The cost of higher education has increased dramatically resulting in a corresponding increase in student debt. It is worth considering the cause and what could be done to reduce costs without reducing the quality of education.
One obvious approach is to consider whether university presidents are worth their expense. If a university president received $1 million in compensation, they would need to contribute the equivalent of 40+ adjuncts in terms of value created. It could, of course, be argued public university presidents bring in money from other rich people, provide prestige and engage in the politics needed to keep money flowing from the state. If so, a million-dollar president is worth 40+ adjuncts. If not, either the adjuncts should be paid more or the president paid less (or both) to ensure that money is not being wasted—and thus needlessly driving up the cost of education.
One reply to criticisms of high president pay is that for big public universities, even a million dollar president is a tiny part of the budget. As such, cutting the presidential salary would not yield significant savings. However, something is driving up the cost of education—and it is not faculty salary.
One major contribution to the increasing costs is the growth of the administrative sector of higher education. A study found that the public universities that have the highest administrative pay spend half as much on scholarships as they do on administration. In such situations, students go into debt being taught by adjuncts while supporting the administration.
It is easy enough to demonize administrators. However, a university (like any organization) requires administration. Applications need to be processed, equipment needs to be purchased, programs need to be directed, state paperwork needs to be completed, the payroll must be handled and so on. There is a clear and legitimate need for administrators. However, this does not mean that all administrators are needed or that all high salaries are warranted. As such, one potential way to lower the cost of education is to reduce administrative positions and lower their salaries. That is, to take a standard approach used in the business model so often beloved by some administrators.
Since a public university is not a for-profit institution, the reason for the reduction should be to get the costs in line with the legitimate needs, rather than to make a profit. As such, the reductions could be more just than in the for-profit sector.
In terms of reducing the number of personnel, the focus should be on determining which positions are needed in terms of what they do in terms of advancing the core mission of the university (which should be education). In terms of reducing salary, the focus should be on determining the value generated by the person and the salary should correspond to that. Since administrators seem exceptionally skilled at judging what faculty (especially adjuncts) should be paid, presumably there is a comparable skill for judging what administrators should be paid.
Interestingly, much of the administrative work that directly relates to students, and education is already handled by faculty. For example, on top of my paid duties as a professor, I have always had administrative duties that are essential, yet not important enough to merit an increase in my pay proportional to an administrative salary. In this I am not unusual. Not surprisingly, faculty and students at universities often wonder what some administrators do, given that so many administrative tasks are done by faculty and staff. Presumably the extra administrative work done by faculty (often effectively for free) is already helping schools save money, although perhaps more could be offloaded to faculty for additional savings.
One obvious problem is that those who make decisions about administration positions and salaries are usually administrators. While some are noble and honest enough to report on the true value of their position, self-interest makes an objective assessment problematic. As such, it seems unlikely that an administration would want to act to reduce itself merely to reduce the cost of education. This is, of course, not impossible—and some administrators would not doubt be quite willing to fire or cut the salaries of other administrators.
Since many state governments have been willing to engage in close management of state universities, one option is for them to impose a thorough examination of administrative costs and implement solutions to the high cost of education. Unfortunately, there are sometimes strong political ties between top administrators and the state government. There is also the general worry that any cuts will be more political or ill-informed than rationally based.
Despite these challenges, the administrative costs need to be addressed and action must be taken—the alternative is ever increasing costs in return for less actual education.
It has been suggested that the interest rates of student loans be lowered and that more grants be awarded to students. These are both good ideas, those who graduate from college generally have better incomes and end up paying back what they received many times over in taxes and other contributions. However, providing students with more money from the taxpayers does not directly address the cost of education, it just shifts it.
Some states, such as my adopted state of Florida, have endeavored to keep costs lower by freezing tuition for as long as possible. While this seems reasonable, one obvious problem is that keeping tuition low without addressing the causes of increased costs does not solve the problem. What often happens is that the university must cut expenses and these tend to be in areas that serve the core mission of the university. For example, a university president’s high salary, guaranteed bonuses and perks are usually not cut—instead faculty are not hired, and class sizes are increased. While tuition does not increase, it does so at the cost of the quality of education. Unless, of course, the guaranteed bonuses of a university president are key to education quality.
As such, when trying to lower the cost of education, it should be done in a way that does not sacrifice the quality of education.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.