The Cost of Undergraduate Education at
a Research University II
by Charles Schwartz. Professor
Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
schwartz@physics.berkeley.edu
December 18, 2005
It’s Not Just a UC
Problem – Other Universities are Caught Up
The previous calculation –
disaggregating the cost of undergraduate education from other missions
at the University of California – is now extended to other top rank
research universities. The comparable public institutions (Illinois,
Michigan, SUNY, Virginia) appear much like UC, where undergraduate
student fees are now around 100% of the actual cost of their
education. At the comparable privates (Harvard, M.I.T., Stanford,
Yale) it appears that their undergraduate students are grossly
overcharged for what the institution actually spends on their education.
Our universities have a marvelous trick for
calculating the Cost of Instruction, which goes like this: From the
total of all operating expenditures over the last year, subtract those
that are paid for by specific external contracts – such as sponsored
research, medical services, dormitories and meals, etc. – and then
divide the remaining expenditure by the number of students enrolled to
get the cost-per-student. This is, in brief, the formula
promulgated a few years ago by NACUBO, the National Association of
College and University Business Officers. (See http://www.nacubo.org/x376.xml
) It was designed as a way to answer public complaints
about the rising rates of tuition and fees, since the published
“costs”, following their method, invariably exceed the amounts charged
to undergraduates. (“You are not being overcharged; you are being
subsidized.”)
If your college is only in the business of
undergraduate education, that is probably reasonable; but if you are a
research university, you are close to committing fraud.
Professors at a top research university spend about half of their
work-time at research, and another quarter of their work-time at
graduate, rather than undergraduate teaching. To be honest, one should
disaggregate the costs.
The top budget officer of my school, the
University of California, says that the current annual Cost of
Instruction is about $16,000 per student. I have done a detailed
calculation, using official accounting reports and an official faculty
time-use study, to conclude that, averaging over all UC programs,
undergraduate education costs this institution just under $7,000 per
student per year. (See the details of this calculation at http://ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/UndergradCost.html
)
Thus, current levels of undergraduate student fees now cover the full
actual cost of their education at UC! That is shocking. Various
experts have said that my result must be wrong; and a few have
manufactured rather hilarious reasons to discredit it. (See
http://ocf.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/ExpertsRespond.html
) None have given any objective basis for faulting my analysis,
although I continue to seek that sort of academic dialogue. I have a
list of many small details in the calculation where better data,
discussion or analysis could lead to a more precise answer.
Extending
the Calculation to Other Universities
In one earlier attempt to get this issue
before a larger audience, I was rebuffed by an editor because my
calculation was limited to this one university, thus lacked national
significance. I have now found a way to extend my results, at
least approximately, to other leading research universities; and this I
will describe below. (Of course, if I had access to their
detailed internal accounting reports, as I do at UC, then I could do
the same calculation more exactly; but this will be a beginning.)
First I say that the total cost for
undergraduate education at any university may be fairly well
represented by two contributions: one proportional to the number of
Faculty and the other proportional to the number of Students. C = aF +
bS. The coefficient a (the cost component per faculty) should be
approximately the same for all comparable universities – I am
considering here top rank research universities that compete with one
another to hire the best research professors in each field.
The coefficient b has two parts: b = b1 +
b2. The first part, b1, comes from the Academic Support
category of expenditures and is probably constant at about $1,000. per
student for Library and Computer Support expenditures. The second
part, b2, is likely to vary (especially between private and public
universities) because of institutional choice on how much out-of-class
services are provided to their students. But, that datum
(coefficient b2) is available from IPEDS (the U.S. Department of
Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System), where one
can look up the annual expenditure for Student Services per FTE student
enrolled at any individual university. The coefficient a is then
deduced from my detailed calculation for UC; and the answer is a =
$71,000.
For any other comparable research university,
one then estimates the Cost-per-Student of undergraduate education as
follows:
C/S = a/R + b , where R is the undergraduate student-to-faculty (FTE)
ratio for that university. The values for R may be obtained, for
example, from the Common Data Set (provided on most universities’
websites); this ratio is supposed to count undergraduate programs only,
and one should be careful to check that.
Well, then, here are some results, where I
also give the amount charged for tuition & fees (but excluding room
and board and excluding nonresident fees). These are the eight
“comparison” universities that UC measures itself against. I have
rounded the cost estimates and the fees to the nearest thousand dollars.
Estimated Actual Cost-per-Student for
Undergraduate Education
|
b($)
|
R=S/F ratio*
|
Cost-per-Student
|
Tuition & Fees
|
U. California
|
2,913 (1)
|
18
|
$7,000
|
$7,000
|
Harvard U.
|
7,801
|
7.0
|
$18,000
|
$32,000
|
M. I. T.
|
5,874
|
3.5 (?)
|
$26,000
|
$32,000
|
Stanford U.
|
5,394
|
6.4
|
$16,000
|
$31,000
|
Yale U.
|
--- (2)
|
6.6
|
$19,000
|
$31,000
|
U. Illinois
|
2,166
|
14
|
$7,000
|
$9,000
|
U. Michigan
|
2,347
|
15
|
$7,000
|
$9,000
|
SUNY-Buffalo
|
1,676
|
17
|
$6,000
|
$5,000
|
U. Virginia
|
1,801
|
15
|
$7,000
|
$7,000
|
(1) This comes from my detailed calculation for UC (averaged over all
campuses).
(2) Yale’s published number for Student Services is anomalous
($21,481); so I have used Harvard’s number here.
* For the privates, I use the Common Data Set (CDS) or other online
sources; for the publics, I take these ratios from US News, “Best
Colleges”, which uses CDS.
My original criticism was that UC is charging
its undergraduate students for the full cost of its actual expenditure
on their education (in other words, the state subsidy for undergraduate
education has vanished). How does it look for those other leading
research universities? The other public universities are in a similar
situation. The comparable private universities are in a much more
extreme situation: they are overcharging their undergraduate students
by up to 90% of their actual cost.
I expect to hear plenty of complaints about
this. Indeed, this is not exact but only a first approximation. I
would be happy to consult with officials from anyplace listed above, so
that we may examine their detailed accounts and arrive at a more
accurate answer, using a consistent methodology as described in my
paper.
One might mention that faculty salaries at UC
presently lag behind those at the leading private universities, due to
state budget difficulties. Then one must also remember that those
private universities have large endowments, whose income pays a
significant part of their professors’ salaries. Those two asymmetries
tend to cancel one another out. As I said, this is not expected
to be the last word on this subject; but I hope it will be the
beginning of a more transparent and honest public accounting.
Lingering
Debate
My methodology for disaggregating the cost of
undergraduate education from other university missions, while it
appears very rational and objective to me, continues to sit poorly with
many colleagues and so-called experts on higher education. A lingering
line of argument goes like this: Surely the research activity of the
professors contributes something of significant value to undergraduate
education, and this is left out of Schwartz’ calculation of cost. I
tried to deal with this issue in Section IV of my large paper, but let
me make another attempt here.
First, we should note that the words “value”
and “cost” have different meanings. As used here, Value is a subjective calculation
performed by the purchaser of some product: Do I want to spend
$30,000 for a luxury automobile when I can buy a fine quality car for
half that price? It is up to me, the purchaser, to decide if the added
features of the luxury car are valuable enough to me to justify the
higher price. As used here, Cost
is an objective calculation performed by the producer of the
product: What did it actually cost me, the manufacturer, to produce
that car?
If I am a manufacturing executive, I rely on
my accounting department to tell me about my costs and I rely on my
marketing department to hype the value of our products to
potential customers. If I am an executive of a research university,
shouldn’t I also be clear about the difference between costs and values
in speaking about the financial facts of undergraduate education? Let’s
be honest about this.
There is a second question hidden here: Is it
true that we professors at a research university bring something better
to our undergraduate teaching because of our research expertise?
I am sure most of my colleagues do believe that is true, in part
because we ourselves are so thrilled by the beauty of our own
intellectual endeavors. But let us ask some other stakeholders
how they view this question.
The Princeton Review is a private company that
collects data and publishes booklets on students’ college
choices. In their “Best 357 Colleges, 2005,” they include the
results of a survey of 110,000 undergraduate students at those
schools. One critical evaluation was asking students to respond
to the question, “Are your instructors good teachers?” on a scale of 60
to 99 points. As I first saw this data summarized in an article
by Andrew Hacker in The New
York Review of Books, November 3, 2005, it showed several
Liberal Arts Colleges scoring at the top (96 – 99 points) and several
research universities scoring near the bottom (UCLA 61, Texas 65,
Michigan 68, Harvard 69, Penn 69, Berkeley 70, Columbia 70, NYU 73).
I have carried out a more thorough study of
this pertinent data source, with the following results. Among the 60
members of the Association of American Universities (the leading
research universities), the average reported score on this “Profs
Interesting rating” is 67 ± 4.6 (that ± is the standard
deviation) for the public research universities and 74 ± 7.5 for
the private ones. In contrast with these low ratings (on the
scale of 60-99) were those for the leading Liberal Arts Colleges (using
US News’ list of the top 60): they averaged 94 ± 4.1 in the
students’ ratings of how well their “Professors Bring Material to
Life.” Unless there is some major flaw in that data, this seems
to debunk the claim that our focus on research makes us better teachers
at the undergraduate level.