Wow, such an load on the students and universities. And just who is going to make the choices of whom, or who's job to eliminate??? But a lot of the admin jobs seems BSty to me.
I left D'son with nearly $10,000 in debt, an awful lot for 1967. I could not buy a house, postponed a marriage until I'd paid some of it off, used my mother's car, which needed a quart of oil for every trip it I took, so for me personally it was just a bad as it is currently. But and here's my caveat - without that college degree I would NOT have been able to have the career and positions that I have had. So for me personally it was all worth it. However your point being that the debt load for students is way heavier ( bigger) than it was for me, which I concur with.
Ben, you have a rare talent to raise potentially controversial topics with objective facts. This was a topic in which I had no particular interest but you presented it in a way that kept my attention.
Here's another topic - "no one is talking about" our national deficit and debt, raised during an interview with Joe Manchin - that you might consider similarly:
Manchin: The things I’ve heard so far from Kamala and her team have been encouraging — the things we just talked about. If she does more of that — lays out a broader package of how we’re going to stabilize Social Security and Medicare and protect them but also look at basically getting our financial house in order — would be something I think that people understand. Every household has to do it. Every business has to do it. Why not the government? No one is speaking about it. It’s not sexy. I understand.
Ernie: You want me to tackle the national debt? Ouch! I do recall that when Republicans were still Republicans, balancing the budget was one of their mantras. That doesn't work for Trump populism. With student (and any other personal) debt we know exactly who is responsible for paying it off. The national debt is more abstract. Should you be paying down some of it? Me? Or is it the usual "they?" Maybe a future Pancake.
To your litany of administrative bloat, you can add the DEI bureaucracy that needs to be slashed. As you point out, there are many aspects of the administrative bloat which individual colleges and universities can't avoid, such as consumer demand, the need for extensive fund raising initiatives, and sprawling regulations. In my 23 years at an academic institution, the increasing administrative bloat was a constant faculty complaint, which predictably had no perceptible effect on its growth rate. At the same time, none of this bloat affected me in how I conducted research or taught my courses. To Annies' points, I think most of my students would still say "it was all worth it."
Agreed. It would be my first set of cuts! I would re-examine but not eliminate DEI because there's still a need for it, under a different name and set of achievable objectives.
Wow, such an load on the students and universities. And just who is going to make the choices of whom, or who's job to eliminate??? But a lot of the admin jobs seems BSty to me.
I left D'son with nearly $10,000 in debt, an awful lot for 1967. I could not buy a house, postponed a marriage until I'd paid some of it off, used my mother's car, which needed a quart of oil for every trip it I took, so for me personally it was just a bad as it is currently. But and here's my caveat - without that college degree I would NOT have been able to have the career and positions that I have had. So for me personally it was all worth it. However your point being that the debt load for students is way heavier ( bigger) than it was for me, which I concur with.
Thanks Ben,
Annie Odette, D'son 67
Ben, you have a rare talent to raise potentially controversial topics with objective facts. This was a topic in which I had no particular interest but you presented it in a way that kept my attention.
Here's another topic - "no one is talking about" our national deficit and debt, raised during an interview with Joe Manchin - that you might consider similarly:
Manchin: The things I’ve heard so far from Kamala and her team have been encouraging — the things we just talked about. If she does more of that — lays out a broader package of how we’re going to stabilize Social Security and Medicare and protect them but also look at basically getting our financial house in order — would be something I think that people understand. Every household has to do it. Every business has to do it. Why not the government? No one is speaking about it. It’s not sexy. I understand.
Ernie: You want me to tackle the national debt? Ouch! I do recall that when Republicans were still Republicans, balancing the budget was one of their mantras. That doesn't work for Trump populism. With student (and any other personal) debt we know exactly who is responsible for paying it off. The national debt is more abstract. Should you be paying down some of it? Me? Or is it the usual "they?" Maybe a future Pancake.
To your litany of administrative bloat, you can add the DEI bureaucracy that needs to be slashed. As you point out, there are many aspects of the administrative bloat which individual colleges and universities can't avoid, such as consumer demand, the need for extensive fund raising initiatives, and sprawling regulations. In my 23 years at an academic institution, the increasing administrative bloat was a constant faculty complaint, which predictably had no perceptible effect on its growth rate. At the same time, none of this bloat affected me in how I conducted research or taught my courses. To Annies' points, I think most of my students would still say "it was all worth it."
That’s about $30 million annually on DEI. Imagine if they put 80 percent of that to faculty use, or toward keeping tuition down.
Agreed. It would be my first set of cuts! I would re-examine but not eliminate DEI because there's still a need for it, under a different name and set of achievable objectives.