Is this a Uni or a Resort Spa?

[madurobob]

So, I have a High School Junior with excellent grades in a near 100% AP course load. Science, Math, German, English - he's acing them all. So naturally, he wants to go to a university with a strong music department. A conservatory would be even better. What's wrong with kids these days?!

Anyway, its time to start thinking of where to apply and to plan some visits over the summer. To kick things off we visited a local university I attended 30 years ago. On the way I regaled him with stories of dorm life, cafeteria food and other quaint horrors of undergrad life. In short, we were shacked up two to a cinder block-walled room smaller than my bathroom today. Military barracks style bunks bolted to the walls were the only furnishings. If you were an upper-classman with rich parents you might snag one of the few dorms with "suites' that were four small individual bedrooms with one common room. Either way, females were not allowed in the male dorms (or the other way 'round) after 9:00PM. There was one central campus cafeteria that served what I could only guess was food rejected by the local prison.

Good times. I could sense his excitement.

So we get there. The dorms have been completely redone. Only single occupancy now; all dorms are co-ed. High speed internet everywhere. Air conditioning! Carpeting! New satellite "food centers" all around campus with... sushi bars? Nay, waffle bars! Shuttles will pick you up at your dorm and deliver you to class should there be inclement weather. I've been on corporate retreats that were more spartan.

So, as i was marveling at the modern luxury of it all I twice heard other kids on the same tour with their parents complain that this was rattiest, worn-downest, tiredest looking university that had visited.

So, is this what its all about? Is this why tuition keeps going up - to create a glorious spa-like environment for our little darlings to luxuriate in?

(or do I just need to shut the hell up about how tough things were "back when i was a kid")

[fuelair]

Both?

[madurobob]

I sets em up, you knocks em down. Too easy.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, is this what its all about? Is this why tuition keeps going up - to create a glorious spa-like environment for our little darlings to luxuriate in?

More or less, yes. Competition for students is fierce enough that it's a buyer's market, and "curb appeal" is one of the major areas of competition. It's much easier for a 17 year old to grasp the idea of a waffle bar than it is to grasp the idea of 35 more points on the GRE four years from now.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

More or less, yes. Competition for students is fierce enough that it's a buyer's market, and "curb appeal" is one of the major areas of competition. It's much easier for a 17 year old to grasp the idea of a waffle bar than it is to grasp the idea of 35 more points on the GRE four years from now.

And what about say the difference of $40,000 in debt he will aquire over the education?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And what about say the difference of $40,000 in debt he will aquire over the education?

That's imaginary money. Not only is the number far too large for an average 17-year old to grasp, but the payback period is also far to long for it to seem real.

In fact, it's specifically the fact that most or all of the costs are in student loans that lets thing happen this way. When the university raises a fee by $50, you can hear the hills ring with the student complaints, because that fee typically can't be borrowed away -- and $50 is real money. Why, that's ten pizzas!

But $50,000 in student loans is just monopoly money. Most students would much rather pay $500 more in tuition than $50 more in fees.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And what about say the difference of $40,000 in debt he will aquire over the education?

Exactly. Not just his debt, but the cash out of my savings account, too.

I'm beginning to suspect there is a "snob appeal" aspect to tuition prices. Set them too low and people think your school is crap. It's probably true to a certain extent that raising prices increases demand. Then, of course, you have to have several waffle bars to justify the price tag.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by madurobob

I'm beginning to suspect there is a "snob appeal" aspect to tuition prices. Set them too low and people think your school is crap. It's probably true to a certain extent that raising prices increases demand. Then, of course, you have to have several waffle bars to justify the price tag.

I think it's more of "what the market will bear" than "snob appeal"; the top schools according to the independent rankings (like USNews) are typically not the most expensive, and vice versa.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I think it's more of "what the market will bear" than "snob appeal"; the top schools according to the independent rankings (like USNews) are typically not the most expensive, and vice versa.

Yep - you're probably right. I looked around a little and found this:

Quote:

n the past decade, the number of high school seniors has risen by half a million, increasing demand. And then there's the "Chivas Regal effect." That's consumers' assumption that things with higher prices must be more desirable.

It works for whiskey. And colleges. Back in 2000, Clemson, the public university in South Carolina, collected fewer than 10,000 applications a year and charged less than $5,000 in tuition. Then the school decided to raise its profile and prices. It more than doubled tuition and spent more money on things like financial aid and top professors. Applications have jumped more than 50 percent.

She implies a causal relationship between higher tuition and higher demand, but there are a lot of other factors at play - not the least of which are the two she mentions: better financial aid and better profs. Probably more aggressive marketing, too.

FWIW - Chivas Regal is not that expensive around here...

[Toke]

$40.000 in difference
What is total price for 5 years of college?
And does it include living and food?

[NewtonTrino]

Only a moron or a rich person should go to schools that expensive.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Toke

$40.000 in difference
What is total price for 5 years of college?
And does it include living and food?

My Girlfriend ended up with $60,000 in debt for two part time years for a masters degree.

So you could easily get that much or more difference over four years, as it is only $10,000 difference per year. You can probably find $20,000 in difference if you looked for it.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Toke

$40.000 in difference
What is total price for 5 years of college?

It varies with the college. For a typical "private" college (meaning, not state-supported), the average cost for a year tuition is about $25,000. You can typically add about $1,000 in various fees atop that, and $1-2000 for books and supplies. Room and board are not included. (ETA these are averages. The Johns Hopkins University charges nearly $40,000 a year in tuition. So does Franklin and Marshall, which is not nearly as good a school by any objective measure....)

For a typical state-supported school, costs are much lower for students who qualify for in-state tuition; tuition will run between $6-7000 per year. But if you go to school outside of your home state (for example, a student from Pennsylvania going to the University of Maryland) you can expect to pay rates comparable to private colleges.

So the difference between U. Thisstate and U. Thatstate (or Our Lady of Perpetual Debt) can easily be $20,000 per year or $80,000 over a four year period.

Of course, most students don't pay anything near this much. Out-of-pocket costs for the parents are usually determined based on the family's ability to pay, as measured on a government form that determines eligibility for federally-based financial aid. So if I can "only" pay $8,000 per year, Our Lady of Perpetual Debt would come up with a package with about $16,000 in mixed aid, between outright grants, student paid employment, and loans.

[Toke]

Thanks.
That is alot of money. Plus bed and board.
And the difference can be whether it takes one or two decades to pay off.

No wonder they do their best to attract students/customers.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Toke

Thanks.
That is alot of money. Plus bed and board.
And the difference can be whether it takes one or two decades to pay off.

No wonder they do their best to attract students/customers.

Yup.

Basically, it's a failure on the part of the students/customers to comparison-shop, because they think they're spending other people's money (which to some extent they are). You see the same problem with insurance; I don't care how much my mechanic charges my car insurance company or how much my doctor charges my health insurance. I do, however, care deeply how much I pay in premiums and deductables.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, is this what its all about? Is this why tuition keeps going up - to create a glorious spa-like environment for our little darlings to luxuriate in?

A really moronic hasty generalization. Go visit MIT's campus. Not only does it actually rank on some lists as having the worst campus it is still 40,000. Hell go visit my campus. There is a stark difference between the dorms available with the best belonging to the people graduating and theoretically there is no guarantee that you will have housing for all five years.

[roger]

Wow, I looked up my College's tuition. It has doubled, after inflation, from when I was there (84-88).

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

A really moronic hasty generalization.

Why thank you. I aim to please!

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Go visit MIT's campus. Not only does it actually rank on some lists as having the worst campus it is still 40,000. Hell go visit my campus. There is a stark difference between the dorms available with the best belonging to the people graduating and theoretically there is no guarantee that you will have housing for all five years.

Really? MIT is only $40k? That's less than the music school my son has his heart set on. They're not too far apart, either.

Maybe I could save a few bucks, get him into MIT and have him commute for the music...

(he has a better chance of getting accepted at MIT)

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by madurobob

W
Really? MIT is only $40k? That's less than the music school my son has his heart set on. They're not too far apart, either.

Maybe I could save a few bucks, get him into MIT and have him commute for the music...

(he has a better chance of getting accepted at MIT)

http://web.mit.edu/facts/tuition.html Though I forgot that it is not including housing.
EDIT:
Where does your son want to go to college? And if they aren't too far apart why not you know point him to the god only knows how many Conservatorys there are in Boston?

Quote:

Why thank you. I aim to please!

Im sorry about. I've got to stop acting like a jackass every time I try and make a point.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Where does your son want to go to college? And if they aren't too far apart why not you know point him to the god only knows how many Conservatorys there are in Boston?

Berklee School of Music... in Boston.

I was happily mistaken about the cost, though. Berkleee is around $45k, but that includes room and board and "fees". That almost makes it worth considering.

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Im sorry about. I've got to stop acting like a jackass every time I try and make a point.

NP - I was laughing!

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by madurobob

Berklee School of Music... in Boston.

I was happily mistaken about the cost, though. Berkleee is around $45k, but that includes room and board and "fees". That almost makes it worth considering.

Ahhh I know about that college. If it's worth anything it is located in a perfectly beautiful area. Your son does know that there is more than one music college in that city. Literally, if you walk two blocks you will hit a Conservatory. Im sure there are more because it's Boston. Within that area alone there are god only knows how many colleges.

[geni]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So we get there. The dorms have been completely redone. Only single occupancy now;

Fairly common standards of privacy have changed. They are dissapearing from the UK as well.

Quote:

all dorms are co-ed.

That doesn't really cost anything.

Quote:

High speed internet everywhere.

It's a university. There is a supriseing amount of education use for that stuff.

Quote:

Air conditioning! Carpeting!

Industrial grade carpet that lasts for decades is fairly well established.

Quote:

New satellite "food centers" all around campus with... sushi bars? Nay, waffle bars!

Heh universities worked out some time ago that renting units to third party food supliers was a useful income source.

Quote:

Shuttles will pick you up at your dorm and deliver you to class should there be inclement weather.

The alturnative is that you risk haveing the students try to drive in and car parks tend to have been built for smaller numbers of students.

Quote:

So, is this what its all about? Is this why tuition keeps going up - to create a glorious spa-like environment for our little darlings to luxuriate in?

No idea but the cost of a modern research laboritory is quite considerable.

[tesscaline]

Originally Posted by geni

Fairly common standards of privacy have changed. They are dissapearing from the UK as well.

Yep. Not to mention that single occupancy cuts down on administration needs for dorms as you have fewer disputes between roommates to resolve, and more people who are willing to pay for dorms if they're guaranteed their own room.

Quote:

That doesn't really cost anything.

It actually reduces costs because you end up with fewer empty "wasted" rooms.

Quote:

It's a university. There is a supriseing amount of education use for that stuff.

Some classes are even conducted entirely online these days. Cuts costs on classrooms.

Quote:

Industrial grade carpet that lasts for decades is fairly well established.

It's also good insulation. And AC is a good idea if you plan on having lots of electronics (i.e. student computers) active.

Quote:

Heh universities worked out some time ago that renting units to third party food supliers was a useful income source.

Some even contract out their entire food service department in an effort to cut budgets.

Quote:

The alturnative is that you risk haveing the students try to drive in and car parks tend to have been built for smaller numbers of students.

Not to mention that it cuts down on on-campus traffic accidents.

Quote:

No idea but the cost of a modern research laboritory is quite considerable.

There are actually several reasons for the increases in tuition. 1) funding is harder to get now. Most universities get some sort of subsidization from the government, even if it's only in the form of grants for specific programs/projects. With fewer grants going out (although, that may be changing shortly), money is tighter and the easiest way to get more money is to raise tuition. 2) inflation. 3) the increased demand for higher education -- it is now expected that just about every student should be trying to get into college. This means higher student populations, which means more overhead for universities in terms of staff and facilities. The funding for that has to come from somewhere.

The things you're perceiving as luxuries aren't really luxuries. They're cost cutting and revenue increasing measures to keep the university competitive and in the black.

[Jeff Corey]

Newsday (2/22) had an article about costs at Berklee and a local college.
"Fred Camin was wrapping up his first semester at a top music conservatory when he decided that the price tag might cost him a career as a professional musician.

At $40,000 a year including room and board, Berklee College of Music in Boston hadn't offered Camin much financial aid, meaning the 19-year-old saxophonist would have to go deeply into debt to pay for school.

"I thought: I'm a musician ... and if I want to actually be a musician, I will never be able to pay these loans on time," Camin said.

So in January, Camin moved home to Bay Shore and transferred to the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, where he got a generous aid package. Between that and living at home, Camin cut his college costs by more than half."

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

So in January, Camin moved home to Bay Shore and transferred to the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, where he got a generous aid package. Between that and living at home, Camin cut his college costs by more than half."

Which college campus on Long Island actually sold one of it's campus? Was it CW Post or another one?
PS: Don't go there. The area sucks. There is nothing to do. And you probably would die of boredom/alcohol poisoning. Admittedly, I haven't racked up as much debt as the person in the article but still I'd rather go somewhere else.

Originally Posted by geni

No idea but the cost of a modern research laboritory is quite considerable.

I would say that the laboratory Im working in right now probably has a million dollars worth of equipment in it. There are also other costs too. I had no freaking clue that a giant particle accelerator had any other use other than theoretical physics.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Which college campus on Long Island actually sold one of it's(sic) campus(sic)? Was it CW Post or another one?
PS: Don't go there. The area sucks. There is nothing to do. And you probably would die of boredom/alcohol poisoning. Admittedly, I haven't racked up as much debt as the person in the article but still I'd rather go somewhere else...

L I U sold its Southhampton campus to SUNY. And the possessive of "it" is "its" and the plural of "campus" is "campuses".

[Mark6]

And here is the college which takes opposite approach:

'No Frills' Campus in New Hampshire Saves Students Tens of Thousands of Dollars

I found comments very enlightening.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

L I U sold its Southhampton campus to SUNY. And the possessive of "it" is "its" and the plural of "campus" is "campuses".

Here is a little bit of advice. You don't correct my English and I won't point out how odd it is to put spaces in an acronym. I hate that stupid game because the same amount of effort to correct other people's grammar is not afforded to the same post. Thank you for telling me the name of the college.

Originally Posted by Mark6

And here is the college which takes opposite approach:

'No Frills' Campus in New Hampshire Saves Students Tens of Thousands of Dollars

I found comments very enlightening.

Actually a college structured like that would probably result in a worst education than that of a 40,000 school in a lot of scenarios.

[bpesta22]

You got to define "better profs" though. Most schools get reputations because of their faculty's research (or lack thereof) not their teaching ability.

In my experience, teaching ability is zero-correlated with research productivity (not negatively). Some top researchers teach real well; some suck. Some non-researchers teach real well, others suck.

If indeed the school selects top profs based on research, however, then by regression to the mean, they're probably getting just average teachers.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by madurobob

Berklee School of Music... in Boston.

I was happily mistaken about the cost, though. Berkleee is around $45k, but that includes room and board and "fees". That almost makes it worth considering.

I worked with a guy who went there. Played the trumpet. Tell him if he gets in to put "a good night's sleep" faaaaaaaaaaaar out of his mind.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

In my experience, teaching ability is zero-correlated with research productivity (not negatively).

Only if you think "teaching how to do research" isn't teaching.

In my experience, "teaching how to do research" is one of the most important aspects of college. Because once you're out in the real world and you learn something, you're not going to have the luxury of sitting and waiting for someone to lecture you on it between 10 and 11 on MWF.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Only if you think "teaching how to do research" isn't teaching.

In my experience, "teaching how to do research" is one of the most important aspects of college. Because once you're out in the real world and you learn something, you're not going to have the luxury of sitting and waiting for someone to lecture you on it between 10 and 11 on MWF.

I'd rather have a teacher teach about research than a researcher, though one can be both.

[Jeff Corey]

No, I disagree . If you don't do any research, then you are at a disadvantage in teaching how to do it.
The best teaching I have ever experienced ended up with publications with students as coauthors.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

No, I disagree . If you don't do any research, then you are at a disadvantage in teaching how to do it.
The best teaching I have ever experienced ended up with publications with students as coauthors.

All college profs will claim to do research. At least in social sciences, any ph.d. would be trained in how to do it (knowing how to do it and actually doing it are two separate things, imo).

So, clarifying my position, I'd rather have an expert teacher with a shoddy vitae teach research than a crappy teacher with tons of A publications.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I'd rather have a teacher teach about research than a researcher, though one can be both.

It's very hard to teach about something you can't do yourself. I'm unreasonable; I expect my guitar instructor to at least be able to play the guitar, and my karate sensei should be able to demonstrate the forms he wants me to learn.

Quote:

All college profs will claim to do research. At least in social sciences, any ph.d. would be trained in how to do it (knowing how to do it and actually doing it are two separate things, imo).

Er, no. Actually, most schools now have two well-defined tracks, the teaching track and the research track (although the names may be different), and the faculty on the teaching track may not actually know how to do research. In many cases, they will not even have Ph.D.'s and are long-term adjuncts (this is especially true at the smaller, cheaper schools precisely because research is expensive). In other cases, they will technically have Ph.D.'s, but from long enough ago that they have no idea of the current state of the art or even the current state of research methods.

"How to do research" isn't a skill like "how to fold a paper airplane" or "how to bake a potato" that reached a zenith long ago and you can follow the notes left to you from your grandparent if you need to do it.

The "expert teacher with the shoddy vita" probably has a shoddy vita for a reason. Lack of ability, lack of interest, or lack of time would be my most likely candidates. All of which are crippling failures for teaching research.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by drkitten

It's very hard to teach about something you can't do yourself. I'm unreasonable; I expect my guitar instructor to at least be able to play the guitar, and my karate sensei should be able to demonstrate the forms he wants me to learn.



Er, no. Actually, most schools now have two well-defined tracks, the teaching track and the research track (although the names may be different), and the faculty on the teaching track may not actually know how to do research. In many cases, they will not even have Ph.D.'s and are long-term adjuncts (this is especially true at the smaller, cheaper schools precisely because research is expensive). In other cases, they will technically have Ph.D.'s, but from long enough ago that they have no idea of the current state of the art or even the current state of research methods.

"How to do research" isn't a skill like "how to fold a paper airplane" or "how to bake a potato" that reached a zenith long ago and you can follow the notes left to you from your grandparent if you need to do it.

The "expert teacher with the shoddy vita" probably has a shoddy vita for a reason. Lack of ability, lack of interest, or lack of time would be my most likely candidates. All of which are crippling failures for teaching research.

I disagree-- but in a friendly way. The examples in your first paragraph are specific physical skills. Certainly being skilled yourself would be key to teaching well.

When it comes to transferring knowledge, give me the teacher over the researcher, even if the topic is research.

What I mean by this is I think you could take the best teacher from say the history department and give him the textbook and two weeks prep time and he will teach a management class better than many in the management department with degrees in the topic and many pubs on the topic.

I don't think you could do this for the hard sciences like physics or chemistry, but I submit the above experiment would work.

I'm not familiar with the different track systems for faculty. If that's common, then I think my points would be less valid at those places. In places where tenure track faculty are hired based on research (which to me seems to be all places except liberal arts colleges), I think my points are valid.

But, I can still sleep at night if others disagree!

[bpesta22]

Also, the things that make X a Nobel prizer and Y untenurable are not things that can be taught. So, I think research teaching is mostly about transferring knowledge, and then leaving it up to the learner to be productive with that knowledge or not. So, that's why my claim for teacher's being better than researchers, assuming one isn't both.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

What I mean by this is I think you could take the best teacher from say the history department and give him the textbook and two weeks prep time and he will teach a management class better than many in the management department with degrees in the topic and many pubs on the topic.

Well, I've seen that experiment tried (a department was really hard hit by sabbaticals and whatnot, and had to drag in faculty from "allied" departments), and it didn't work really well. The problem was that the allied faculty didn't know what they were teaching, and it showed.

Indeed, most department chairs are familiar even with the "new prep" problem; give even an outstanding teacher a new course outside of their area of expertise, and they'll generally do poorly until they master the material, which usually takes at least a semester and sometimes substantially longer.

Quote:

I don't think you could do this for the hard sciences like physics or chemistry, but I submit the above experiment would work.

Wow. The arrogance in that statement would cut diamond. So you're suggesting that there is material -- domain knowledge -- to be mastered in physics and chemistry, but not in history or linguistics?

Quote:

I'm not familiar with the different track systems for faculty.

Aren't you? My understanding is that more than 50% of college-level faculty are now teaching-primary faculty on term contracts. My department is actually in good shape; we've only got 25% of our long-term faculty as instructor-level non-tenure-track positions.

Quote:

If that's common, then I think my points would be less valid at those places. In places where tenure track faculty are hired based on research (which to me seems to be all places except liberal arts colleges), I think my points are valid.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, I've seen that experiment tried (a department was really hard hit by sabbaticals and whatnot, and had to drag in faculty from "allied" departments), and it didn't work really well. The problem was that the allied faculty didn't know what they were teaching, and it showed.

Indeed, most department chairs are familiar even with the "new prep" problem; give even an outstanding teacher a new course outside of their area of expertise, and they'll generally do poorly until they master the material, which usually takes at least a semester and sometimes substantially longer.



Wow. The arrogance in that statement would cut diamond. So you're suggesting that there is material -- domain knowledge -- to be mastered in physics and chemistry, but not in history or linguistics?




Aren't you? My understanding is that more than 50% of college-level faculty are now teaching-primary faculty on term contracts. My department is actually in good shape; we've only got 25% of our long-term faculty as instructor-level non-tenure-track positions.

All I have is anecdotal evidence to counter yours. I think it could be an empirical question. It'd be interesting to see who wins: Could the best history teacher get course evals higher than the median in the management department (or could he/she do better the best vitas in the management department specifically).

My statement would be arrogant were I not in one of them fields where any reasonably intelligent person could master the content fairly quickly. I do think it's much easier to master state of the art in history or management or sociology or anthropology than it is physics math or chem.

This might be arrogant, but I suspect if you gave me the text and two week's time, I could teach any course in humanities as well as the department median (if we wanted to use some more direct measure of student learning or teacher effectiveness besides course evals, we could do that too).

I'd also bet that I could pick a teacher in the anthro department who could -- with two weeks time-- teach our management classes better than the mean of the department.

[bpesta22]

I will admit there's a huge difference between first time teaching a specific class and all other times. I don't think it's a content mastery issue as much as knowing which lectures will flow and which will cause unexpected confusion. But I'd still rather have a first time expert teacher over someone with 30 years experience (and tons of pubs) who sucks at teaching.