Third-level fees have to come back

PeakOutput wrote: »

fees(and very high ones) also allow you to have some of the best universities in the world. ireland dosnt have one in the top 100 and there is no reason it cant have one in the top 50 that is pumping out some seriously talented graduates

PeakOutput wrote: »

also students loans are easy to get

students use loans all over the world to fund their studies

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp

Overheal wrote: »

And we also have some of the greatest athletes on the planet and are one of the world leaders in the olympic medals; that doesnt mean we aren't ridiculously obese as a nation.

Elitism is important to some successes but success on a national scale requires a different approach.

•

The University of Illinois spent $6 million on the Irwin Academic Services Center which “helps

only about 550 of the school's 37,000 students” because it is restricted to athletes. But, “at
least four other schools have multimillion-dollar tutoring centers just for their athletes” in-

cluding the $12 million facility at the University of Michigan.

54

•

Princeton built a $136 million, 500-bed dorm ($272,000 per bed, much more than the median

home costs).

55 MIT’s Simmons Hall cost $194,000 per bed.56

•

“Framingham State College will spend more than $191,000 building a two-car garage and

stone patio for its state-owned president's house …even as the college's budget faces a poten-

tial $2 million cut”

57

•

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey “spent more than $80,000 in 2005

to shuttle the head of a volunteer advisory board from her home in Pennsylvania’s Po-

conos to the school’s Newark campus.”

58

•

“Students now get massages, pedicures and manicures at the University of Wisconsin in Osh-

kosh” and students at Indiana University of Pennsylvania can play “one of 52 golf courses

from around the world on the room-sized golf simulators”

59

•

Ohio State University spent $140 million60 “to build what its peers enviously refer to as the

Taj Mahal, a 657,000-square-foot complex featuring kayaks and canoes, indoor batting cages

and ropes courses, massages and a climbing wall big enough for 50 students to scale simulta-
neously”

61

•

The University of California gave 16 employees severance checks, and then rehired them. In

the most egregious example, one person “left her old job on April 30 and began her new one

on May 1.” She was given the same salary, but managed to collect a $100,202 severance pay-
ment anyway. And prior to this she was given “a $44,000 relocation allowance and a low-
interest $832,500 home loan, for which she was not otherwise entitled.”

62

•

In 2006-2007, 293 employees at private schools made more than $500,000. “[T]he highest-

paid college employee in the country was Pete Carroll, head football coach at the University of
Southern California, with $4.4-million in total compensation (pay plus benefits).”63

Conclusion

Several key parts of current financial aid practice are ineffective in achieving their primary goals

(promoting college affordability, access, and equality of opportunity) because aid is often structured
in such a way that it reinforces undesirable traits within the higher education sector. Specifically,
financial aid programs fuel an arms race in spending among schools. Programs are structured in
such a way that governments are essentially subsidizing the inflation of college costs.
Schools generally cannot compete with each other by demonstrating that they provide a better educa-
tion than others, because the outputs of school (learning and its consequences in a value added
sense) are not measured. Since there are not generally accepted measures of outputs, and it is rea-
sonable to think that high quality inputs will lead to high quality outputs, schools compete on inputs
instead. Any input that is plausibly thought to affect learning (superstar faculty, world class labora-
tories, fancy dorms, etc.) becomes the focus of competition, and each school tries to have the best
inputs. The result has variously been described as the Bowen Rule, the Ehrenberg Cookie Monster,
or more generally the academic arms race, and it inevitably leads to an explosion in costs. Is it any
wonder that when we measure schools based on inputs, which are costly, that costs continually rise?
Perhaps the most important consequence of the resulting explosion in costs has been a reduction in
college affordability and access. As costs have been ratcheted up, governments have been forced to
cut back on funding (as a percent of total costs), which is increasingly leaving the financial burden on
students and their families. In other words, policy makers have designed a convoluted financial aid
system that inadvertently leads to higher tuition. However, if ineffective practices are terminated or
altered, and effective practices are expanded, then the system will be able to achieve its goal of mak-
ing college less of a financial burden.
Ultimately, the dilemma is how to ensure equality of opportunity (that qualified low-income students
have the financial aid they need to allow them to attend college), without contributing to the aca-

demic arms race. The recommendations above are a step in that direction.

Overheal wrote: »

Elitism is important to some successes but success on a national scale requires a different approach.

jayboi wrote: »

I would assume that any fees taken from the college would go straight to exchequer and show up as revenue in the books etc. So from this you could argue that any fees gathered are just as likely to go towards funding the budget deficit rather than improving facilities.

jayboi wrote: »

I haven’t seen much effort on part of the colleges to curb their spending either, many of the top people in third level institutions are grossly overpaid IMO.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

With respect Overheal, those kind of throwaway remarks don't help in finding the best solution. It's not about elitism, it's about creating the best universities we possibly can. The Irish system has proven to be unsuccessful in this regard, as illustrated by the various sources Flamed Diving linked to.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I strongly disagree. This is such a lazy attitude. I worked 27 hours a week, part-time at one stage during college. I felt proud of this because I clearly had a hunger that others didn't. It seems like some people just want their whole lives subsidised. I will only take money when I really need it. But I will always choose to pay my own way, whenever I can.

I just don't get this kind of "I'm entitled" attitude.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but it's my opinion.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I suppose I am being a little harsh, but I am speaking the truth. I am just completing a masters degree after fives years of university. (I come from a lower-income family, get the grant, fees paid and I worked every year through college, including summers, before you ask.) The majority of my classmates throughout were middle-income and above, drove a car and headed off to the US every summer, and sometimes Europe during mid-term, etc. I teach micro-classes now and the students complain of having trouble getting parking. Further to this, they seem to be disinterested in the subject they are studying, but are just hanging around for the college experience.

This is the majority that I have experienced over the past five years. If their parents can afford to pay for these luxuries, they can afford to pay fees. If they are not interested in their degree, then I am sure they will think twice about progressing further instead of wasting several thousands on fees, per year. It is to the benefit of our educational system and the standard of graduate we put out there.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I recommend night security. You get paid to study.