Money Isn’t the Problem

We keep hearing how all problems in higher education stem from lack of money. Money, money, money! The states are putting up less money! If only they put up more money, then…

What? What would happen then? How would all the riches in the world prevent colleges from turning into cesspits of fanaticism and idiocy? Money makes things worse. I know both Concordia and Middlebury. Concordia is swimming in money. It built up half of downtown Montreal with gleaming skyscrapers. Middlebury is very rich. Yet people get screamed down, beaten up, and thrown out. How did money help?

Money makes things worse in higher ed. People who do actual teaching and research never see it anyway. Money hires us more party apparatchiks and builds palace-like quarters for them. They destroy education with their assessment practices and equity efforts that fill the campus with students who shouldn’t be in college. Then we can’t attract anybody but these unprepared students. So we need more money to pay for gimmicks like stadiums and access services that award everybody a disability so that they don’t have to study.

It’s a vicious circle where more and more and more money makes students and professors poorer and dumber.

11 thoughts on “Money Isn’t the Problem”

    1. I’m not sure to understand this.

      I believe she might be referring to things like the recent admissions scandal, in which it was revealed that psychologists were handing out ADD diagnoses like party favors to anyone who asked for one.


      1. And yes, this is another facet of it.

        One no longer can teach with a chalkboard and a piece of chalk and stay on the good side of the disability office. Everything has to be recorded and placed online. Of course, once it’s online, the faculty become expendable.


    2. The new trend is “social anxieties” which means students don’t have to participate in class or even show up. How one is supposed to teach people who are never there is a mystery.


  1. It’s about tuition. If state subsidies for public education returned to pre-Reagan-era levels, institutions would not have to rely on tuition revenue and corporate partnerships to stay in business. Tuition could be reduced and students would not take on as much debt, nor would so many have to squeeze in education around work commitments.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It would never be reduced though. Never. We’ve had our state appropriations returned and increased after Rauner was voted out of office. But the tuitions went up and the faculty can’t get even a cost-of-living increase. Even though the university is sitting on $28 million in reserves and the salary increase would cost $250,000.

      This money will never ever ever go to faculty or to students. Because there is an army of idiots we have to be feeding and that army grows.


      1. This isn’t regulated? Here, when we had state funding, we couldn’t have high tuition and we got more regular raises (Louisiana does not do cost of living increases). Now that we don’t have state funding, tuition is high and the university can use it on whatever it wants, which is frills and middle management and software.


        1. In 25 months the union hasn’t been able to get a contract. Precisely because the administration doesn’t want the process to be regulated. We haven’t even gotten our secretary back because, as we were told, all the cuts made during the budget crisis are permanent.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.