moron wrote:
You apparently don't realize that almost all professors get paid out of the grant money they bring in. Their salaries don't come from student tuition.
moron wrote:
You apparently don't realize that almost all professors get paid out of the grant money they bring in. Their salaries don't come from student tuition.
Let's fact-check that.
Here's the top-ten grant-getting schools in geology. Let's start with a private school like Yale. In 2007 Yale got .96 grants per faculty, for a per-faculty average of about $95,000.
http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&primary=4&secondary=172&bycat=GoIn 2013 the average for all faculty, including lecturers, was about $137,000, and $180,000 for full professors. So they weren't being paid 95k or less in 2007.
http://faculty-salaries.findthedata.org/l/1956/Yale-UniversityHow about a well-funded public school like UCLA. $86k in grants per faculty in 2007. Salary per-faculty - again including unlikely grant applicants like lecturers - averaged $128k in 2013, and $160k for full professors. Unless their pay went up 50% in only 6 years, the grant money was not covering their pay.
http://faculty-salaries.findthedata.org/l/742/University-of-California-Los-Angeles-UCLABesides being wrong about faculty salaries, you also missed the obvious point that without high tuition rates, the institutions themselves would not have the infrastructure to hire faculty in the first place. You can't get a grant at a college that doesn't have a lab for you to work in. The growth of university facilities is possible because of the extra money available from high tuition. If that margin weren't there, the growth would be impossible. And that money mainly comes from the future in the form of stafford loans.
Your attitude is typical of the snob intellectual - the NSF gives me lots of money so everyone else should too, including young borrowers with no idea how to manage money. You justify usury with self-aggrandizement.