Educators Run Wild; Parents Co-conspirators

Consider: Any industry in which costly resource inputs increase at a faster rate than the economic and social value of outputs is considered inefficient.

While academics and politicians, not to mention ordinary citizens, impacted by the rising cost of health care rile about the strain on resources and alternative spending objectives, calling in various guises for greater efficiency of delivery, the value of outputs is not seriously disputed by either statistics or common experience – number served, treatment improvements, cures.

Yet, the “higher education” industry is not near similarly critically examined.

Census data shows that the number of undergraduate students enrolled in universities, colleges and community colleges increased 75% from 8.1 million in 1975 to 14.2 million in 2005, graduate students increased by 50% from 1.6 million to 2.4 million, while the number of faculty increased 93% from 622-thousand to 1.2 million in 2003. Accompanying this disproportionate increase in faculty has been a decrease in tenure granted and slowing salary increases.

The American Association of University Professors properly points out that institutions of higher learning are spending a higher proportion of their budgets on facilities, as the proportion spent on faculty declines. Most campuses and dormitories are far more lavish than a generation or two previously. I don’t recall where I saw the statistic, but the California state colleges and universities spend about 75% of their budgets on fixed assets. That means that expense constraints must fall upon faculty salaries and student tuition.

The AAUP, however, does not focus on the vastly increased supply of graduate students and PhD’s, whose only employment is within higher ed, as a downward pressure of staff salaries.

Still, higher education costs are, nevertheless, increasing at a faster rate than the rest of the states’ budgets. In California, for example, its legislative analyst notes that General Fund spending is slated to increase about 1% but University of California and California State University spending is slated to increase about 6%.

Like any union, faculty demand higher salaries, but conveniently omit certain elements of compensation, like short work schedules, or few classes taught, or generous fringe benefits. The California legislative analyst, for example, says:

The CPEC’s [California Postsecondary Education Commission] faculty salary reports only measure base salaries. Faculty typically receive various other forms of compensation as well, including retirement and health benefits, sabbaticals, housing allowances, and bonuses. Several studies commissioned by the segments have found that the nonsalary benefits provided to UC and CSU faculty are worth considerably more than the average of their comparison institutions. In fact, when all forms of compensation are considered, UC and CSU appear to be at or above their comparison averages.

The U.S. Department of Education provides average fringe benefits of full-time instructional faculty at Title IV degree-granting institutions for the 2005-6 academic year: (figures rounded)
Retirement Plan $6-thousand
Social Security contribution by employer $4.3-thousand
Medical/Dental Plans $6.5-thousand
Life, Disability & Other Insurance $1.6-thousand
Tuition for dependents $4.3-thousand
Housing plan $5.6-thousand
Unemployment & Workers Compensation $0.7-thousand
Other benefits in kind with cash options $1.5-thousand

Total = $30.5-thousand of average fringe benefits, above salaries.

Certainly not all higher education educators are garnering this average, but for it to be an average many are.

One can argue all day long about how a college degree is today’s high school diploma, but I don’t notice much improvement in restaurant waiters’ and waitress’ service as college grads fill non-educated roles. Careers are bright for those with technical and professional skills, but many other majors are economically worthless.

But, it’s among the faculty, overwhelmingly liberal or radical in their politics, that this gross inefficiency of higher education inputs is most felt. Their economic security is declining compared to yesteryear, and the value to anyone but themselves of (politely speaking) esoteric humanities curriculums is negligible.

Among many, their resulting alienation, although self-created by their own life choices, results in resentments against a relatively rich society, against business and free enterprise accomplishment, against America and Western civilization.

The accomplices, even from conservative homes, are the parents who agree to shell out up to tens of thousands of dollars a year for their cuddled children to take such basket-weaving courses and enjoy country club campuses.

The cure for higher education lays in elimination and avoidance of useless majors and academics, the revolt of taxpayers and parents, and continuation of present trends which place a compensation worth on academics that will decline more compared to other occupations. It will also do much to help cure America of its naysayers, negativists, and internal enemies of cultural and national security survival.