State higher education spending sees big decline Read more here: State higher education spending sees big decline - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee Hmmm, maybe if some of this schools top executives put a lid on the raises they give themselves, they wouldn't have to charge so much tuition. In essence, sticking to the student. In know this is an oversimplistic statement however. :smile: Abner
Where does the money come from to fund education in California? Is there a list of Administrator salaries in education for California? If we halved their salaries-how much, annually, would that save? Are education positions for the state of California Union?
Management/executive positions are non-union. As far as the specifics, I do not know off the top of my head. I do know the citizens of CA have expressed outrage over this issue, and the higher ed execs do not seem to care. The SacBee has posted a salary listing of said top executives. It did create outrage, but the execs just don't care. Abner
I’m just curious, but does anyone have a real breakdown (state or national) of physical facility, faculty, admin, technology, etc. as a percent of higher ed cost? Where are the really excessive cost? Maybe Texas did have the right idea with the $10k ‘applied’ degrees that would mostly be offered by community or distance colleges, somewhat like Florida is also doing.
I know the idea of slashing university administrators' salaries may seem appealing. However, having worked at a university that could not afford to hire quality leadership and seeing the consequences, I am VERY wary of this. I've seen what it was like when a university could not find truly qualified candidates for the president's position, and had to keep scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have seen what happens when the most qualified person applying for the job, isn't really qualified for the job. The result was a person who only seemed to show up to work for the perks and to collect a paycheck. At the same time, I have seen what happens at a DIFFERENT school, that was also ranked in the bottom, when they actually spent some money and hired a president who could LEAD the school to a better future. This is a school that went from tier 4 with a horrible reputation in the state, to tier 2 with a solid reputation in a matter of years. If you want quality, you have to pay for it.
I see your point. However, Californios resent the fact that top UC execs have their "housing", amongst other gratuties paid for. These digs aner not cheap in "Kalifornia". They can pay for their own digs, like everyone else. Abner
You mean like this UH story wouldn't go over too well?:boggled: University of Houston Chancellor living large | abc13.com
Housing was paid for as well in the case of the two schools I mentioned. In fact, in the case of the poor performing school, the President lives one of the nicest mansions in the area and has a state police officer drive them to work every day. None of that mattered when it came to attracting quality applicants. While those benefits were nice, people that could actually LEAD this university out of its horrible condition and into a bright future were receiving better offers at other schools. IIRC there are over 2100 public and private non-profit 4 year colleges and universities in the US. That number more than doubles if you include for-profits and community colleges. The competition for QUALITY candidates is fierce, and the compensation reflects it. A bad choice for president can literally DESTROY a university (see Morris Brown College).
