The costs of higher education have been rising dramatically over the last two decades. 
Consequently, many students graduate burdened with debt or forgo college altogether. Parents question the value of much of the material taught. And some studies suggest that students don't learn much. Nevertheless, a four-year degree is increasingly necessary for economic success and security. As Stuart Butler argues, this is an industry ripe for change.
One of the costs of higher education, the faculty, are coming under scrutiny. "Overlooked in the debate," David C. Levy writes in the Washington Post, "are reforms for outmoded employment policies that overcompensate faculty for inefficient teaching schedules."
Consequently, many students graduate burdened with debt or forgo college altogether. Parents question the value of much of the material taught. And some studies suggest that students don't learn much. Nevertheless, a four-year degree is increasingly necessary for economic success and security. As Stuart Butler argues, this is an industry ripe for change. One of the costs of higher education, the faculty, are coming under scrutiny. "Overlooked in the debate," David C. Levy writes in the Washington Post, "are reforms for outmoded employment policies that overcompensate faculty for inefficient teaching schedules."
Levy argues that the salary range for most tenured faculty (ranging from $80,000 to $150,000) is not out of line. Rather, he argues that professors should be working, i.e. teaching, more for what they earn. With a few caveats, I think Levy is right that faculty teaching loads should be part of the higher education reform debate. Here are a few quick reactions to his piece.
Levy makes a distinction between research universities and more teaching oriented colleges and asserts that the reduced teaching loads of the former are justified but not the latter. My sense, however, is that this distinction is harder to make in practice than Levy suggests. Clearly if one compares the University of Virginia, a major research university, with a community college the distinction holds up. However, there are many places in between that are harder to assess.
Two other important issues structuring the higher education labor marker that Levy does not discuss are the tenure system and the fact that much teaching today is farmed out to inexpensive (read: exploited) adjuncts. In addition, he neglects other drivers of higher education costs, like major (and probably unnecessary) infrastructure projects and college athletic programs.
Levy makes a distinction between research universities and more teaching oriented colleges and asserts that the reduced teaching loads of the former are justified but not the latter. My sense, however, is that this distinction is harder to make in practice than Levy suggests. Clearly if one compares the University of Virginia, a major research university, with a community college the distinction holds up. However, there are many places in between that are harder to assess.
Two other important issues structuring the higher education labor marker that Levy does not discuss are the tenure system and the fact that much teaching today is farmed out to inexpensive (read: exploited) adjuncts. In addition, he neglects other drivers of higher education costs, like major (and probably unnecessary) infrastructure projects and college athletic programs.
Join the conversation