Cost vs price: Majors at CC (IHE article)

[Hibush]

There is a separate question if workforce development that benefits private companies should be subsidized by the taxpayer and by students who can barely afford living expenses as is (we have a food pantry on our campus now which is both great and sad) but since our board and community leaders are by far comprised of local business owners I doubt there will ever be significant discussion. I am not wading into that discussion other than to note the inherent conflict of interest.

There are many industry organization whose policy position is: We demand our services (like workforce training), economic-development assistance, lower taxes and fewer regulations. Your board is completely normal.

[marshwiggle]

From my perspective, Matt Reed's column is an argument for unbundling the curriculum and charging differential tuition according to program. If it costs more to run courses that lead to certification in automotive repair, then charge more for those courses. If it costs less to run courses in anthropology, then charge less for those courses. But don't require everyone to take courses in automotive repair and anthropology.

One of the things I like about working at a university is that there is an underlying concept that we are working together. Sure, our math department is a net revenue producer (low cost per class, lots of students enrolled) and some of our foreign language departments are net losses (low cost per class, but very few students enrolled). However, I do not think it is in the interest of the students to increase the size of the math department faculty and reduce the size of the foreign language departments since the latter provide unique opportunities for our students. Arguing that the tuition paid should be based on the costs of individual course offerings defeats the purpose of having a unified, collective, entity known as a university.

But at that rate, why shouldn't math have all of their classes with only a dozen students each, requiring dozens of faculty? That would be easier for everyone teaching. Why should they shoulder the extra burden of large numbers so that other courses in other departments can have the luxury of small classes?

In any common enterprise, some will be subsidizing the work of others for the good of all.  In this case, I believe we are creating the opportunity for a better student experience by providing some classes that are unique, or of limited (but not no) interest, as that makes our university a better place to be a student. In addition, faculty expertise in different areas allows cross-fertilization of ideas.

I understand the perspective that "we deserve all the perks and benefits because we are a profit center for the college," I just don't agree with it as a philosophy for a life's work.  However, I acknowledge that I work for a non-profit and have idealistic views of how working together means that we can achieve more than working alone, exclusively for individual profit.

The point is that it's always suspicious when someone is basically saying how someone else ought to "take one for the team". It's noble when someone chooses to sacrifice for the benefit of others; it's something entirely different when someone demands someone else's sacrifice for their own benefit.

[dismalist]

It's also naive to think that non-profits change anything. Most important, non-profits can make profits! It's just that the profits can't be taken home by shareholders; the profits have to remain in the enterprise. How those profits are spent is determined by the Fuehrung of the enterprise. This is why the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs has thick carpets in her office, and we have linoleum on the floor. :-)

[marshwiggle]

I am at a CC and our Art Appreciation classes alone pay for our department. Honestly they allow us to run some low enrollment studios without too much of a fuss. As a whole between Art Appreciation, Music Appreciation, and our other gen ed arts courses we provide right around 50 percent student of the enrollment for the total arts and humanities general education transfer courses at our institution.

Nursing, automotive, computer based machining, and a couple other programs are a huge cost to run for us but I think most faculty realize the benefit to the community since many of our students from those programs end up getting jobs here.

If I understand this, it's a very misleading comparisson. If "gen ed" means "everyone has to take them", then their high enrollment is due to having a captive audience.  On the other hand, the "huge cost to run" programs only contain people who chose them.


Car insurance companies are profitable, not because of great marketing, but because in many places it's required for people to have insurance in order to drive.

There is a separate question if workforce development that benefits private companies should be subsidized by the taxpayer and by students who can barely afford living expenses as is (we have a food pantry on our campus now which is both great and sad) but since our board and community leaders are by far comprised of local business owners I doubt there will ever be significant discussion. I am not wading into that discussion other than to note the inherent conflict of interest.

How much impact do the Art and Music appreciation courses have on the local economy? How much impact do the "huge cost to run" programs have on the local economy? How does the local economy, and specifically the local tax base, affect the funding for the institution?

[Wahoo Redux]

This is why I like and respect Polly.

This article says exactly the opposite of everything she's been arguing for some time now, and yet she posts it.

We might also combine what we know about lib arts degrees on the job market. 

[Anselm]

They show "Raiders of the Lost Ark" films at high school assemblies.

(Kidding)

M.

Don't get me started. At open houses what do you think Medieval Studies uses? LOTR

Terrible choice when they could have gone with Cadfael.

[eigen]

From my perspective, Matt Reed's column is an argument for unbundling the curriculum and charging differential tuition according to program. If it costs more to run courses that lead to certification in automotive repair, then charge more for those courses. If it costs less to run courses in anthropology, then charge less for those courses. But don't require everyone to take courses in automotive repair and anthropology.

One of the things I like about working at a university is that there is an underlying concept that we are working together. Sure, our math department is a net revenue producer (low cost per class, lots of students enrolled) and some of our foreign language departments are net losses (low cost per class, but very few students enrolled). However, I do not think it is in the interest of the students to increase the size of the math department faculty and reduce the size of the foreign language departments since the latter provide unique opportunities for our students. Arguing that the tuition paid should be based on the costs of individual course offerings defeats the purpose of having a unified, collective, entity known as a university.

But at that rate, why shouldn't math have all of their classes with only a dozen students each, requiring dozens of faculty? That would be easier for everyone teaching. Why should they shoulder the extra burden of large numbers so that other courses in other departments can have the luxury of small classes?

In any common enterprise, some will be subsidizing the work of others for the good of all.  In this case, I believe we are creating the opportunity for a better student experience by providing some classes that are unique, or of limited (but not no) interest, as that makes our university a better place to be a student. In addition, faculty expertise in different areas allows cross-fertilization of ideas.

I understand the perspective that "we deserve all the perks and benefits because we are a profit center for the college," I just don't agree with it as a philosophy for a life's work.  However, I acknowledge that I work for a non-profit and have idealistic views of how working together means that we can achieve more than working alone, exclusively for individual profit.

I do agree with this, but I do get worn down a bit by snippy comments about how much more individual attention they give students that I get from colleagues who are teaching 1/3rd or less the number of students a semester. I get asked why I don't let students do infinite numbers of drafts, why I don't have an extra 10 scaffolded papers, why I don't do weekly 1-on-1 meetings. And I get judged for not doing so. By people teaching classes of 4-6 students rather than classes of 25-30 students.

I don't mind "taking one for the team", but it means that our whole discipline does not get some of the pedagogical benefits of small class sizes that other departments get in every single class.

It is also well possible (as comments upthread indicate) for departments with low major enrollment to develop general interest classes that could be taught to larger numbers of students and might attract large numbers of non-majors.

[polly_mer]

We might also combine what we know about lib arts degrees on the job market.

Middle class people who have good social capital going into college from good K-12 systems who can afford to major in the liberal arts do quite well on the BA/BS job market.

Poor people who were ripped off by their K-12 system, know practically no one who can help them get a middle class job, and don't create a middle-class network while in college tend to not do well on the job market even when they have a professional degree.

The value is generally not in the individual liberal arts courses themselves, but being in a good situation in which one can get full benefit from four years of immersion in a good learning community.

I remain unconvinced that most higher ed institutions general education programs are providing much benefit for the direct cost and the opportunity costs for the typical student.

Putting the money into the expensive classes and cutting gen ed is still a better business plan, especially when asking for additional funds to support higher ed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Polly, I believe you, but I'd like to see where you got that info.  Have a link?

[Wahoo Redux]

We might also combine what we know about lib arts degrees on the job market.

Middle class people who have good social capital going into college from good K-12 systems who can afford to major in the liberal arts do quite well on the BA/BS job market.

Poor people who were ripped off by their K-12 system, know practically no one who can help them get a middle class job, and don't create a middle-class network while in college tend to not do well on the job market even when they have a professional degree.

The value is generally not in the individual liberal arts courses themselves, but being in a good situation in which one can get full benefit from four years of immersion in a good learning community.

I did find this: A College Degree is Worth Less if You Are Raised Poor.

College graduates from families with an income below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (the eligibility threshold for the federal assisted lunch program) earn 91 percent more over their careers than high school graduates from the same income group.

By comparison, college graduates from families with incomes above 185 percent of the FPL earned 162 percent more over their careers (between the ages of 25 and 62) than those with just a high school diploma

So there is still benefit to college, just not as much if one grows up in poverty.