College and university administrators, and boards, don’t seem to appreciate the value of money. Or perhaps they’re just insensitive to the value of other people’s money. Whatever the reason, the evidence is overwhelming that many of them have extravagant habits. And, of course, this extravagance contributes to the high cost of college, a cost borne not only by students and parents but also by all taxpayers in the form of massive public subsidies (grants, tax exemptions, tax credits and deductions, etc.). The City University of New York (CUNY) provides the latest example.
CUNY thought it was a wise use of funds to pay David Petraeus $200,000 for teaching a course and giving a couple of lectures (see this story). (And, of course, Mr. Petraeus thought it was appropriate to accept such sums from a public university notwithstanding the very sizable pension and benefits he is already receiving courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.)
According to Richard Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity:
[T]he issue is less about David Petraeus, who is a Ph.D. with a brilliant career, than it is about the ability of colleges to throw around money with seemingly no negative consequences. Universities are sheltered from the real world by a combination of government subsidies, institutional independence protected by laws and custom, and very limited internal scrutiny by governing boards.
When public colleges heavily dependent on taxpayers support expensive celebrity visits, legitimate questions can be raised about whether public funds have been misallocated. But arguably the same questions apply to so-called “private” schools, which get huge benefits from federal research overhead funds, student loans that allow them to jack up tuition fees, and tax-exempt status that enhances institutional income and wealth. The real issue, then, is should universities be more accountable to the broader public?
What will it take to bring sound financial stewardship to our college and university campuses? Perhaps we are beginning to see it: the inability and unwillingness of students and parents to pay exorbitantly high tuition and incur excessive debt to support this extravagant system.
Finding My College 
What’s all this rage about a one-off that actually has instructional value when we get complete silence about the fact that the highest paid state employees in 39 out of 50 states are college sports coaches?
“This revenue [sports] rarely makes its way back to the general funds of these universities. Looking at data from 2011-2012, athletic departments at 99 major schools lost an average of $5 million once you take out revenue generated from “student fees” and “university subsidies.” If you take out “contributions and donations”—some of which might have gone to the universities had they not been lavished on the athletic departments—this drops to an average loss of $17 million, with just one school (Army) in the black. All this football/basketball revenue is sucked up by coach and AD salaries, by administrative and facility costs, and by the athletic department’s non-revenue generating sports; it’s not like it’s going to microscopes and Bunsen burners.”
http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228
And complete silence about the millions of dollars of federal financial aid that goes to line the pockets of the CEO, board, and stockholders of for-profit educational institutions?
I can almost guarantee you that the students themselves thought having Petraeus as their teacher was worth the money that their institution spent on him — esp. since their tuition remained the same even though they had this high profile teacher. I don’t see how students benefit at all, but especially educationally, from million dollar coach salaries or from million dollar profits for investors at for-profits.
For the record, after the outcry he agreed to teach for a salary of $1 a year. The point is the students’ benefit:
http://rt.com/usa/petraeus-cuny-salary-scandal-190/
I guess you didn’t read my May 13 post (coaches salaries) or all the other ones in which I mentioned my opinion of for-profit institutions. There are plenty of reasons for the high cost of a college education, and extravagance in one area should not excuse extravagance in another.
I apologize for missing your previous posts — yes, somehow I did miss those. But it’s still apples and oranges: aside from the fact that he has now agreed to get paid $1 for teaching the course, Petraeus isn’t a part of CUNY’s normal operating budget. He’s one of about 16 people alive in the world today who have served as the Director of the CIA. Why is that an extravagance? Isn’t that a wonderful opportunity for CUNY students, especially in terms of the opportunity for future employment, letters of reference, etc.?