about free education. Not a single post above or in this thread.
In fact, if you had any sort of reading comprehension abilities, we have been talking about the Dept. of Education taking more control over universities and forcing them to reign in the cost of tuition. And how universities, because they get federal loan dollars, raise tuition every year instead of looking inward at their own bloated costs. We have been talking about controlling tuition costs.
I repeat, nobody here has said anything about a free education.
I do not think it should be free. Let me repeat that, just in case you didn't read it correctly. I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE FREE. I just don't think it should cost an arm and a leg. I think the cost of tuition has been detrimental to the economy. As college degrees have become more of a standard for most good jobs, we have encouraged a huge chunk of our population to go the college route. That route means that the average person comes out with $30k+ in debt, even at public institutions. This 30k debt weighs on a person for 10+ years and reduces their buying power significantly. $300-400 a month goes a long ways, especially for someone fresh out of school only making $45k-50k a year. Those same people are expected to save for retirement, save for a house, be able to afford a car whenever the beater they drove through college gives out, and are pretty likely to have a kid within those same 10 years they are paying for a loan. Therefore, that $300-400 a month limits their buying power significantly.
High college tuition also ends up costing YOU more money. When someone defaults on their student loans, guess who is paying for that? The taxpayer. As tuition prices have increased, so have loan defaults. 11% of student loans are defaulted on. People who work for non-profits and pay just the minimum on their loans are able to get their student debt wiped away after 10 years. Millions of dollars of tuition paid for by the taxpayer.
I could go on and on. But, as you can see, the high cost of college tuition hurts the economy and burdens the tax payer. It is not good for the nation. And nobody is even asking you to pay more for it.
All we are preaching is fiscal responsibility from public institutions of higher education.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Marco said:
@Kcmatt7 I think it is priced about right. If too cheap we would have the most degreed waiters, waitresses and bartenders in the world, but it would do next to nothing for the economy or nation - could, in fact, even hurt both. But, yes, it is expensive....
There are some pretty crazy things said here, but this is pretty close my friend.
I can't even comprehend an appropriate response. I'll try.
Think about this -- America is about opportunity. We can't level playing fields. We can't give me Lebron James' talent, or Elton John's voice. We can't have every child born to good parents, or into wealth, or into common sense.
What we can do is work to create reasonable paths to achievement. While that path is open to anyone that will take it .. and it is unless your brain just isn't smart enough .. we can trim the lard from public institutions to make things more cost friendly, which widens the path on the front end and back end.
This is where real opportunity lies to help folks by paring back government (public institutions).
Private institutions, from my perspective, can charge what they want. But change can be effected there by more stringent limits on the public grants/loans for all institutions -- more related to educational path and ability to pay it back.
What it does is create more competition. Competition is good for our nation and our economy. I want everyone to be able to compete. That's how our engine chugs along the best.
Just my opinion. But your response, well, I'm befuddled.
HighEliteMajor said:
Marco said:
@Kcmatt7 I think it is priced about right. If too cheap we would have the most degreed waiters, waitresses and bartenders in the world, but it would do next to nothing for the economy or nation - could, in fact, even hurt both. But, yes, it is expensive....
There are some pretty crazy things said here, but this is pretty close my friend.
I can't even comprehend an appropriate response. I'll try.
Think about this -- America is about opportunity. We can't level playing fields. We can't give me Lebron James' talent, or Elton John's voice. We can't have every child born to good parents, or into wealth, or into common sense.
What we can do is work to create reasonable paths to achievement. While that path is open to anyone that will take it .. and it is unless your brain just isn't smart enough .. we can trim the lard from public institutions to make things more cost friendly, which widens the path on the front end and back end.
This is where real opportunity lies to help folks by paring back government (public institutions).
Private institutions, from my perspective, can charge what they want. But change can be effected there by more stringent limits on the public grants/loans for all institutions -- more related to educational path and ability to pay it back.
What it does is create more competition. Competition is good for our nation and our economy. I want everyone to be able to compete. That's how our engine chugs along the best.
Just my opinion. But your response, well, I'm befuddled.
I usually don't agree with you politically but here we are. This is pretty reasonable.
@Kcmatt7 I was going off KBOR's tuition and fee schedule for the 2019 academic year: https://www.kansasregents.org/resources/PDF/Data/AY_2019_State_University_Comprehensive_Fee_Schedule.pdf ↗
I also included fees since to most students they're indistinguishable from tuition and are funded in largely the same manner.
You don't have to get me started on the publishing racket. My goodness. It's a horrible coordination game where professors need to publish in certain journals to stay employed but the publishers of said journals charge about whatever they want because they know the demand is there. My position has long been that if research is federally funded, it should be free to the public. Re: faculty salaries, I very much wish we all made that much. Faculty is the one area where schools are cutting back. Tenure track employment isn't growing at all (actually shrinking as a share of faculty employment) while underpaid adjuncts are ubiquitous these days.
The real bloat is in administration, where it seems like there's almost one assistant dean of X for every individual student. I did a little rough analysis of data from the Delta Cost Project and found that spending on actual instruction was essentially flat from 2001-2015, but spending on student services rose by about 20% over the same period. We absolutely have to do something about all the stupid federal mandates that schools use as excuses to hire more and more admins while skimping on the things that actually matter. The Title IX guidance under President Obama is a good example. Seems like every department on campus has a person that just does Title IX. Funny story out there about 2 people who, the morning after a drunken hookup both ran to the Title IX office to report an assault since the person who files the report is all but immune from any consequence while the accused could have his or her life ruined.
We also have to consider the role of state divestment in the universities. The state spent (in nominal dollars) $75 million less on the university system in FY18 vs. FY08, even though credit hours taken is basically flat across the KBOR system. To keep a lid on tuition, the state needs to maintain its investment in the universities and the schools themselves need to rethink some aspects of their business model.
@Marco nobody here supports "free" college. That whole idea is one enormous moral hazard problem, where if the schools know they have guaranteed income ad infinitum (because let's be honest, the federal government is really, really, really bad at controlling costs except in health care where the just undercut the private market) they have every incentive to get as much of the ever expanding pie as they possibly can and hire more assistant deans to sit behind a desk and think of new and exciting ways to make teachers' lives difficult. The real losers? Students.
I honestly have no idea how much higher education "should" cost, other than less than it does now. There are so many forces pulling on those prices (many of them not supply/demand) that coming to any kind of equilibrium would have its own issues.
@HighEliteMajor almost entirely agree. I took a break from empirical work to write a philosophy/ethics paper on why universal school choice in K-12 is the most moral thing we can do to break down barriers to equal opportunity. John Tomasi's work in that area is worth a read, specifically Free Market Fairness https://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Fairness-John-Tomasi/dp/0691158142 ↗
Tomasi and I converge in thinking that as long as we're treating primary and secondary education as a positive right (i.e. "right to" something) the question then becomes how do we best provide it? I've argued for something like a universal voucher scheme where schools compete for students but cannot deny anyone entry (unless they've previously been expelled or something) and must meet quality standards. It's not all the way thought out and polished yet, but I think it's definitely an improvement over the status quo.
@approxinfinity Oh,,,,we did much more than talk, and that is good because she didn't have much say.
Marco said:
@approxinfinity Oh,,,,we did much more than talk, and that is good because she didn't have much say.
Maybe you were just her boy toy. :joy:
Not much going on on the australain achaeological association calendar :) Hell, I can't even choose both a month and a year from the pickers. lol
https://australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/events/?calm=8&caly=2019 ↗
TMI
@Marco I agree but why was she bartending instead of working in her chosen field?
But yes, we seem to want to become a nanny state that allows the gov't to take away some of our rights/freedoms in exchange for free college and free health care (to start with).
As a rule, I don't talk politics at any site not dedicated to politics.