COVID-19 aftermath: What things will change forever?

[LouisEly]

College has needed disrupting. Why have college costs skyrocketed? If you ask colleges, it's because people want them to. They want new buildings, new dorms, new fitness centers, etc. Most of these are partly funded by philanthropic donors, but the rest falls on the new students. Students are demanding the newest and best, but then having to pay for them.

Depends on what you are referring to by "costs" - the costs to operate the school, or the cost of tuition?

 

If the latter, the higher-ups at UW-Madison claim that state funding has been reduced from covering 80% of tuition back in the early 90's to less than 20% of tuition now. When I was in the MBA program, the business school lost a couple of well-regarded professors who were offered more money somewhere else and UW chose not to match.

 

I don't think it's about students "demanding the newest and best"; I think it's about the good students choosing to go elsewhere, and the long-term ramifications of losing them as alumni. When I went to undergrad in the early 90's, I lived in dorms that were built in the 60's and had classes in buildings built before that. It's 2020 - there is no reason to not have dorms that don't have air conditioning. Technology is also making buildings and facilities obsolete; if students are going to be trained on the latest technology, you have to have buildings and infrastructure that is able to provide and support that technology. At some point, it costs less to build new buildings than continually try to retrofit and upgrade old buildings.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I don't think the implication was to end those classes, I think the implication was to end those majors.

 

That would be a mistake, IMO. Even though I'm in a STEM field and get the criticism of some seemingly less practical majors, there's no way I would eliminate them. First off, you won't attract good faculty to teach in a program where there are no majors, so even if your only goal is to support what you consider more practical majors, you won't get as much bang for your buck. Second, there is intrinsic value in the study of, say, history or psychology, and eliminating those majors just makes everyone culturally poorer. Universities are not just job training sites, and it's a mistake IMO to view them through that lens. They serve many roles in their local communities and the broader culture and I think smaller towns with universities are generally nicer places to live than comparable places without...if you look at lists of best places to retire, for example, many of them are college towns. Some of that is due to the cultural amenities that result from having a theater or music or arts program and the graduates and faculty thereof.

 

I don’t mean to be combative, but as an outsider, it’s my perception that there are a lot of six figure jobs on campus that have little to do with teaching or research and that the number of these jobs has grown significantly over the last 30 years (along with tuition). Am I misguided?

 

Yes and no. There has been a growth of administrative layers and non-instructional positions, and it is a sore spot among faculty. (I am STEM faculty, in case that's not obvious.) Some of it is due to new functions that didn't exist fifty years ago, e.g., IT and greater student support services. Students want wifi access in the library and appropriate software packages for their engineering courses, and so the IT department needs to grow to support those endeavors...those folks generally get paid well though often less than they would get in industry. Universities provide counseling and mental health services that weren't always part of the mission, and those are staffed by professionals.

 

Some is due to compliance requirements as state and federal agencies have attached strings to funding and demanded greater accountability. Those aren't optional positions. (K-12 has this as well.) Some is due to the need to fight for external funding, as state support has declined; you have full time people to solicit donations and work with foundations, and others to support faculty in grant proposals. Then there are more full time people to administer those funds which must be kept separate from state money, and again to make sure spending and accounting complies with the standards of funders and governments.

 

But even with all that, the bulk of the employees at a regional state university are not making anything close to six figures, and I know staff including instructors who almost qualify for food stamps. Faculty and non-instructional staff at small state institutions are working harder than ever, often for salaries that don't keep up with inflation, and that's my lens I guess. Tuition at most state schools doesn't come anywhere close to covering the costs of the degree, and I know that here at least tuition increases are never taken lightly.

 

If course in plenty of states (I think it's 40 out of 50?) the highest paid state employee is the flagship university's football or basketball coach. Some of those programs genuinely make money, but a lot of programs lose games and money but are kept to keep alumni happy. Chad Morris at Arkansas made something like $4M a year (and will continue to do so, I think) to lost almost every game.

[igor67]

Homer your inflation adjusted number made me just a little sad, since that was really close to what I paid my final year at UW 20 years ago. I basically managed to hit the front end of the crazy tuition increases as a student and then the backend as a parent. I'm sure there are multiple causes, in general faculty pay doesn't seem really compelling as an explanation between the rise of adjuncts and their low pay. All the Faculty compensation studies I've seen put UW middle to bottom of the pack as well. Facilities and middle management seem like the bigger culprits, though it really depends on which campus you are talking about. Those I think help explain the national trend. Locally though a huge driver is the drastically reduced support from the state compared to the 70's and earlier.

[LouisEly]

I don't think the implication was to end those classes, I think the implication was to end those majors.

 

That would be a mistake, IMO. Even though I'm in a STEM field and get the criticism of some seemingly less practical majors, there's no way I would eliminate them. First off, you won't attract good faculty to teach in a program where there are no majors, so even if your only goal is to support what you consider more practical majors, you won't get as much bang for your buck. Second, there is intrinsic value in the study of, say, history or psychology, and eliminating those majors just makes everyone culturally poorer. Universities are not just job training sites, and it's a mistake IMO to view them through that lens. They serve many roles in their local communities and the broader culture and I think smaller towns with universities are generally nicer places to live than comparable places without...if you look at lists of best places to retire, for example, many of them are college towns. Some of that is due to the cultural amenities that result from having a theater or music or arts program and the graduates and faculty thereof.

The implication wasn't to end them everywhere; the implication was to end them where they no longer made sense, specifically some of the satellite campuses. Your point about quality faculty to teach supports that point exactly - if the programs are consolidated to a couple of schools in a system (say, Cal-Berkeley and UC-Irvine), then the resources invested in those programs can be consolidated to those schools which can then attract better faculty and better students. The 100-level intro courses at the other satellite campuses can be taught by TA's and adjunct professors.

 

Businesses learned a long time ago that you can't be everything to everybody. That's probably the case with higher education, too.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think the implication was to end those classes, I think the implication was to end those majors.

 

That would be a mistake, IMO. Even though I'm in a STEM field and get the criticism of some seemingly less practical majors, there's no way I would eliminate them. First off, you won't attract good faculty to teach in a program where there are no majors, so even if your only goal is to support what you consider more practical majors, you won't get as much bang for your buck. Second, there is intrinsic value in the study of, say, history or psychology, and eliminating those majors just makes everyone culturally poorer. Universities are not just job training sites, and it's a mistake IMO to view them through that lens. They serve many roles in their local communities and the broader culture and I think smaller towns with universities are generally nicer places to live than comparable places without...if you look at lists of best places to retire, for example, many of them are college towns. Some of that is due to the cultural amenities that result from having a theater or music or arts program and the graduates and faculty thereof.

The implication wasn't to end them everywhere; the implication was to end them where they no longer made sense, specifically some of the satellite campuses. Your point about quality faculty to teach supports that point exactly - if the programs are consolidated to a couple of schools in a system (say, Cal-Berkeley and UC-Irvine), then the resources invested in those programs can be consolidated to those schools which can then attract better faculty and better students. The 100-level intro courses at the other satellite campuses can be taught by TA's and adjunct professors.

 

Businesses learned a long time ago that you can't be everything to everybody. That's probably the case with higher education, too.

 

This is true, but like I mentioned earlier, a lot of these programs are not really blows to the budget. Many of them are just drops in the bucket and are there for public image more than anything else. Cutting theater won't do anything. It just isn't costing that much to begin with.

[homer]

. I'm sure there are multiple causes, in general faculty pay doesn't seem really compelling as an explanation between the rise of adjuncts and their low pay. All the Faculty compensation studies I've seen put UW middle to bottom of the pack as well. Facilities and middle management seem like the bigger culprits, though it really depends on which campus you are talking about. Those I think help explain the national trend. Locally though a huge driver is the drastically reduced support from the state compared to the 70's and earlier.

 

Yeah I think with something this big and complex there are usually multiple causes (same with healthcare). Could add ease of access to loan dollars, demand for college degrees to the mix as well.

[JackNicholson1974]

As someone that is plugged in to the UW System state schools and their issues, but I am not an employee (Im an attorney) I can tell you that from what I know (my wife is an English Professor for 15 years), I agree with most everything that SoCalBrewFan has stated.

 

In regards to paying faculty too much. At schools like UW-eau claire, La Crosse, Oshkosh and the like I can advise that this doesnt seem to be the case. My example may be only anecdotal, but my wife certainly isnt an exception and she isnt "overpaid" considering her length of employment (15 years), her terminal degree level institution - University of Michigan was second nationally for her expertise, and her commitment to professional development - a nationally published author from a NYC publishing house. She has barely been above 50k per year for almost her entire career. Since she started, she has also lost take home pay first from Act 10, then had class load recently increased from 6 classes per year to 7 (so a 16% increase in the amount of work they want her to do - combined with the 5-7% decrease in take home pay from Act 10) and now will be furloughed a few days per month, however, there is the expectation that she will teach, publish and cover admininstrative duties all the same. Pay increases that she has had have barely kept up with cost of living.

 

Additionally, she has taught many successful students whom upon graduation or sometime afterwards reach out to her to let her know that her classes (Creative Writing, Lit classes, etc) were some of the most important and influential classes these students had - and these students arent all English Majors. They are nurses, secondary ed students, Tv/radio/film students...and I dont think my wife is some sort of anamoly. I think these professors in these areas change peoples lives and the direction of their brains for whichever field they chose.

 

I started my college career as a business major and it was awful and depressing to a level of wanting to drop out of school. I switched to liberal arts, political science/public admininstration and the professors I had made a huge difference in my life and catapulted me to law school and running my own law practice.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is, these majors are hugely important.

 

SoCalBrewFan said: "But even with all that, the bulk of the employees at a regional state university are not making anything close to six figures, and I know staff including instructors who almost qualify for food stamps. Faculty and non-instructional staff at small state institutions are working harder than ever, often for salaries that don't keep up with inflation, and that's my lens I guess. Tuition at most state schools doesn't come anywhere close to covering the costs of the degree, and I know that here at least tuition increases are never taken lightly."

 

and this is true, the UW System is losing tons of professors to other states and in my wifes department they were looking to hire for a vacant position, had many applicants, made an offer to the best one - it was declined. Made an offer to the second best one - it was declined...made a last ditch effort the the third place guy - and it was declined. And I dont think the third place guy had other options - as it was well past the regular hiring period nationally speaking.

 

To come full circle to COVID related changes and my initial comment. This state is simply NOT funding higher ed (or any public ed) the way it did when Wisconsin earned a reputation for great education. There has been and will continue to be fallout. This pandemic WILL be, mark my words, used by those who are not wild about public education, to cripple and or end many liberal arts programs.

 

One last thing. It will be brought up by many, but traditional students - and they make up the bulk of 4 year higher ed students - DO NOT WANT ONLINE CLASSES. I do not care what the higher ups say. Yes it will reduce costs, however, students absolutely do not want these classes. In my opinion this is a tricky BS way to reduce costs and to quite frankly find people to "teach" these online classes at much, much lower pay (think annual pay in the 20s or 30k range). I know many high school seniors who are real go-getters and ready for college and not a single one has said they will enroll in 20-21 if it is online. And I agree with them completely.

[reillymcshane]

The posts by SoCalBrewfan and JackNicholson1974 are very, very good.

 

I worked with the university (not for, but with) in the 2000s - and saw a lot of what they describe.

 

And what's so huge in all of this is the dollars that go into higher education. When I went to school back in the 1980s, the state's support of the university was much higher than it is today. My first semester I paid $499. Times have changed.

[adambr2]

Vast majority of professors think the same way.

 

That is just not true. You have clearly never been to a faculty meeting...

 

Bashing the liberal arts is one of those things that's fashionable in some circles, but that bashing is itself more ideological than data driven. Many of those who take those positions are happy to send their own children to liberal arts oriented schools. Even in the sciences and engineering, it is very valuable to have training in writing, communicating, and critical thinking, and those skills come from thriving humanities programs. Narrow training for a specific job seems great on paper, but has real limitations given how often people change jobs now. Many of the jobs my students will be doing in twenty years probably don't exist right now, and the way the same jobs will be done will change as well.

 

 

Are people changing jobs so often because they want to, because they need to as a result of cuts in their field, or because they have only general education and aren't really specialized in anything?

 

I think there's absolutely value in narrow training for a specific career. Some of the best paid individuals I know had limited schooling for specialized careers, little or no student debt, and enjoy what they're doing and are very good at it.

 

The trick is finding something sustainable. But there are plenty of careers in nursing, networking, manufacturing, plumbing, carpentry, etc. that will always be needed to some degree.

[owbc]

Mostly I echo SoCal but will add a bit more from my experience...

 

1. Almost everyone in an academic job at a university is badly underpaid. I make $57,000 to be a postdoctoral researcher at a university which is at least half and possibly only a third of my value. It applies to tenured professors as well...their skillsets and work ethics are worth $300,000+ in the private sector compared with ~$150K pay at universities. And even tenured professors have left academia for research jobs in tech--I've seen it happen several times.

 

2. It is not the purpose of a university to teach skills X, Y, Z. Anybody can learn skills X, Y, Z by themselves. Three of my close friends are self-taught software engineers working at Google and Amazon now. Two dropped out of their graduate programs, the third doesn't even have a college degree. All three exhibit independent thinking and intellectual curiosity which are some of the most valuable traits anyone can have--and of course those traits were fostered by being immersed in an in-person academic environment in undergrad. And besides, skills X, Y, Z are already being rapidly replaced by new skills that will have to be learned on the fly.

 

3. A bachelor's degree in a STEM field is often entirely worthless by itself. I feel very bad for many undergraduate students in my field who are not motivated to be there and getting mediocre grades that will disqualify them from most postgraduate opportunities. We would be far better off if they were studying whatever was interesting to them, getting better grades, and then going to graduate school to get the degree that will actually launch their career.

 

4. The whole STEM vs. humanities construct is rapidly disappearing. More and more I'm seeing scientists head toward the humanities/social sciences to broaden the depth and impact of their studies. More and more I'm seeing academics in the humanities head toward the sciences to apply their work. It's mutually beneficial and everyone loves interdisciplinary studies.

[ilikewisco]

I received a BS in a hard science from UW-Eau Claire fifteen years after I graduated high school. Went to UW-Madison right out of high school, but was too immature at the time and only stayed one year. Eau Claire has done some major campus improvements in the last 10 years but was still affordable. Then I did a masters program in engineering at Michigan Tech, which was very high for out of state, but as a graduate student I was able to get the in-state rate. The in-state rate was still more than double what Eau Claire was.

 

I don't know about their salaries, but most professors in my majors were exceptional teachers and people, and I have no doubt could make more in industry. The liberal arts education for the most part was valuable. If for nothing else, than to build relationships with people you normally wouldn't. And the on-campus experience is a must. Even as a non-traditional student I learned the most during the interaction with my classmates. Some might feel university is a waste of time, but it was the best decision I made and put me in a place in life where I love what I do and am well compensated for it. Before I went back I had done construction and factory work. I learned a lot in both, and both have helped me in what I do now, but neither offered the long term growth and stability that I have now.

 

I apologize if this is too far OT.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I wrote out a post, then was not going to post, but the last post made me change my mind. I love to teach students like you, who are coming back to school and know what they want, have lived a bit and have some life experience under their belts. One of our majors about to (virtually) graduate has built up a construction company but never got his degree, and now he's doing both. He's had to work hard to get back up to speed on academic science, but he's rocked it and I have so much respect for his hard work.

 

==

The post:

I hear you, and understand the argument, but still disagree. I think the lower-tier and regional campuses are critical engines of opportunity that provide access to higher education in communities and regions that need it. I think it's incredibly valuable for the kids who can't get to Berkeley or Madison, who can't afford the flagship schools, to have access to a degree as a gateway to the middle class. Our system of public higher education can do that for so many young people if we invest appropriately. (And also for not-young people, actually; I teach a lot of older students, veterans, second-chancers.) The Cal State system, 23 campuses of bachelor's and master's institutions that are roughly similar to the regional UW campuses, provides so many benefits to California in lifting individuals and families out of poverty to professional jobs, as do the non-flagship campuses in the UW or other systems. That means nurses, teachers, technicians, engineers, all sorts of careers that are absolutely essential to our society; a large fraction of California's nurses and teachers went to a Cal State school. The Cal State system in the 90s used to get 80% of the cost of an education from the state, now it's more like 50%. But it's a great investment, with one analysis suggesting $1 in state money returning over $5.40 in economic impact. I believe that not only can we afford to support these schools, but that it's one of the better uses of state funding. That is in no way to diminish the value of trade schools, technical education, etc., or of elite schools for that matter. Just to say that non-flagship state schools and the impact they have on ordinary people should not be devalued.

 

In addition, those smaller campuses mean so much to their local communities in terms of jobs and cultural opportunities. In a time when rural areas face loss of quality jobs and a brain drain of young people, disinvesting in those smaller campuses is just putting more nails in the coffin.

 

Businesses learned a long time ago that you can't be everything to everybody. That's probably the case with higher education, too.

 

Very possibly, and there is definitely occasion for closing redundant programs in a region like SoCal where the next campus is not too far down the freeway. But public higher education is not, and should not IMO be, a business. It's not about turning a profit or increasing revenues. We provide service to taxpayers, and I sincerely believe that it's a valuable service and that we (at least my little bit of the endeavor) do it very very well.

[Outlander]

The days of turning a blind eye to speeding during the pandemic appear to be gone. Speed traps everywhere the last few days, hadn't seen anybody pulled over prior to this since the middle of March.

[MrTPlush]

The days of turning a blind eye to speeding during the pandemic appear to be gone. Speed traps everywhere the last few days, hadn't seen anybody pulled over prior to this since the middle of March.

 

Yup, I traveled through Wisconsin to the Chicago area last weekend...no pullovers and really no cops in general. Did the same drive yesterday and there were countless pullovers and speed traps.

 

Last weekend traffic was flowing at 85-95mph on I-90 just south of Madison, absolutely insane. The slowest person was doing high-70s. Someone from Minneapolis told me traffic was down 50% at one point, but accidents were up 30%.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The days of turning a blind eye to speeding during the pandemic appear to be gone. Speed traps everywhere the last few days, hadn't seen anybody pulled over prior to this since the middle of March.

 

Yup, I traveled through Wisconsin to the Chicago area last weekend...no pullovers and really no cops in general. Did the same drive yesterday and there were countless pullovers and speed traps.

 

Last weekend traffic was flowing at 85-95mph on I-90 just south of Madison, absolutely insane. The slowest person was doing high-70s. Someone from Minneapolis told me traffic was down 50% at one point, but accidents were up 30%.

 

Expect that to continue...gotta get some sort of revenue coming back to fund govt services. Cops could easily be ticketing to make sure they keep their jobs funded.

[jerichoholicninja]

I haven't golfed in 5 years. If that's the only thing I can do this summer I'll probably give it a go again at some point. Maybe I'll get back into it and that will be my change forever.

[AJOHNSON104]

Things changing, some things which have been mentioned, others that haven't:

1. Cars. Lots of thoughts here, but annual car shows, where people climb around in them might be severely hampered for a few years. Same with buying cars at dealers. Are they going to be sanitized between each person's test drive?

2. Other Expos, shows, etc. Similar to the car shows, are we going to have camper shows, boat shows, sports shows, etc.? Conventions and convention business is also taking ah huge hit.

3. Commuting. Some have theorized that we will cut down on mass transit (I agree) and some have argued we'll use things like Uber more often (not sure about that one), but I wonder if more people will try riding a motorcycle, moped, bike, scooter, walk, etc. to cut down on interactions with others. Doesn't work great in the WI climate, but may increase somewhat. Madisonians already do this much more than Milwaukee, so it could grow in many WI cities.

4. Gardening, home improvements, hobbies, etc. will increase. We will have an economic downturn with this, so these things always go up with poor economies, but this intense impact of staying at home changed people's habits and some will continue with them.

5. Taxes will definitely go up on the local level. Health departments will be revised and modernized, schools will enhance their infrastructure / ability to do remote teaching, government buildings will be modernized to allow more social distancing and automation, convention centers that relied on events / taxes to fund their construction will need assistance, etc.

6. Public transit. Ties into the higher taxes, commuting, etc. These systems run on significant tax dollar subsidies already and if ridership drops there will need to be increased support. I saw that New York Transit has suffered $4 Billion in lost revenue.

7. Internet access. Expect a very strong push for universal, government supported internet access as a way to even educational access / opportunities.

8. Buffets / Fill your drink stations

[LouisEly]

The days of turning a blind eye to speeding during the pandemic appear to be gone. Speed traps everywhere the last few days, hadn't seen anybody pulled over prior to this since the middle of March.

Not in the Chicago area. Posted speed limit on the Edens is 55, I was doing 73 and people were blowing by me going 80+.

[homer]

If this thing fizzles out by the end of the year I don't see any permanent changes to daily life. People will just forget about it eventually and go back to what they did before.

[LouisEly]

But public higher education is not, and should not IMO be, a business. It's not about turning a profit or increasing revenues.

You're exactly right - it shouldn't be a business. But if they are going to provide a high quality education at reasonable tuition prices while competitively compensating their employees, maybe they need to think like a business.

 

The fundamental question that every business owner/CEO/executive asks themselves every day is, "How do we provide the highest quality product or service for our target market at the lowest operating cost while competitively compensating our employees so that they don't leave?" If public higher education doesn't think that way and tries to be everything to everyone, then they shouldn't complain about the cost of tuition or low pay for employees.

[igor67]

Have no fear the MBA's are winning everywhere. Unfortunately that has a tendency to lead to the opposite of delivering value to ones current 'market' and instead diverts attention and resources towards growing revenue. Over the years it has often reminded me of listening to second wave Moneyball believers who were oblivious to the fact that OBP was no longer undervalued. Too much business ideology assumes growth, or is biased towards growth. It runs into all kinds of trouble in education which needs to be run recognizing marginal growth is rarely an option.

[MrTPlush]

The days of turning a blind eye to speeding during the pandemic appear to be gone. Speed traps everywhere the last few days, hadn't seen anybody pulled over prior to this since the middle of March.

Not in the Chicago area. Posted speed limit on the Edens is 55, I was doing 73 and people were blowing by me going 80+.

 

People drive like idiots in and around Chicago during normal non pandemic times.

[owbc]

But public higher education is not, and should not IMO be, a business. It's not about turning a profit or increasing revenues.

You're exactly right - it shouldn't be a business. But if they are going to provide a high quality education at reasonable tuition prices while competitively compensating their employees, maybe they need to think like a business.

 

The fundamental question that every business owner/CEO/executive asks themselves every day is, "How do we provide the highest quality product or service for our target market at the lowest operating cost while competitively compensating our employees so that they don't leave?" If public higher education doesn't think that way and tries to be everything to everyone, then they shouldn't complain about the cost of tuition or low pay for employees.

 

They did ask this question and they did it when business people started taking over the admin!

 

Target market: the richest possible students (or those with FAFSA money) who can increase our revenue. And build fancy facilities that will appeal to that demographic.

Highest quality product: Our paying customers don't like getting bad grades--inflate the grades and punish anyone who gives students a challenging class (which always generates lower survey ratings from students).

Lowest operating cost: Exploit cheap labor from graduate students and adjunct faculty.

Competitively compensating employees: that's how we ended up football coaches being the highest-paid public employee in most states.

[homer]

I seem to recall that UW, in particular, started letting in more out of state and foreign students and fewer in-state students in order to raise tuition revenue. Can't find if that's true or still the case though.

[owbc]

I seem to recall that UW, in particular, started letting in more out of state and foreign students and fewer in-state students in order to raise tuition revenue. Can't find if that's true or still the case though.

 

Yes, most state schools did that. As well as raising enrollment as fast as possible. And often revenue sent to individual departments was tied to class enrollment to incentivize the creation of more space for students. When my department realized this they started creating new elective classes with sexy titles to increase their revenue.

 

This wasn't necessarily bad strategy as students do need available classes to fulfill their credit obligations. And it helped make online courses a higher priority with better quality options. But it was just funny to see some of the unintended consequences. And the TAs/adjuncts who were responsible for all those extra students end up shouldering the burden.