Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

Yes but there’s a huge difference between showing a change and showing that change is a main cost driver. Vastly different issues.

How is it possible that doubling the number of administrative employees - especially considering their sometimes exorbitant pay - isn't a main cost driver?

It’s entirely possible if their work reduces costs in other areas, increases graduation, etc! And it’s why it’s an empirical question.

As a policy maker I hope you’ll be responsible to evidence rather than assumptions. This is a common false critique of higher ed.

There are two things I care about in policy terms: 1) People (morality and ethics), and 2) Data. The cost of college has increased (from memory) six times faster than inflation, but education quality has *not* increased. Admin has doubled. Faculty has moved to part-time. 1/2

Just as with Wall Street and society in general, the data seems to indicate that the people controlling the money at colleges (admin) are taking a larger and larger share of it, and with no notable increase in education quality. How is that not the problem? 2/2

Can you provide any verifiable/falsifiable data that shows college education quality has increased *at all* during the period of time tuition (and admin hires) have increased so much? All the data I find says it's flat-lined at best, declined significantly at worst.

It can’t increase when State disinvestment is the primary context. There’s your omitted factor for public’s, which are the real story.