Whistler, I don’t disagree that it’s a poor move to make this announcement in the face of increased funding demands from the state. The problem, though, is that in order to keep competitive with other schools (who often give a 100% tuition break to faculty and staff), they need to offer a benefit like this to stay competitive in the job market and to keep their employees from jumping ship. Especially in the face of an increased presence of online teaching options for faculty (full disclosure: I work for an online college in a staff capacity), tuition breaks are an expected benefit.
It’s not unlike the question that gets asked of a lot of North Dakota Republicans seeking office: ‘will you eschew out-of-state contributions to ensure that you’re representing the state’s citizens’ interests?’ Well, if they do, they put themselves at a distinct disadvantage if their competitors don’t make the same commitment.
Ideologically, I agree with you, but practically, it’s the right move by Kupchella. Failure to offer what’s (unfortunately?) considered a standard university benefit would erode the quality of employees the university could attract.
sonofasillyperson - 12:05pm on 05/14/2008
That’s true that an huge driver pushing education up is a nationwide trend. But this is a problem.
The Whistler - 01:05pm on 05/14/2008
I heard today that UND has to cut 2 million in academic spending?? but it has nothing to do with moving to D1
brad - 01:05pm on 05/14/2008
Since this is the same bunch that believes everything is a zero sum proposition; who will be charged 50% more in tuition to make up the loss?
Kevin - 02:05pm on 05/14/2008
The Whistler, it sounds as though you don’t believe in the “magic of the marketplace”. If they can raise fees and get a net increase in revenue, then their previous fees were too low. Supply and demand you see.
If you think that somehow tuition fees should be at a “sensible” (as defined by you or some other, but not the market) level, then you’re a statist/socialist/economic-populist.
By saying that faculty need to work more, like from 8am-6pm, and 250 days a year, sounds a little like Marx’s labor theories. Someone living off a return on investment, like interest or dividends, is getting income with no labor. Why shouldn’t a faculty member? Isn’t he simply doing the same, but their “investment” is their knowledge. It takes considerable effort to become a master of a field of knowledge.
Also, many of faculty work more like 8am-8pm, and later (and my supervisor has been working to 1am recently, and in on both days of the weekends, I know because I am there too). Sounds like you’re a lazy part-timer, only 8-6, 5 days a week, damn that’d be nice, it’d be like a holiday.
Angry Vertebrate - 08:05pm on 05/14/2008
The Whistler, it sounds as though you don’t believe in the “magic of the marketplace”.
“Higher education” is a monopoly, shielded from market forces.
Kevin - 08:05pm on 05/14/2008
With hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.
But pull the subsidies and let them compete on the market. Perhaps help students directly rather than funneling it through the schools if you want to help kids out.
But what we are doing is not working.
Some college faculty work hard, many don’t. The hard workers are probably worth more in a free market.
The Whistler - 08:05pm on 05/14/2008
Why is that Kevin? There are some 20,000 universities and community colleges, plus there are plenty of other countries that happily take American students and often cheaper fees too. With such choice, how can you claim there is a monopoly?
The EU has announced they’ll be throwing a few billion at PhD and post-doc. scholarships. I know I’ll be applying soon.
Angry Vertebrate - 08:05pm on 05/14/2008
The billions of dollars nationwide (as opposed to my ND number) tends to keep private competition out.
I think the EU’s doing this will not catch them up with our spending.
The Whistler - 08:05pm on 05/14/2008
If you think that somehow tuition fees should be at a “sensible” (as defined by you or some other, but not the market) level, then you’re a statist/socialist/economic-populist.
You’re sounding more like a real anarchist all the time.
Whistler, I don’t disagree that it’s a poor move to make this announcement in the face of increased funding demands from the state. The problem, though, is that in order to keep competitive with other schools (who often give a 100% tuition break to faculty and staff), they need to offer a benefit like this to stay competitive in the job market and to keep their employees from jumping ship. Especially in the face of an increased presence of online teaching options for faculty (full disclosure: I work for an online college in a staff capacity), tuition breaks are an expected benefit.
It’s not unlike the question that gets asked of a lot of North Dakota Republicans seeking office: ‘will you eschew out-of-state contributions to ensure that you’re representing the state’s citizens’ interests?’ Well, if they do, they put themselves at a distinct disadvantage if their competitors don’t make the same commitment.
Ideologically, I agree with you, but practically, it’s the right move by Kupchella. Failure to offer what’s (unfortunately?) considered a standard university benefit would erode the quality of employees the university could attract.
That’s true that an huge driver pushing education up is a nationwide trend. But this is a problem.
I heard today that UND has to cut 2 million in academic spending?? but it has nothing to do with moving to D1
Since this is the same bunch that believes everything is a zero sum proposition; who will be charged 50% more in tuition to make up the loss?
The Whistler, it sounds as though you don’t believe in the “magic of the marketplace”. If they can raise fees and get a net increase in revenue, then their previous fees were too low. Supply and demand you see.
If you think that somehow tuition fees should be at a “sensible” (as defined by you or some other, but not the market) level, then you’re a statist/socialist/economic-populist.
By saying that faculty need to work more, like from 8am-6pm, and 250 days a year, sounds a little like Marx’s labor theories. Someone living off a return on investment, like interest or dividends, is getting income with no labor. Why shouldn’t a faculty member? Isn’t he simply doing the same, but their “investment” is their knowledge. It takes considerable effort to become a master of a field of knowledge.
Also, many of faculty work more like 8am-8pm, and later (and my supervisor has been working to 1am recently, and in on both days of the weekends, I know because I am there too). Sounds like you’re a lazy part-timer, only 8-6, 5 days a week, damn that’d be nice, it’d be like a holiday.
“Higher education” is a monopoly, shielded from market forces.
With hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.
But pull the subsidies and let them compete on the market. Perhaps help students directly rather than funneling it through the schools if you want to help kids out.
But what we are doing is not working.
Some college faculty work hard, many don’t. The hard workers are probably worth more in a free market.
Why is that Kevin? There are some 20,000 universities and community colleges, plus there are plenty of other countries that happily take American students and often cheaper fees too. With such choice, how can you claim there is a monopoly?
The EU has announced they’ll be throwing a few billion at PhD and post-doc. scholarships. I know I’ll be applying soon.
The billions of dollars nationwide (as opposed to my ND number) tends to keep private competition out.
I think the EU’s doing this will not catch them up with our spending.
You’re sounding more like a real anarchist all the time.