More non-profit greed

CSU hikes tuition, and boosts a president's salary by $100,000 - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

The state is bankrupt and the school can't service the amount of students they need to; so what the heck, raise tuition 12% (23% in the last year) and up the pay the for the new president to $400,000 a year.

Now that's officer thinking!

Bing-bong! :firedevil:

 

The salary thing may just be needing to pay what the market will bear for a qualified applicant.

 

It's crazy that they raised tuition and salaries so much... but the title of this thread comes across as very bias and closed. People and systems are all prone to greed... whether for or non-profit. If rising costs in education and the payment of institution heads are alarming, we should consider greed at the state, non-profit, for-profit, and corporate levels in education. Simply attacking one issue seems misleading to me, and might only cause those who are ignorant of this issue to form one-sided opinions.

If we are going to talk about greed in education, lets talk about greed in all areas across the board.

 

Also, this reminds me of the time that Cedarville College in Ohio (now Cedarville University) bought their college president a brand new Jaguar (car). Putting that federal student aid to good use!!

 

Just for comparison, the reported compensation for Andrew Clark, the President of for-profit Bridgepoint Education (= Ashford University) was $20,532,304 in 2009 -- which is more than 50 times what the new President of San Diego State will be making. It's quite likely that Clark made more than the Presidents of all 23 California State University campuses combined.

Approximately 85% of Ashford's revenue comes from Federal financial aid.

 

Very true. I have witnessed a university struggle to find a qualified applicant for president because they couldn't provide adequate compensation to draw exceptional people. The end result is less than impressive. It reminds me of my favorite quote from the move Hustle & Flow:
"If you want quality, you have to pay for it."

 

Actually Elizabeth Tice is the school president -http://clintonherald.com/features/x1961026406/Tice-is-Ashford-s-new-president

Andrew Clark is the Chief Executive Officer and President and Director of Bridgepoint Education, Inc. There is quite a difference and it is not fair to compare a CEO salary to the school president. They are different jobs. By the way, looks like Clark's UoP MBA worked for him!

 

True, Bridgepoint includes multiple schools, like University of the Rockies as well as Ashford. So maybe it would be fairer to compare Clark to Charles Reed, the Chancellor of the CSU system, who oversees multiple CSU campuses (23 total, with 46,000 staff and 450,000 students).

But in that case, Reed's annual salary (including retirement bonus) is $451,000. Still seems like Clark's compensation is a bit higher.

 

The new annual tuition of $5,472 for a full time student is still relatively inexpensive for in-state tuition at a 4-year school and is significantly less expensive than in-state undergraduate tuition at the small state schools in my part of the country.

 

To quote one of my personal heros:

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

 

And while California State University programs vary widely in terms of selectivity and prestige, their top programs provide an amazing value at that rate.

For example, the California Polytechnic State University campus in San Luis Obispo (usually known as "Cal Poly") is currently ranked #6 in the "Regional Universities West" category by USN&WR.

Cal Poly isn't ranked in the USN&WR "National Universities" category because it doesn't have doctoral programs. But at the undergraduate level, Californians regard Cal Poly as competitive with midlevel University of California schools (e.g. Davis, Santa Barbara, Irvine), which rank in the USN&WR top 50 in the "National Universities" category.

If Cal Poly were relocated to certain other states, it would be the flagship public university.

 

It seems strange, then, that every one of the schools listed in your tagline is operated on a not-for-profit basis.
Why not ride the "upward surge of mankind" with highly profitable institutions like UoP, Kaplan, or Ashford instead ?

 

Congress does the same thing. . .

 

I won't speculate on AUTiger's personal motivations, but one reason that came to mind would be something like: "It doesn't matter whether a school is for-profit or non-profit per se, the schools that will help me earn the most money (due to their reputation, networking opportunities, etc) are the ones I want to attend. In most cases, those schools happen to be non-profits. So therfore non-profit schools are the ones I want to attend if possible."

 

Don't forget, the quote I posted stated "greed for knowledge".

 

Let's just keep spending money we don't have and breaking the backs of tax payers is the point of what Dr. Lady is saying. IMO

 

Good points. I think in this case, I must agree with Newsom and Brown. It doesn't look good when you give a public servant a raise while lays off, bigger classroom sizes, tuitions, etc. will happen. If it is so attractive in private industry, this new President would have went that route.

As far as qualified applicants? The ball is in the employer's court right now. It's a buyer market. My rank and file position requires a minimum of 4 year degree, however our ranks are slowly being filled with MBA's PhD's, etc. and this is in bargaining unit that has voluntarily agreed to take away after take away in order to help the current situations. In my personal case, a good part of my income comes from private contract work (of which I pay taxes on of course).

Highly qualified individuals out of work right now? A dime a dozen.

Abner

 

This would mean he paid between $6M and $7M in personal federal income taxes. Plus, Bridgepoint in 2009 cleared $334M, meaning they paid around $100M in federal and $34M in state taxes. Ironically they are in CA; they are supporting the state funds while CSU is depleting them and upping the salaries at the top. Financially it looks like Bridgeport is better for CA than CSU. Bridgeport contributed around $34M to the state through taxes and, according to their 2009 financial statement, CSU lost $3.63B. The B is billions. $3.63 Billion operating loss. In all fairness that was down from a $3.69 Billion operating loss in the prior year....I can't fathom what it would mean to lose $3.63 Billion Dollars.

 

I was mostly just having a little fun as I see this type of post about for-profits all the time.. I've said it before, the tax status really has little to do with things from a financial quality standpoint.. education quality is even harder to understand..

Plus I enjoy watching the different viewpoints and how things are spun one way sometime and the other way other times, depending on self-interest and the desire for something to be true... many times people emphatically state as fact not what IS true, but what they HOPE is true..