All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Mister Mets]

You ever hear about "bipartisan bills"? How about "reaching across the aisle"?

What was so different about this congress than ANY other that made it impossible to get bills passed that the president would veto?

There are several answers to that.

It's typical for Presidents to veto much more legislation when the other party has control of both chambers of Congress. George W Bush only vetoed one piece of legislation in the six years when Republicans controlled Congress. After Democrats took both chambers in the 2006 midterms, he issued eleven vetoes. Clinton had no vetoes in his first two years as President, and then issued a total of 37 in the remaining six years. In this context, Obama's two vetoes are a bit unusual, occurring when Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

The 2011-2014 Congress is also a bit unusual in that Republicans had one chamber, and Democrats had the other for four years. That hasn't really happened in recent politics. Democrats controlled both chambers from 1987-1994, until Republicans generally held control from 1995-2006 (there were two odd exceptions in 2001-2002), and Democrats took it back from 2007-2010. The dynamic of a Senator Majority Leader having reason to reject legislation that comes from the House is unusual.

In news from my state, Governor Scott Walker has decided to give the University of Wisconsin (where I went to school not too long ago) more autonomy that will make it, as he puts it:



How will he achieve this? By cutting the state funding for the university system by 13% of the next two years. That would be about $300 million according to other articles I saw (more information here)

Less money going towards schools, colleges, and universities is good thing, right?

The problem with academia isn't a lack of funding, but what they choose to spend their money on.

[TheNewFiftyForum]

The problem with academia isn't a lack of funding, but what they choose to spend their money on.

Would you care to elaborate? I don't have the greatest insight into American academia, but that statement still seems very sweeping.

[Michael P]

Stupid stuff like advancing human knowledge or examining the way society works to see if there's any way we can do better.

[Kid A]

If lack of funding wasn't a problem, college tuition rates wouldn't be skyrocketing like they've been for the last few decades. State governments made the decision to focus more on federal loans for students instead of direct grants for colleges.

[CSTowle]

Like the issue of regulation earlier in the thread, I'd agree that what gets taught/studied at some colleges is less useful/important than other things (though more intelligent and learned individuals than I would disagree and point out that knowledge can come from surprising areas). I'd also agree it's worth looking at and discussing. But when a Governor like Walker jumps in and says basically "I don't like some of what you're teaching (or your politics), so I'm going to slash your funding across the board to teach you a lesson" that's going way past the line of reasonable discussion. That's reactionary, tea-party crazy behavior.

[JCAll]

Stupid stuff like advancing human knowledge or examining the way society works to see if there's any way we can do better.

I had assumed it was all Booze, Sex, and World of Warcraft.

[Tendrin]

The problem with academia isn't a lack of funding, but what they choose to spend their money on.

Actually, that's not the problem. The problem is that some people don't LIKE what they choose to spend their money on and want to add strings so that they get results consistent with their world view. It's about controlling research and results.

Period.

Oh, and 'deliberalizing' colleges because, liberals suck and stuff.

[JaggedFel]

Pretty much a bunch of corporations wanting to control results.

[Mister Mets]

Would you care to elaborate? I don't have the greatest insight into American academia, but that statement still seems very sweeping.

Given the value of a degree, colleges don't really have incentives to cut costs, and this impacts spending.

A few years ago, Benjamin Ginsburg of Washington Monthly wrote about administration bloat, the rise in the number of administrators, all of whom have to be paid.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mag...1.php?page=all

Apparently, as colleges and universities have had more money to spend, they have not chosen to spend it on expanding their instructional resources—that is, on paying faculty. They have chosen, instead, to enhance their administrative and staff resources. A comprehensive study published by the Delta Cost Project in 2010 reported that between 1998 and 2008, America’s private colleges increased spending on instruction by 22 percent while increasing spending on administration and staff support by 36 percent. Parents who wonder why college tuition is so high and why it increases so much each year may be less than pleased to learn that their sons and daughters will have an opportunity to interact with more administrators and staffers— but not more professors. Well, you can’t have everything.

Of course, universities have always employed administrators. When I was a graduate student in the 1960s and a young professor in the 1970s, however, top administrators were generally drawn from the faculty, and even midlevel managerial tasks were directed by faculty members. These moonlighting academics typically occupied administrative slots on a part-time or temporary basis and planned in due course to return to full-time teaching and research. Whatever their individual faults and gifts, faculty administrators seldom had to be reminded that the purpose of a university was the promotion of education and research, and their own short-term managerial endeavors tended not to distract them from their long-term academic commitments.

Alas, today’s full-time professional administrators tend to view management as an end in and of itself. Most have no faculty experience, and even those who have spent time in a classroom or laboratory often hope to make administration their life’s work and have no plan to return to teaching. For many of these career managers, promoting teaching and research is less important than expanding their own administrative domains. Under their supervision, the means have become the end.

Every year, hosts of administrators and staffers are added to college and university payrolls, even as schools claim to be battling budget crises that are forcing them to reduce the size of their full-time faculties. As a result, universities are now filled with armies of functionaries—vice presidents, associate vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, provosts, associate provosts, vice provosts, assistant provosts, deans, deanlets, and deanlings, all of whom command staffers and assistants—who, more and more, direct the operations of every school. If there is any hope of getting higher education costs in line, and improving its quality—and I think there is, though the hour is late—it begins with taking a pair of shears to the overgrown administrative bureaucracy.

The economist Thomas Sowell had a chapter on Academics in his book Economic Facts and Fallacies, which I do highly recommend for anyone interested in conservative views on economics. He made some similar points, although in much less depth, in a column about the incentives colleges have with spending.

http://www.creators.com/conservative...-part-iii.html

The University of Colorado law school had its accreditation by the American Bar Association put in jeopardy simply because they did not spend enough money on books for their law library — even though their students passed the bar exam on the first try at a higher rate than the law students at Harvard and Yale.

The criteria used by most accrediting agencies are based on inputs — essentially spending — rather than results for students.

Competition among academic institutions therefore seldom takes the form of lowering their costs of operation, in order to lower tuition. The incentives are all the other way.

Competition often takes the form of offering more upscale amenities — posh lounges, bowling alleys, wi-fi, finer dorms.

None of this means better education. But, so long as the customers keep buying it — with government help — the colleges will keep selling it.

The Washington Post's wonkblog had a ten part series on the cost of rising tuition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ion-is-rising/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-in-spending/

The Córdova Center wasn’t an expense that needed to be paid for. It was an expense made because it could be made, because the nonprofit university rewards those who spend money, not those who save it. This basic principle has come to be known as the “Bowen effect.”

First elaborated by the late Howard Bowen, an economist and president of Grinnell College, in his book "Costs of Higher Education," the theory, in its most basic form, is that universities will spend all the money they can possibly raise. If they raise more than they need for educational objectives, they will spend it on non-educational uses like climbing walls and nicer buildings.

But it doesn’t go the other way.Under financial strain, universities will seek to increase revenue and avoid cuts at all costs. Bowen summarized the theory, also known as the "revenue theory of cost," in five rules:

1. "The dominant goals of institutions are educational excellence, prestige, and influence."

2. "There is virtually no limit to the amount of money an institution could spend for seemingly fruitful educational ends."

3. "Each institution raises all the money it can."

4. "Each institution spends all it raises."

5. "The cumulative effect of the preceding four laws is toward ever increasing expenditure."

[Paradox]

CSTowle has me curious:

Like the issue of regulation earlier in the thread, I'd agree that what gets taught/studied at some colleges is less useful/important than other things (though more intelligent and learned individuals than I would disagree and point out that knowledge can come from surprising areas). I'd also agree it's worth looking at and discussing. But when a Governor like Walker jumps in and says basically "I don't like some of what you're teaching (or your politics), so I'm going to slash your funding across the board to teach you a lesson" that's going way past the line of reasonable discussion. That's reactionary, tea-party crazy behavior.

Is he doing that particular crazy behavior? This just sound more like Walker continuing being an asshole that thinks you can run government like it's a small private business. All that matters is the bottom line. I can less see Walker thinking "we can control what they teach" than "those kids don't need that money, GIMME!".

[Paradox]

Well, Mets, your first quote isn't even talking about schools like the U of W.

"...comprehensive study published by the Delta Cost Project in 2010 reported that between 1998 and 2008, America’s private colleges increased spending on instruction by 22 percent while increasing spending on administration and staff support by 36 percent."

The second one makes a very erroneous connection...

"...even though their students passed the bar exam on the first try at a higher rate than the law students at Harvard and Yale."

Bar exams are different from state to state and they make them harder or easier depending on how many new lawyers they want to put out there. Comparing raw "passings" is fairly meaningless without taking what states into account. And again, this is law schools we're talking about, not schools like the U of W.

[PretenderNX01]

Given the value of a degree, colleges don't really have incentives to cut costs, and this impacts spending.

But what spending are they going to cut? Sports? That's actually a drain on many colleges.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/10/commentary/sportsbiz/
But even with those efforts to grab more revenue, the pace of revenue growth has begun to slow.
Dan Fulks, an accounting professor for Translyvania University who is working as a consultant for the NCAA in its response to Ways & Means, said preliminary figures show that ticket sales and other revenue generated directly by Division 1-A football and basketball programs grew only 6 percent between 2003 and 2005, compraed with 18.5 percent growth between 2001 and 2003.
Brand acknowledged in a speech at the National Press Club last week that partly due to slowing growth of ticket sales and other revenue, college sports is causing a greater financial drain on school budgets.
"As outside revenue growth for athletics begins to moderate at most institutions, the rate of budget growth has not always followed," he said. "In many instances, the result has been a need for increased support of athletics through institutional funds."

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Page...Cash-Cow2.aspx
For almost every other university, sports is a money-losing proposition. Only big-time college football has a chance of generating enough net revenue to cover not only its own costs but those of “Olympic” sports like field hockey, gymnastics, and swimming. Not even men’s basketball at places like Duke University or the University of Kansas can generate enough revenue to make programs profitable.

As a result, most colleges and universities rely on what the NCAA calls “allocated revenue.” This includes direct and indirect support from general funds, student fees, and government appropriations. In other words, most colleges subsidize their athletics programs, sometimes to startling degrees.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

By the way, looks like Scott Walker might throw his hat into the ring for a presidential run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...sidential-bid/

[Spike-X]

But what spending are they going to cut? Sports?

Bwahahahahahaha! Good one.

[Spike-X]

Less money going towards schools, colleges, and universities is good thing, right?

It is for Republicans, because that's the way ignorant, uneducated people are more likely to vote.