Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Yeah, but most colleges are non-for-profits and state institutions. They didn't have any imperative to respond to increased demand by raising costs. They could have just expanded enrollment, or become more selective.
I attended Harvard
I'm not sure. I think it's a driver, but I think the larger driver is the massive increase in demand for a college degree, driven in turn by cultural and economic shifts of the past several decades.
My take is that the money comes first, and then you have the question of how to distribute it - to administration, to faculty, to non-faculty workers, to students, to building projects and endowment growth. And the administration are the ones who actually get to make those decisions. The faculty have some structural power, unlike non-faculty workers and students, but the administrators generally see themselves as directly opposed to faculty in a small-scale class conflict, so the faculty gets overrun. And then pretty much all the money goes to the administration, as well as to building projects and endowment growth, which enhance the status of the university and the administration without giving money to other competing groups.
Some of the tuition growth is driven by the administration seeing they can arrogate even more money to themselves, but I think that's more secondary.
One needs to buy and build the facilities that are necessary for top notch education or middle of the road or whatever level it is you want to be.
Did gov't support really go down, or did the schools just decide they needed a whole bunch more "operations"?
People---parents---are obsessed with the thought that you need a degree from one of them to get a job that will enable you to achieve a decent standard of living. With cookie cutter 1 or 2 bedroom "luxury" apartments going for $3,000 a month in cities like Washington---triple or more what they were in constant dollars since the 70's---it's hard to blame either the applicants or their parents from being cold bloodedly realistic about their futures. Anyone who doesn't think that would-be middle class jobseekers aren't being squeezed on both ends these days by a combination of the tight job market and housing costs is simply being in denial.
Blame this sad development on any scapegoat you want, from selfish Baby Boomers to illegal immigrants to affirmative action, but it ain't making the problem go away.
Speaking of bars and restaurants I'm halfway through a stretch of 4 days off in a row and I decided I would prepare everything I ate for those 4 days and not go out and eat.
U.S. universities employed more than 230,000 administrators in 2009, up 60 percent from 1993, or 10 times the rate of growth of the tenured faculty
Not counting the wine I think I spent less than 70 dollars on what will probably amount to 7 or so meals.
And the reason for the explosion in applications to the elite schools is obvious: People---parents---are obsessed with the thought that you need a degree from one of them to get a job that will enable you to achieve a decent standard of living.
I'm probably among the last generation that could get into Ivy league and equivalent schools based on pure academics. All I had going for me was GPA/SAT/GRE."
Maybe one of your relatives is in this program? I kid, I kid. But I can't believe how much more mature this trio was then my siblings were that age. So there's hope out there!
An expensive college degree is practically worthless to someone of average intelligence (if they even graduate, which is probably less than 50:50).
"What mythical bar was this where three perfect strangers are all sitting next to each other and they all end up talking to each other?"
You must be from the northeast.
but there are so many factors that go into its development that pointing fingers at individuals doesn't really explain all that much.
The Millennial generation, statistically, is more involved politically than their Boomer / Gen-X parents. They are more likely to have volunteered, more likely to consider political activism to be a useful thing. I see no evidence that we're raising a generation of checked-out apathetics - quite the opposite in fact.
"The one thing that strikes me, though, is how utterly ####### dumb my nieces and nephews and cousins in their late teens and early twenties are."
I, like everyone over 25, was once in my late teens and early 20s, and I have no problem recalling how mind boggling stupid (and yet self assure) I and my peers were at that age, what I've never understood is how so many people seemingly deny or forget how dumb they and their friends were at that age.
Spending one's entire life in a continuously networked world is the new generation gap. Definitely Future Shock-y where things change before we have a chance to understand impact and best practices of them.
I don't even *have* a cel-phone. Top that.
When you get into your 20s and have no interest in film, art, or literature, except as pure entertainment; when politics is boring; when you create literally nothing, not even for the pleasure of beating a drum or sounding out a poem, or chiseling a piece of wood, or even just making a meal, something's wrong.
What is wrong, specifically? You could have just described me instead of your niece. I won't pretend that there's nothing wrong with me, but I'm just not an artsy-fartsy guy.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.7254 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed