WHAT OTH­ERS ARE SAY­ING

Chicago Tribune (Sunday) - - EDITORIALS -

Be­fore the au­to­mo­bile, be­fore the Statue of Lib­erty, be­fore the vast ma­jor­ity of con­tem­po­rary col­leges ex­isted, the ris­ing cost of higher ed­u­ca­tion was shock­ing the Amer­i­can con­science: “Gen­tle­men have to pay for their sons in one year more than they spent them­selves in the whole four years of their course,” The New York Times lamented in 1875. Deca­dence was to blame, the writer ar­gued: fancy stu­dent apart­ments, ex­pen­sive meals, and “the ma­nia for ath­letic sports.” ...

All told, in­clud­ing the con­tri­bu­tions of fam­i­lies and the govern­ment (in the form of stu­dent loans, grants, and other as­sis­tance), Amer­i­cans spend about $30,000 per stu­dent a year, nearly twice as much as the av­er­age de­vel­oped coun­try . ... Only one coun­try spends more per stu­dent, and that coun­try is Lux­em­bourg, where tu­ition is nev­er­the­less free for stu­dents, thanks to govern­ment out­lays . ...

U.S. col­leges spend, rel­a­tive to other coun­tries, a star­tling amount of money on their non­teach­ing staff ... Some of these peo­ple are li­brar­i­ans or ca­reer or men­tal-health coun­selors who di­rectly ben­e­fit stu­dents, but many oth­ers do tan­gen­tial jobs that may have more to do with at­tract- ing stu­dents than with learn­ing. Many U.S. col­leges em­ploy armies of fund-rais­ers, ath­letic staff, lawyers, ad­mis­sions and fi­nan­cial-aid of­fi­cers, di­ver­sity-and-in­clu­sion man­agers, build­ing-op­er­a­tions and main­te­nance staff, se­cu­rity per­son­nel, trans­porta­tion work­ers, and foodservic­e work­ers . ...

U.S. col­leges spend more on non­teach­ing staff than on teach­ers, which is up­side down com­pared with ev­ery other coun­try that pro­vided data to the OECD (with the ex­cep­tion of Lux­em­bourg, nat­u­rally). Amanda Ri­p­ley, The At­lantic

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.