One of the many problems with American higher education is that the cost of a four-year degree is higher than ever, even when adjusting for inflation. The causes of this increase are well known and well understood and there is no mystery here. One contributing factor is that universities spend on facilities that are not connected to education. Critics like to, for example, point out that some universities spend millions on luxurious fitness facilities to attract students.
A major factor contributing to costs is the ever-expanding administrative class at universities. This expansion occurs in both individual salaries and overall numbers. From 2000 to 2010 the median salary for the top public university administrators increased by 39%. The top administrators, the university presidents, enjoyed a 75% increase. In stark contrast, the salaries for full-time professors increased by only 19%.
The money for these salary increases must come from somewhere and an obvious source is students. My alma mater Ohio State University is leading the way. Between 2010 and 2012 Gordon Gee, the president of OSU, was paid almost $6 million. At the same time, OSU raised tuition and fees to a degree that resulted in student debt increasing 23% more than the national average.
While some might be tempted to attribute bloated salaries as the result of the alleged wastefulness and growth of the public sector, private colleges and universities topped their public counterparts. From 2000 to 2010 private schools saw salary increases of about 97% for their top administrators and their presidents enjoyed a 171% increase. Full time professors also partook of the increases as their salaries increased by 50%.
What is even more striking than salary increases are the increases in the number of positions and their nature. From 1978 to 2014 administrative positions skyrocketed 369%. This time also marked a major shift in the nature of faculty. The number of part-time faculty increased by 286%. The use of adjuncts has been justified on the grounds that doing so saves money. While adjunct salaries vary, the typical adjunct makes $20,000-25,000 per year. While this might sound decent for “part-time” work, most adjuncts work “part-time” at multiple schools and are thus better seen as full-time workers.
However, the money saved by hiring adjuncts does not translate to a lower cost of education. Rather, it “saves” money from going to faculty so that it can go to administrators. Since the average salary of a university president is $478,896 and the number of presidents making $1 million or more a year is increasing, it should be obvious what is helping to drive up the cost of college. Hint: it is not adjunct pay.
There has also been a push to reduce (and eliminate) tenured positions which resulted in an increase in full time, non-tenure earning positions by 259%. Full time tenure and tenure-track positions increased by only 23%. Ohio State University provides an excellent (or awful) example of this strategy: the majority of those hired by OSU were Adjuncts and Administrators. To be specific, OSU hired 498 adjunct instructors and 670 administrators. 45 full-time, permanent faculty were hired.
The Republicans who run many state legislatures rail against wasteful spending, impose micromanagement and inflict draconian measures on state universities yet never seem to address the real causes of tuition increase and the problems in the education system. Someone more cynical than I might note that the university seems to no longer have education as its primary function. Rather, it is crafted to funnel money from the “customer” and the taxpayer (in the form of federal student aid) to the top while minimizing pay for those who do the actual work.
Tenure has been a target in recent years because tenure provides faculty with protection against being fired without cause. The idea that some non-rich might enjoy a degree of financial security clearly vexes the ruling class. This is regarded by some as a problem for a variety of reasons. One is that tenured faculty cannot be let go simply to replace them with lower paid adjuncts. This, obviously enough, means less money flowing from students and the state to administrators. Another is that the protection provided by tenure allows a faculty member to criticize what is happening to the university system without being fired.
While I am critical of the approach to administration, we are on the same side in terms of how public education is suffering from disinvestment. While the cost of facilities and excessive administrative overhead are factors, the greatest harm to American education has been the decision to destroy it.