Unionization at MU

[muwarrior69]

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com

I know,  I really know it's McAdams; but please ignore the source. I am just asking would this raise tuition and room and board costs at MU? Do other Universities have union staff and does it work?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com

I know,  I really know it's McAdams; but please ignore the source. I am just asking would this raise tuition and room and board costs at MU? Do other Universities have union staff and does it work?

I know Yale staff is unionized. 

[real chili 83]

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com

I know,  I really know it's McAdams; but please ignore the source. I am just asking would this raise tuition and room and board costs at MU? Do other Universities have union staff and does it work?

According to Sam Gompers, hell yes.

Nod to Dr. Briggs for that one.

[warriorchick]

Chick Jr. is a grad student worker at Marquette.  She says she has received a few emails about the union, but she ignores them, because she believes she is already compensated fairly.  She gets free grad school tuition, a stipend, and access to health care plans (which she does not take advantage of since she gets it at her main job). 

If she stays on her intended path, she will get a Masters and PhD without incurring any debt, which she thinks is a pretty good deal.

[Jockey]

Chick Jr. is a grad student worker at Marquette.  She says she has received a few emails about the union, but she ignores them, because she believes she is already compensated fairly.  She gets free grad school tuition, a stipend, and access to health care plans (which she does not take advantage of since she gets it at her main job). 

If she stays on her intended path, she will get a Masters and PhD without incurring any debt, which she thinks is a pretty good deal.

That will be the key right there. If most feel they are treated/compensated fairly, there is little chance of a union coming in.

[Benny B]

In the private sector (e.g. manufacturers) organizers and unions often promote the idea that any "union premium" is mostly absorbed by ownership and not passed on to the consumer, i.e. the union simply squeezes the profit margin by a tiny bit.

Whether or not that's true, there's no such thing as a profit margin at a (non-profit) university.  Regardless, it doesn't mean that any costs will be passed along to the consumer... let's say that the cost to MU of unionization was $100,000 (using arbitrary figures here), they could jack everyone's tuition by $10, or they could cut $100,000 from operating expenses, or they could cut a few GA's, or they could do some combination of the above.  The only place it's not going to come from is the endowment or a capital fund.

For the record, I never received anything regarding unionization during my days as a CoBA grad assistant.  Maybe we weren't really their demographic, or maybe shoring up the rolls wasn't as critical back in the mid-2000's as it is today.

[Coleman]

Chick Jr. is a grad student worker at Marquette.  She says she has received a few emails about the union, but she ignores them, because she believes she is already compensated fairly.  She gets free grad school tuition, a stipend, and access to health care plans (which she does not take advantage of since she gets it at her main job). 

If she stays on her intended path, she will get a Masters and PhD without incurring any debt, which she thinks is a pretty good deal.

Grad students like your daughter are not the ones being exploited in the university system. It is the non-tenure track faculty and adjuncts who have it really bad. And those people should unionize, it is pretty despicable how they are treated, not just at Marquette but everywhere. I suspect they are trying to loop as many grad students into their cause because strength in numbers.

Personally, if I was in your daughter's position I would join, because an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

[jsglow]

Grad students like your daughter are not the ones being exploited in the university system. It is the non-tenure track faculty and adjuncts who have it really bad. And those people should unionize, it is pretty despicable how they are treated, not just at Marquette but everywhere. I suspect they are trying to loop as many grad students into their cause because strength in numbers.

Personally, if I was in your daughter's position I would join, because an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Really? I hope she focuses all of her attention looking out for her own self interest as she perceives it to be.

[Herman Cain]

Chick Jr. is a grad student worker at Marquette.  She says she has received a few emails about the union, but she ignores them, because she believes she is already compensated fairly.  She gets free grad school tuition, a stipend, and access to health care plans (which she does not take advantage of since she gets it at her main job). 

If she stays on her intended path, she will get a Masters and PhD without incurring any debt, which she thinks is a pretty good deal.

I love hearing these kind of success stories. Will serve her well through life. Kudos to her and to her parents for a job well done.

[Galway Eagle]

Really? I hope she focuses all of her attention looking out for her own self interest as she perceives it to be.

Isn't this philosophy the opposite you instilled in your son whom you boast about the service trips and such he goes on?

Not saying either is right or wrong just looking for some clarification why one brings you pride fighting injustice and the other you say is hopefully only looking out for her own self interest.

[jsglow]

Isn't this philosophy the opposite you instilled in your son whom you boast about the service trips and such he goes on?

Not saying either is right or wrong just looking for some clarification why one brings you pride fighting injustice and the other you say is hopefully only looking out for her own self interest.

Not at all. She is of service every day at the hospital.  That doesn't mean she has to make sub optimal economic decisions for the sake of others. I guess we just have a different view of the 'victimization' of non tenured instructors. My answer. Get a different job.

[Benny B]

Not saying either is right or wrong just looking for some clarification why one brings you pride fighting injustice and the other you say is hopefully only looking out for her own self interest.

Depending on how one defines "fighting injustice," it doesn't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive with looking out for your own self-interest.  Taking this example, not every union provides justice to its own membership... in some cases, the membership is worse off being part of an organization that - whether by design or unintentionally - serves only a small fraction.  The same can be said for just about any organization... the bottom line is that very few people actually sacrifice their entire self-interest in order to make the world a better place for others, and while many more sacrifice none, the majority of us are left to find a balance somewhere in between... but since everyone else has their own opinion of what "injustice" is, justice for everyone cannot exist if your perspective is dichotomous.

[warriorchick]

The following is my own opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the view of anyone else:

The pay for adjuncts and non-tenure track professors would increase if Marquette was unable to fill those jobs at the current rates.  It's not like Milwaukee is a company town and Marquette is the only place to work.

Every one of those people is an educated person who could very likely make more money doing something else.  At my own organization, we have folks with advanced degrees from Northwestern and University of Chicago who hold well-paid administrative positions completely unrelated to their field of study. Other people I know ended up getting teaching certificates and taught at the High School level, which also pays significantly more.

My daughter wants to be a university-level teacher, and due to the shortage of available faculty in her field of study, she will probably not have much of a problem getting a tenure-track position.  Even then, she is very likely to take a pay cut from her current job, where she is practicing her field of study.  She is fine with that because it is her passion, and you won't catch her complaining about it.

Just because you get an advanced degree in a particular area of study doesn't mean you are entitled to a high-paying job teaching it. 

[Galway Eagle]

Not at all. She is of service every day at the hospital.  That doesn't mean she has to make sub optimal economic decisions for the sake of others. I guess we just have a different view of the 'victimization' of non tenured instructors. My answer. Get a different job.

Fair enough, as I said just looking for some clarification as on first glance it seemed to be a statement clashing with your brand. And as Benny said I guess it depends on ones opinion of injustice.

[Coleman]

I think some folks are misinterpreting my position. Perhaps it is my fault because I wasn't terribly clear. It is not that I think universities should necessarily pay adjuncts or non-tenured faculty more. It is that we should have less adjuncts, and more tenure-track faculty.

In the last 10-20 years, universities have moved away from tenured faculty to a model of more and more adjuncts who don't get benefits and make probably less than minimum wage when you consider how much time goes into instruction and the fact that they are paid by the course.

This is by no means unique to MU. But the trend is worrying. It lessens the value of instruction to students, and the employment it provides is not a living wage. Many adjuncts have poverty wages and are dependent on welfare programs to survive. Catholic social doctrine demands dignity of the worker and a living wage. It is hypocritical for MU to provide jobs that do not meet this basic threshold. The invisible hand of the free market should not be the sole basis for hiring decisions at a Catholic, Jesuit university.

I do not wish for adjuncts to be paid more. I just wish for less adjuncts. If adjuncts demanding benefits and pay increases through unionization makes the current model economically less advantageous and tips the scales back towards hiring more tenure track faculty, all the better.

Finally, my position was never meant as a criticism of anyone's decision on whether to unionize or not unionize. But I do think that social justice demands more than finite service projects or charitable giving that are tangential to the rest of our everyday life. We also need to incorporate justice into decisions about our jobs, our commutes, our diet, our housing, and every other aspect of our life. Prudential people may come to different decisions about each of these facets of everyday life, but we certainly cannot exclude them from our sense of justice. Self-interest should be part of the equation, but it should also be colored by a broader sense of the common good.

[jsglow]

Fair enough, as I said just looking for some clarification as on first glance it seemed to be a statement clashing with your brand. And as Benny said I guess it depends on ones opinion of injustice.

All good Galway.

One of our daughter's mentors is a tenure track professor at MU.  She also works 'float' at St. Luke's.  I once asked her if she did that to keep her skills sharp.  She said 'Nope, I like to take nice vacations!'
 

[warriorchick]

I think some folks are misinterpreting my position. Perhaps it is my fault because I wasn't terribly clear. It is not that I think universities should necessarily pay adjuncts or non-tenured faculty more. It is that we should have less adjuncts, and more tenure-track faculty.

In the last 10-20 years, universities have moved away from tenured faculty to a model of more and more adjuncts who they don't have to pay benefits and make probably less than minimum wage when you consider how much time goes into instruction and the fact that they are paid by the course.

This is by no means unique to MU. But the trend is worrying. It lessens the value of instruction to students, and the employment it provides is not a living wage. Many adjuncts have poverty wages and are dependent on welfare programs to survive. Catholic social doctrine demands dignity of the worker and a living wage. It is hypocritical for MU to provide jobs that do not meet this basic threshold.

I do not wish for adjuncts to be paid more. I just wish for less adjuncts. If adjuncts demanding benefits and pay increases through unionization makes the current model economically less advantageous and tips the scales back towards hiring more tenure track faculty, all the better.

Finally, my position was never meant as a criticism of anyone's decision on whether to unionize or not unionize. But I do think that social justice demands more than finite service projects or charitable giving that are tangential to everyday life. We also need to incorporate justice into decisions about our jobs, our commutes, our diet, our housing, and every aspect of our life. Prudential people may come to different decisions about each of these facets of everyday life, but we certainly cannot exclude them from our sense of justice. Self-interest should be part of the equation, but it should also be colored by a sense of social justice and the common good.

Are you sure that this is the case for Marquette?  I am certain that all of their full-time positions pay above a living wage.  As for the adjuncts, I believe that they are paid on a per-class basis, and most people who teach them (at least the smart ones) do it as a side gig.  All of the adjuncts I know don't even do it for the money; they enjoy teaching the occasional class, and it looks good on their resume.

I have heard of people who survive (barely) by cobbling together adjunct positions at multiple universities.  Again, it's not like they would be unable to get a better-paying job, and if fewer people took these low-paying adjunct assignments, the university would have no choice than to raise their pay rate.

[Coleman]

Are you sure that this is the case for Marquette?  I am certain that all of their full-time positions pay above a living wage.  As for the adjuncts, I believe that they are paid on a per-class basis, and most people who teach them (at least the smart ones) do it as a side gig.  All of the adjuncts I know don't even do it for the money; they enjoy teaching the occasional class, and it looks good on their resume.

I have heard of people who survive (barely) by cobbling together adjunct positions at multiple universities.  Again, it's not like they would be unable to get a better-paying job, and if fewer people took these low-paying adjunct assignments, the university would have no choice than to raise their pay rate.

You are probably right vis a vis full-time positions. But adjuncts are paid per class and it usually in the $3000 - $4000 per class per semester range. Do the math: it is impossible to live on these wages working 50 hours a week between class prep, instruction, grading, etc. And in addition, adjuncts now account for 70% of faculty positions in US colleges and universities. In certain fields like nursing and dentistry, it is common for professionals to teach a course or two while also working in their field full time. But in most fields like the liberal arts, this is definitely not the case.

The part that makes it appear even more sinister is that many of these adjuncts are recent graduates of graduate programs with heavy debt loads being paid every month to the very university paying them poverty wages.

Lastly, if conditions for adjuncts were so good, why would they be trying to unionize?

[warriorchick]

You are probably right vis a vis full-time positions. But adjuncts are paid per class and it usually in the $3000 - $4000 per class per semester range. Do the math: it is impossible to live on these wages working 50 hours a week between class prep, instruction, grading, etc. And in addition, adjuncts now account for 70% of faculty positions in colleges and universities. In certain fields like nursing and dentistry, it is common for professionals to teach a course or two while also working in their field full time. But in most fields like the liberal arts, this is definitely not the case.

Lastly, if conditions for adjuncts were so good, why would they be trying to unionize?

I didn't conditions  were good; I said no one has to take those jobs.  All it takes is a couple of willing people and a cooperative union to make it look like they are "trying to unionize".

I have a lot of experience dealing with the SEIU.  They are relatively weak as far as unions go, and in my experience, are more concerned about dues revenue than looking out for their members.

And I wouldn't lump Marquette in with other colleges.  No way is 70% of their teachers adjuncts.  That number is skewed by community colleges, where the pay is indeed pitiful.  Awhile back I was offered an adjunct professorship at one teaching accounting.  I ran the numbers and determined if I spent one hour outside the classroom working for each hour I taught (and you know it would be way more than that), I would be making $11 an hour.

[Coleman]

If MU is one of the few exceptions to the rule, fair enough. I'm sure you're far more familiar with their practices than I am. I am only familiar with the broad trends.

[muwarrior69]

I didn't conditions  were good; I said no one has to take those jobs.  All it takes is a couple of willing people and a cooperative union to make it look like they are "trying to unionize".

I have a lot of experience dealing with the SEIU.  They are relatively weak as far as unions go, and in my experience, are more concerned about dues revenue than looking out for their members.

And I wouldn't lump Marquette in with other colleges.  No way is 70% of their teachers adjuncts.  That number is skewed by community colleges, where the pay is indeed pitiful.  Awhile back I was offered an adjunct professorship at one teaching accounting.  I ran the numbers and determined if I spent one hour outside the classroom working for each hour I taught (and you know it would be way more than that), I would be making $11 an hour.

Are the non-faculty staff ( maintenance, cafeteria, housekeeping etc.) at MU unionized or are they outsourced?

[warriorchick]

Are the non-faculty staff ( maintenance, cafeteria, housekeeping etc.) at MU unionized or are they outsourced?

I am not aware of any unions. Like nearly every other university, food service is outsourced {as it has been for at least 40 years}, but maintenance and cleaning staff is in-house, and they get good pay and benefits, including free tuition for family members. The father of one of Glow Jr's closest friends is a maintenance worker at Marquette. They were roommates at one point.

Looks to me like Marquette is a pretty decent place to work

https://www.marquette.edu/hr/employeebenefits.shtml

[Coleman]

Chick, I'd still be curious to see what percentage of MU teaching staff are adjuncts. Do you know if this is available anywhere?

[mu03eng]

You are probably right vis a vis full-time positions. But adjuncts are paid per class and it usually in the $3000 - $4000 per class per semester range. Do the math: it is impossible to live on these wages working 50 hours a week between class prep, instruction, grading, etc. And in addition, adjuncts now account for 70% of faculty positions in US colleges and universities. In certain fields like nursing and dentistry, it is common for professionals to teach a course or two while also working in their field full time. But in most fields like the liberal arts, this is definitely not the case.

The part that makes it appear even more sinister is that many of these adjuncts are recent graduates of graduate programs with heavy debt loads being paid every month to the very university paying them poverty wages.

Lastly, if conditions for adjuncts were so good, why would they be trying to unionize?

At least in the B school, it is $5K a class for grad school course and about half of the courses are taught by Adjuncts. I know of none that are doing it as anything more than a second "fun" job. Don't have a firm grasp on the undergrad side but the ratio is much less (more like 70/30 full or associate profs to adjuncts).

In the engineering school almost none of the courses are taught by adjuncts, undergrad and grad.

[warriorchick]

Chick, I'd still be curious to see what percentage of MU teaching staff are adjuncts. Do you know if this is available anywhere?

I don't know the answer to that.

Marquette does have a pretty powerful search tool on their website, so you could try that.

One thing to note is that especially in the professional courses (business, engineering, communications, etc.) having a significant number of adjuncts is not necessarily a bad thing  They are almost exclusively people who have full -time jobs doing what they are teaching.  Theory is fine to a point, but do you really want to get a degree in Nursing  without having a teacher with recent experience working in a hospital?

[drewm88]

The idea of fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty is definitely a good one, but there are financial realities that have to be balanced.

The bigger financial concern often comes among adjuncts outside of the professional fields mentioned here. Humanities adjuncts often don't have the better-paying jobs readily available like chick claims. Instead it's a life of teaching a couple classes each at a couple different schools, freelance writing on the side if you can, and hoping it all cobbles together enough to pay the bills. Then you start all over again the next semester, as you likely don't have any sort of guarantee/stability past those 15 weeks. You can debate the value (both $ and otherwise) of pursuing and offering various liberal arts fields, but that's just my $.02.

[Coleman]

One thing to note is that especially in the professional courses (business, engineering, communications, etc.) having a significant number of adjuncts is not necessarily a bad thing  They are almost exclusively people who have full -time jobs doing what they are teaching.  Theory is fine to a point, but do you really want to get a degree in Nursing  without having a teacher with recent experience working in a hospital?

I think we're in agreement there. It is the "non-professional" disciplines (i.e. humanities, the backbone of Jesuit education) where this is simply not the case.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Not many larger universities are going to hire full time faculty to teach all of its sections in entry level courses.  My recollection is that everyone takes an some sort of base English composition course at Marquette right?  It would be foolish to have tenured faculty teaching all of those courses.  Most don't want to do that, and are oftentimes not good at it.  Non-tenured instructors oftentimes are simply better teachers, and are the front lines in dealing with students with academic issues.  Oftentimes those people are given specific training on how to identify and work with students who are struggling to transition to college.  Without quality instructors, freshman don't become sophomores much less upper division students who faculty usually prefer to teach.

So it's not really about tenured v. non-tenured.  It's about valuing the contributions that non-tenured instructors bring to the instructional process, and compensating them according to that value.  Historically many  colleges and universities have treated those instructors like commodities, but more and more are understanding their value.  I hope Marquette does.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I don't know the answer to that.

Marquette does have a pretty powerful search tool on their website, so you could try that.

One thing to note is that especially in the professional courses (business, engineering, communications, etc.) having a significant number of adjuncts is not necessarily a bad thing  They are almost exclusively people who have full -time jobs doing what they are teaching.  Theory is fine to a point, but do you really want to get a degree in Nursing  without having a teacher with recent experience working in a hospital?

The accretiting body for business schools actually wants a balance of tenure track faculty members with adjuncts with practical experience.  The top MBA programs in the world usually have some degree of adjuncts.

[Coleman]

Not many larger universities are going to hire full time faculty to teach all of its sections in entry level courses.  My recollection is that everyone takes an some sort of base English composition course at Marquette right?  It would be foolish to have tenured faculty teaching all of those courses.  Most don't want to do that, and are oftentimes not good at it.  Non-tenured instructors oftentimes are simply better teachers, and are the front lines in dealing with students with academic issues.  Oftentimes those people are given specific training on how to identify and work with students who are struggling to transition to college.  Without quality instructors, freshman don't become sophomores much less upper division students who faculty usually prefer to teach.

So it's not really about tenured v. non-tenured.  It's about valuing the contributions that non-tenured instructors bring to the instructional process, and compensating them according to that value.  Historically many  colleges and universities have treated those instructors like commodities, but more and more are understanding their value.  I hope Marquette does.

I'm fine with having an English PhD candidate that is ABD teaching these courses, if that candidate is on scholarship, stipend, etc.. That would honestly be best case scenario. That is more of training for future tenure-track work, and much preferable to using an adjunct who is indefinitely struggling to survive. It is not that all teaching staff needs to be tenured, it is we need to move away from over-reliance on adjuncts. 

[Coleman]

The accretiting body for business schools actually wants a balance of tenure track faculty members with adjuncts with practical experience.  The top MBA programs in the world usually have some degree of adjuncts.

Again, I think we are all in agreement in business, nursing, etc.

[warriorchick]

The idea of fewer adjuncts and more TT faculty is definitely a good one, but there are financial realities that have to be balanced.

The bigger financial concern often comes among adjuncts outside of the professional fields mentioned here. Humanities adjuncts often don't have the better-paying jobs readily available like chick claims. Instead it's a life of teaching a couple classes each at a couple different schools, freelance writing on the side if you can, and hoping it all cobbles together enough to pay the bills. Then you start all over again the next semester, as you likely don't have any sort of guarantee/stability past those 15 weeks. You can debate the value (both $ and otherwise) of pursuing and offering various liberal arts fields, but that's just my $.02.

I disagree.  There might not be better-paying jobs directly in their field, but there are plenty of better-paying jobs in other fields.

You are not entitled to a high-paying job in your field simply because that is what you decided to study.  Most Theater and Music majors learned that a long time ago.

[Coleman]

I disagree.  There might not be better-paying jobs directly in their field, but there are plenty of better-paying jobs in other fields.

You are not entitled to a high-paying job in your field simply because that is what you decided to study.  Most Theater and Music majors learned that a long time ago.

The question is not whether people are entitled jobs in their field. The question is whether universities should continue to support a system in which they employ adjuncts in disciplines where such practices result in poverty to the worker.

If that means less jobs, fine.

[warriorchick]

The question is not whether people are entitled jobs in their field. The question is whether universities should continue to support a system in which they employ adjuncts in disciplines where such practices result in poverty to the worker.

If that means less jobs, fine.

No one employed full-time by Marquette is living in poverty. Are you saying that they should be paying a living wage to part-time workers?  Or that they shouldn't be allowed to offer part-time jobs?

[Coleman]

No one employed full-time by Marquette is living in poverty. Are you saying that they should be paying a living wage to part-time workers?  Or that they shouldn't be allowed to offer part-time jobs?

We're going in circles chick. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

I am not talking about full-time employees. I am talking about adjuncts who are part-time. I am not saying MU should be paying them full-time wages. I am saying all unviersities (including MU) shouldn't be so over-reliant on part-time adjuncts in the liberal arts, which perpetuates a cycle in which many of these people end up in poverty, but I suspect you knew that.

[mu03eng]

We're going in circles chick. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

I am not talking about full-time employees. I am talking about adjuncts who are part-time. I am not saying MU should be paying them full-time wages. I am saying all unviersities (including MU) shouldn't be so over-reliant on part-time adjuncts in the liberal arts, which perpetuates a cycle in which many of these people end up in poverty, but I suspect you knew that.

I disagree with your premise, mostly because MU is not intending those roles to impoverish those that fill them. Those roles aren't intended to be "life sustaining" nor should they be IMO. To reduce the number of adjuncts simultaneously increase's MUs costs and decreases opportunities for non-professor track types, why is that a good thing? If you increase the pay for adjuncts, you have to do so uniformally across all of the schools which increases costs and by extension tuition significantly.

Why is it MU's responsibility to ensure that someone who study humanities can have a livable wage by piecing together part time college teaching work?

[Coleman]

I disagree with your premise, mostly because MU is not intending those roles to impoverish those that fill them. Those roles aren't intended to be "life sustaining" nor should they be IMO. To reduce the number of adjuncts simultaneously increase's MUs costs and decreases opportunities for non-professor track types, why is that a good thing? If you increase the pay for adjuncts, you have to do so uniformally across all of the schools which increases costs and by extension tuition significantly.

Why is it MU's responsibility to ensure that someone who study humanities can have a livable wage by piecing together part time college teaching work?

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is that universities are perpetuating a system that has unjust outcomes.

[tower912]

If the basketball team was unionized, the Hausers would have had an official grievance policy to follow.

[mu03eng]

Intent doesn't matter. What matters is that universities are perpetuating a system that has unjust outcomes.

Life is unjust and how is it more just to put kids into increased debt so a couple of people can get by with a single part time job

[NWarsh]

Life is unjust and how is it more just to put kids into increased debt so a couple of people can get by with a single part time job

If you go down that path, then you should really question the whole higher education system that has rising costs only rivaled by healthcare costs.  The system is broken in general, but that is straddling the line of getting too political, so I will just leave it at that.

[mu03eng]

If you go down that path, then you should really question the whole higher education system that has rising costs only rivaled by healthcare costs.  The system is broken in general, but that is straddling the line of getting too political, so I will just leave it at that.

Trust me I question the entire education system, soup to nuts, every day.

[Cheeks]

If you go down that path, then you should really question the whole higher education system that has rising costs only rivaled by healthcare costs.  The system is broken in general, but that is straddling the line of getting too political, so I will just leave it at that.

Shouldn't all the professors in the humanities and elsewhere not be paid as much to help the kids get their lower cost education?

See, this is where things start to fall apart.  All kinds of reasons education is expensive, from fancy new buildings, salaries, athletic cost escalations, cheap loans which drove access and demand, etc, etc.  But when one tries to get the costs under control it becomes a giant GO ELSEWHERE, DON'T TOUCH MY AREA

[Coleman]

Shouldn't all the professors in the humanities and elsewhere not be paid as much to help the kids get their lower cost education?

See, this is where things start to fall apart.  All kinds of reasons education is expensive, from fancy new buildings, salaries, athletic cost escalations, cheap loans which drove access and demand, etc, etc.  But when one tries to get the costs under control it becomes a giant GO ELSEWHERE, DON'T TOUCH MY AREA

Professor salaries are not the problem. The other stuff you listed are definitely problems.