Lazy Prof Redux

Tom Peace beat me to the punch. I wanted to write a blog on why academics -- like myself -- are not lazy overpaid ivory tower idiots who ignore their students. If you are interested in this topic, I'd recommend Tom's piece because he makes the points I was going to make in a more thoughtful, articulate, and evidence-based way. I've also tried in this blog to correct some of the odd stereotypes that float around about profs by detailing what I actually do for a living and where the pressure to change -- say, to spend more time on research -- is coming from. Before getting back into that subject, though, I should say that I have not a little embarrassment in blogging on this subject. Why? Because I sound defensive and I don't like that. I don't think sounding defensive is a particularly good way to have a reasoned discussion of the importance of post-secondary education and the work those of us who teach at this level do.

What can, after all, say that does not sound defensive? I could argue "I work hard" (and I do) but that sounds ... well ... defensive. I can talk about who much time I spend with my students (not this year because I'm on sabbatical but ... I do), but that sounds defensive. I can talk about how I try to contribute to scholarship because that is my job (which, it is) but ... well ... you get the point. I could also talk about how much I am paid. And, I will, but might not be the issue, or it might be. But, I don't think so for reasons that Tom has already intimated and so I won't repeat.

The reason I wanted to write these things was yet another editorial suggesting that academics (people like me) are a lazy bunch who are overpaid and don't really do very much teaching. The result, according to at least some editorialists, is that most courses are taught by underpaid temporary (contract or part-time) academics and students are being ripped off. The reason I wanted to blog on this subject was this editorial, which also intimates that I am somehow blocking the way with my overpay and underwork approach to my job for vibrant young scholars who would work and teach and so nifty things but for me. The author is angry ... and I am not certain I don't blame him. The problem is that he has misdiagnosed the problem and the solutions. Here is a relevant passage where sums up both the problems and the solutions:

"Universities should be privatized. They should have to compete for students and their fees. And professors should have to compete for work based on performance … just like everybody outside government.

Instead academe resembles a John Kenneth Galbraith parody of capitalism, with a pampered elite doing little work, cutting themselves great, rich slices of pie and complacently ignoring the toiling masses on whose backs they prosper. And if it were anyone else, the typical humanities professor would be up in arms at the lack of social justice."

What I'd like to do is look at what he is suggesting and argue through it -- debate it, as it were -- to see what its problems are.

First, the idea that privatizing universities will create more jobs is simply wrong. In fact, it might do the opposite. Universities already compete for students -- so the idea that they "should have to" is inaccurate -- and they compete intensely. Much of the increase in administrative costs where I work and at other smaller eastern Canadian universities has gone into this competition. We have more recruiters, spend more time on publicity, visit more schools, etc. In other words, the competition is on and has been on for some time. I don't actually know why anyone who has worked in a university would not recognize this but ... talk to people involved in recruiting and they will let you know that the competition is intense. Privatizing the university will not improve competition, in other words, and hence won't offer students more choices.

Second, it might actually cause a de facto restriction of choices. The United States has many many private universities. Most of these charge fees that make attending these schools just about impossible for the average middle-class, let alone working-class, kid. Privatizing in the US, in other words, has not reduced costs but increased them. Why? Because only someone who knows very little about how markets work would suggest that privatization brings prices down. In fact, one of the key reasons we have government involvement in post-secondary education is to keep prices reasonable (you can debate whether or not you think they are reasonable). Thus, removing this restriction, it stands to reason, will have the opposite effect.

Let's do some math. If I run a private corporation, my objective is to maximize profits. Exactly, a proponent of privatization might say, and so you will want to attract more students. This makes intuitive sense, but it does not make market sense. If I can increase profits but lowering the number of students ... that will be what I will do (again, remember, I am running a private corporation; not a part of an educational system with a public mandate). For instance, imagine that I need $2000.00 to run my university. Right now that I charge $100.00 for tuition and have 10 students. That gives me a revenue of $1000.00 and the government makes up the difference by giving me another $1000.00. I have a balanced budget and no wasted money. My costs and revenue align exactly.

Now, imagine that I have no government funding ... what do I do? I instantly, need to increase revenue, so at the very least I need to jump my tuition to $200.00 but it gets worse that than. Let's imagine that I discover that there are people willing to pay a lot of money for a degree. I jump my tuition to $500.00. But, at this price, I start to lose students because some can't afford. If I run a private corporation, my response is "so what?" All I need to find is five students willing to pay $500.00 and I'm in the black. What I have done, through privatization, is to actually restrict the number of students who will attend my school.

But, it could get even worse that that. We have some recent disturbing reports from the US about student athletes -- who get scholarships because they make the university a lot of money. Recent reports suggest that a significant percentage of these students are reading below a high school level. At one school -- a name brand school at that -- over 18% of student athletes (mostly in big money sports like basketball and football) had a reading capacity below that of my high school-aged daughter. If you privatize, in other words, the result is not expanded access but exploitation of students so that money is made off them. Admission standards, in these cases, are ignored because the money is there. One student I read about had not attended class, but simply practiced his sport. At the end of his time, he did not make the pros (which was his hope) because only a fraction do and the university was done with him. He was out but left without his degree and with a skill basis below that of a grade 11 students.

This would never happen in Canada, some people might say. And, you might be right although I suspect big schools -- if they were privatized -- would quickly join American college leagues and enter into that fray simply because the money is there. But, even if this were not true, we actually have examples of the crass exploitation of students by private educational corporations that are in it for the money. Here is the URL

Will privatization get more people jobs? It is doubtful. We can't know for sure. I suspect instead that what will happen is that we'll see a wage decrease. People like me will see their wages go down but so will contract and p/t faculty. If tenure track faculty do more teaching, there will actually be fewer, not more, jobs for people like the editorial writer. In other words, the answer that he has to offer may be one that ends up costing him his job.

Do I think he should have a better job. Yes. Do I think he should have job security. Yes. Do I think he should be paid more. Yes. The problem is that I don't hire him. The problem is that the people who pay him decided to pay him a lot less than he thinks he's worth and I feel bad about that. But, it wasn't me. In fact, the people who made that decision are administrators who are paid, quite frankly, a heck of a lot more than I am paid. Thus, lowering my pay will not create another job for him or a better one.

Third, am I a member of a "pampered elite." This is an odd stereotype and I have to confess that I don't know where it came from. Here I start to sound defensive. I go to work each day, strike to work 9 to 5 while on sabbatical, and much more when I am not. Like most employees, I do what my bosses tell me to do. Do I spend to much time on my research and not enough time on my teaching. I don't think so, but the people who run my school keep telling me to spend more time on my research. Indeed, my union fought a labour action last year to maintain our focus on education. It was opposed by people above my pay grade who want more time put into research and publication because, they have said in our university Senate, that is where the money is. In other words, I focus more time on research not because I'm a member of a pampered elite but because I'm an employee and I am doing what I am told.

Am I under-evaluated? I don't know. I'm evaluated all the time. There is an evaluation for each course I teach, pre-tenure there is an evaluation every year. Post-tenure every second year. There is an evaluation after every sabbatical. In other words, I am evaluated regularly.  In fact, I'd guess that there is more evaluation than in the private sector. Why? Because we are interested in quality teaching. The private second, again, is not. It is interested in profit. It is what the private sectors does. (You can think that is good or bad. That is up to you).

Am I overpaid? I'm paid well, but I'm a middle-aged man. My youngest child is in grade 10 and I've been doing this for a long time. When I started, I was not paid well at all. Over time, my wages have rises and I now have a comfortable income. I take a vacation each year, have a house (still paying the mortgage) and a car (one more month and I own it). I don't go hungry. I go to restaurants and movies a couple of times a month. I am not certain that this makes me dramatically different from other middle class Canadians, in other words.

What can we learn from this discussion. I'll say again that the myth of the pampered esoteric prof is just that: a myth. Most of us are just trying to do our job and following the lead of our employers in terms of how we divide our time. We are frequently evaluated and take those evaluations seriously. I'm paid a good rate but I have a middle-class living and nothing more. But, most importantly, privatization is not a solution to the current problems of university. In fact, on a number of levels (accessibility, allocation of resources), they might make things worse.

Privatization

There has been a bit of talk lately about privatization: health care, aspects of post-secondary education. It is worth considering what privatization means, who promotes it, why, and what will likely happen before any decisions are made in this regard. I don't think the issue "privatization" is at all an academic debate. Nor do I think it is about "the best way to deliver services" or "saving money" or "efficiency." I think the whole privatization debate is about the type of country we have. Does that sound a little to grandiose? Does it sound like I am upping the stakes? Many of the proponents of privatization would, in fact, say so. They would say that they are talking about modes of delivery and saving money and not fundamental values. I think they are deluded (in a literal sense of the word). Privatlization ultimately is about values and that is what I want to demonstrate in this blog. In other words, it is not a small issue but a big issue, a issue about our values as society and how we want to organize that society. It is on this ground that I think the little bit of talk, of late, about privatization in health care and education merits attention.



You will notice, btw, that I have not yet said whether I am for or against privatization. In my view, this is, in fact, the first problem with public discourse on privatization. People stake out their ground in advance and then don't move from it. In place of discussion and analysis that might lead to policy conclusions, we get ideology in which the specifics of any given situation are lost amidst a haze of generalization. In other words, when the discussion turns to privatization of education or health, we rarely end up with a discussion of the specific institution or situation: "how will this work in Sackville NB?" Instead, we get odes to the wonders of private enterprise or aspersions cast at the American health-care system. Whatever merit such generalizations may have in terms of argument, they actually don't help us make a decision about the specific situation at hand. In this regard, I think it is at best premature to come out for or against privatization before one has worked through the arguments. Moreover, precisely because this issue is important -- because it will affect Canada and will affect real people's lives -- I think we need to be guided by evidence, not general views. In other words, decisions about privatization need to be made in the cold light of logic with a consideration of evidence; not in the head of ideological conflict.



With this in mind, I can't really talk about health care. I don't know that industry and can't bring anything dramatically new to the discussion, at least until I have done my homework. With this in mind, then, I'll turn to my industry: education. Periodically we hear people talking about the need for a private university in Canada. The implication here is that the university would surrender its government grant and turn to the market to make a go of it. The proponents of privatization suggest that there is nothing to fear in this and much to gain. It would be a more efficient allocation of resources; it will unlease an entrepreneurial spirit on campus; students will pay for what they get; the university will not be held back by the state, and on down the line. In other words, privatization will bring many benefits and few drawbacks. With the dramatic curtailing of government support for post-secondary education over the last fifteen years, these arguments come more and more to the fore. As the government pays less of the tab of public education, state support for education seems less relevant. Is this so? There are a number of points to consider.



First, revenue: the government does not pay as much of the university tab as it used to but it still pays a lot. At my institution, by a conservative estimate, government grants count for something like 35% of the budget, or somewhere around $17.5 million. Now, we need to think about what privatization might mean. One thing it would mean is that my institution would need to find another $17.5 million each year. Tuition would have to increase, to be sure. One could argue that it should because that is the way the mrket works. The taxpayer should not subsidize someone else's education. But, we are talking about a big increase here. Again, I want to be conservative (in other words, my aim is to present a reasonable scenario; not a worst case scenario). The average jump in tuition if we divided the revenue shortfall by total current student body would amount to something like $8 500, but let's round down just to be reasonable and allow for some cost savings. Let's say $8 000. What this means is that tuition at Mount Allison (where I would would go up by $8 000/year would would make it somewhere between $14 000 and $15 000 total, excluding residence, meal service, books, other fees, etc.



What we need to bear in mind with this is product substitution. The problem Mount A would encounter is that other institutions would not privatize. In fact, if Mount A withdrew from state support, there would in fact be more money for other institutions in NB. They'd get our chunk of government support. The likely result would be tuition stability at other institutions. Our product is not all that different from other institutions. We're good. I think we are rightly proud of the job we do, but exact how different is on History, English, Biology, etc., degree from another at the undergraduate level. I have friend who teach at other universities and they are good, too. They are rightly proud of the job they do. One question we need to ask before we privatize is this: is our product that much better than other institutions that students (or, their parents) would be willing to pay over twice the tuition of other institutions to attend Mount A. Some would. How many? And, what students? Would really good students be willing to pay over twice as much to attend Mount A? Or, would we get the student who could gain admission no where else and had to pay our tuition out of a lack of other alternatives? What would that do to our standing as an institution?



Second, one could argue that privatizing would unleash some sort of entrepreneurial spirit and allow the University to work in a more efficient way. How? I work at Mount A and I can tell you how hard people work, how inventive they are. What I can say is that there are some bad apples. No one doubts this. But, most people, by and large, are working as hard as they can. Is the university inefficient? Well, I don't know. You'd need to ask the registrar and the VP administration about that. I don't think they would say that they are inefficient. I think the registrar and the VP admin would, in fact, say that their people are working as hard as they can. But, for the sake of argument, let's say they aren't. Let's say the administrative branch is amazingly inefficient. Why do we need to privatize to gain this efficiency? We pay these people a lot of money to do their job. Why should the structure of the company affect whether or not they do their job right? If they aren't doing it right, they should be fired. It is not state support that keeps them in their jobs. From what I can tell the same bureaucracy will be needed regardless of the funding model. Any post-secondary institution will still need secretaries, mail staff, registrars. comptrollers, etc. If there are cost savings to be had, we need to know where those are and how privatization would realize them and whether or not we need to privatize to attain them.



Third, will privatization allow the university to raise more money from the private sector? I don't know but again we need to look at this in a way that is not ideological. Large companies in Canada already donate a lot of money to universities. Will they donate more to a private institution? What will their incentive to do so be? To believe that privatization will bring in more money from corporate donors, one needs to believe that the people who raise money for a university are not doing as good a job as they could be doing. They are missing sources of revenue. Will privatizing suddenly make them better at this? And, what sources of revenue are they missing?



Finally, there are ethical arguments to think about. I've gone on too long already so I'll keep this short. Will raising tuition via privatization ensure that the taxpayer does not pay for someone else's education. Education is a tax deduction so ... it is likely that the taxpayer will pay just by another means. In other words, to ensure that the taxpayer does not pay for someone else, one would need to change the tax system; not the way universities are financed. If the tax system is not changed, increased tuition could be passed along to taxpayers via tax deductions. If one cares about this -- and I think there are good reasons to discuss it -- privatizing the university is the wrong target. Are there other benefits that would foregone if tuition increased? Asked differently, the question is: are there benefits to a better educated society that are difficult to specify in economic terms? There is no easy answer to this but we need to think about education as a form of training for which there are spin-off benefits to industry. What are those benefits? Would industry end up having to pay more for training and up-grading and how would that affect profits? What about equality of opportunity? How would it be affected? What about political knowledge and the ability of people to be thinking citizens? Political scientists tell us that there is a strong correlation between formal education and political involvement. In a day when we are concerned about declining voter rates, is it in society's best interest to price education higher? What about crime rates? How does higher levels of formal education affect crime?



And, we could go on. I've not really spent most of this blog talking about the issue I raised at the start: the values that privatization would signify for Canada. I've raised these only at the end because I think that skill development, equality of opportunity, safety, are values Canadians hold dear. How would privatization affect the realization of our values? Instead, I've focused on the economic issues involved because that is where the debate is most cloudy. I don't provide answer. I am, however, trying to suggest that the issue is more complex. We need to think about things like the efficiency of existing bureaucracies and ways to make them more efficient. We need to think about product substitution and what that could do to enrolment. We need to think about the possibility of being a "last chance u" for people who have no other alternatives. And, we need evidence. I don't believe in change for the sake of change and ideology is misleading. It substitutes what someone happens to believe for analysis. Before we move toward privatization, we need to do that analysis.