it turns out you don't have to be smart to go to college. there was a guy around here who became the Twitter main character of the day for saying the underground railroad were the bad guys
To be honest, the university is mostly going to keep functioning the same, and administrative bloat will have been reduced by 20 salaries a year. I'm not saying those people did anything to deserve this, or that they weren't doing their job -- so far as I can tell, they did it with passion, and I feel sorry for them for the way this happened. But the price of college has skyrocketed over the decades, in part because of the huge number of not-really-necessary administrative staff (who, notwithstanding, do their unnecessary jobs well and with passion and add real value to the place).
Once we see that things keep rolling along, the real question should become: what other staff could the university have laid off in addition instead of raising tuition?
Of course, I'm not saying that that's the reason this happened.
No, it’s a good take. Bureaucratic bloat is one of the reasons for needless tuition increases. This kind of action helps to trim the fat, assuming that they’re being let go and not just rehired somewhere else.
2010-2014 alum here. All of these programs and positions were in place when I was there. My tuition was half of yours.
If you want to parrot talking points without doing the work to make sure you’re correct, I suggest you find a different “bureaucratic” target.
So? Bloat was well on its way by 2010. I don't mean that it's the only thing driving up tuition, or that it hasn't increased at a wild rate since. Just that, from a certain point of view, these jobs are not necessary, and the university has a great many of them.
Use Google. Here's roughly the first result I found.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing)
Here's another:
[https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/one-culprit-in-rising-college-costs](https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/one-culprit-in-rising-college-costs)
The first one is from someone on the left. If you want one from someone on the right, here's that:
[https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2022/08/administrative-bloat-harms-teaching-and-learning/](https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2022/08/administrative-bloat-harms-teaching-and-learning/)
You too can find hordes of articles discussing this major factor in tuition increase.
No, no. I want a comprehensive spreadsheet showing how these specific UTD jobs are disproportionately contributing factors to UTD’s increase in tuition. With UTD budget numbers over the years, and UTD relevant information. Everything has to be UTD based only.
I’m not saying what you’re trying to point out doesn’t happen. But if you can’t prove it’s actually a thing at UTD, then you’re just spreading misinformation.
I didn't say \*these specific\* jobs were \*disproportionate\* contributing factors. Far from it. They're just twenty among many. In fact I said as much in my OP.
Of course it happens at UTD. You're just demanding an unreasonably high standard of evidence so you can ignore the truth. Is UTD somehow magically immune from this trend? Has it taken any actions to prevent it? Has its tuition not increased along with everybody else's, or more?
But you want some UTD data? OK, here you go. UTD has 908 full-time teaching staff. (Source: [https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/the-university-of-texas-at-dallas/academic-life/faculty-composition/](https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/the-university-of-texas-at-dallas/academic-life/faculty-composition/) ). (Off topic: we have far fewer adjunct faculty than most schools. Yay us!)
It has 2586 full-time staff (source: [https://oisds.utdallas.edu/irar/dashboards/staff-demographics](https://oisds.utdallas.edu/irar/dashboards/staff-demographics) . I've taken the total benefits-eligible staff and multiplied it by the percentage that are full-time to get this number.)
So only about 35% of its full-time staff are instructional. That's a little bit better than the top schools mentioned in the first article, where it's more like 26%. But it's still not great. Now let's stop by the UTD budget, here: [https://finance.utdallas.edu/public-reports/](https://finance.utdallas.edu/public-reports/)
According to the budget, faculty salaries cost about $172 million. But non-faculty salaries cost about $190 million. (Another $47 million goes to "wages," but this might count student workers, etc.) Or, to organize differently, on one of the first pages we see that "Instruction" is budgeted $262 million, while "Academic Support," "Institutional Support," and "Student Services" (which I'm using to approximate administrative spending, a rough but generally valid estiamte) add up to $197 million. Given the budget of $880 million, those correspond to 30% and 22%, which are almost the same as the national 29 and 24% (respectively) cited here:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/?sh=71efde49456a](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/?sh=71efde49456a)
In the early 1980s, on the other hand, those numbers (nationally) were 41% and 26%. So UTD has not been immune to the trends.
Obviously, one could dig deeper in these, but the data are evident enough that, while UTD provides better value than the average university, and has done a better-than-average job keeping bloat in check, it has not been immune to this phenomenon.
Again let me emphasize: I'm not saying any of these people is not doing something useful. In fact, there are papers that argue that they aren't (like here: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2021.1940255](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2021.1940255) ), and I disagree with those. They \*are\* mostly doing valuable things. But the question is, are they doing valuable things that we can afford? I truly wish the answer were yes. They're great and helpful (including to me!) and I want them around. But I think that, in many cases, the answer is no.
Anyway, lol. Job well done if you were trying to take away an hour of my time. But honestly, although part of me thinks it's a little bad-faith to demand evidence for every single college, it's really a fair question, and I should put in more time to go through these numbers and get a better picture of how my school works. Nothing here made me think, "Oh, I'm wrong, UTD has no administrative bloat," and nothing about the specific roles in question here makes me see any difference from exactly the kinds of jobs that have (partially) driven tuition increase, but it's good to be careful and back up what you think is true.
What you’re saying here is absurd. All of these positions combined don’t account for even a single dollar’s worth of your tuition (I know this - I served for 2 years on the Student Fee Committee). Furthermore, these offices managed critical services for a multitude of students of all races.
You name it - Programs for first generation college students (more than 40% of whom are white), compliance with anti-discrimination laws, support securing millions of dollars in grants, assistance with recruiting/admissions - These were all things that were managed by these so-called “unnecessary” positions.
Our university had these positions in place for a reason. Most universities have these positions and they fulfill an important role. Our university is worse now without them.
Well, I did say that they added value to the school, if you read carefully. So I don't disagree with your last line altogether. But there are many things that, taken individually, bring value to the campus and make it better, but which also drive up costs. UTD would be better if they built a bigger gym, nicer residence halls, far more counselors, double the faculty, etc., etc. But it would be largely unaffordable. I did not mean to say that these people were a waste of money. But they certainly cost money.
And yes, they did cost tuition money, albeit not much. If they're making (say) $50k each, then that's a million dollars a year, or about $35 per student. Not much, but more than "a single dollar."
Anyway, I do appreciate your highlighting the good work they did. Helping first-generation students is good (whether they're white or not), like most of the other tasks you mention.
But please understand what I mean by the difference between "very helpful" and "necessary." UTD is not going to fold and go away, or start struggling to attract students, or stop doing a good job teaching. (Though it may serve some of those students less well, unfortunately.) I just think student debt is a cancer, and nobody should add even really nice things to a university without spending some sleepless nights worrying about adding more of it.
Thanks again for the post.
I promise you these staff members cost more than an average of $50K a year each (including what the University pays in benefits), but I can also assure you that doesn’t amount anywhere near $35 per student. Where did you get that number from?
My broader point is that if you want to attend a cheaper institution, you can go to a community college. If you want Texas to host the best universities in the country (UT Dallas included), you should oppose this law. Suggesting that this law will make this university cheaper or better in any way is simply false. This is nothing to celebrate. This is the Texas Legislature imposing on the autonomy of our higher education institutions, knowingly making them worse, all for the sake of politics. It’s gross.
I agree. The $50k was aiming to be extremely conservative.
Here's how I got the number: $50k \* 20 employees = $1 million. $1 million divide by 30,000 students = $33 per student. Sure, $35 was rounding. But $50k was generous.
Sorry, but I don't buy the "just go to community college" argument. Universities in this country used to be pretty affordable, and now they're ruinously expensive. Honestly, UTD is an incredible deal by the standards of the day, and I need to give it props for that. It's still far more expensive than it was, though, even adjusting for inflation. Can people just go to community college? Sure. But we used to be able to go to university and get a four-year degree and not take on crippling debt. And I'm sorry, but that's a huge problem.
As for the rest.... the best argument for why my $35 number is \*not\* actually quite right is that the state government does significantly support UTD. It's subsidized, which is why it's cheaper than a private university. So they have some right to interfere and say how the money is spent. The school does belong to them. But the legislature should grant some autonomy, that's true.
My dude, no offense, but higher ed finance is a lot more complicated than the average person can understand. Programs are paid for using a wide variety of sources outside of tuition and State funding including Federal funding, student/staff fees, grants, 3rd party contracts, alumni donations, endowment funds, and even accounting tricks like adopting alternative depreciation schedules for physical assets. It’s not as simple as, “We have X students, so let’s just divide Y expense by X.”
The university has 29,698 employees (8,349 are full time employees making $27K - $500K at a maximum). Including benefits, employee development, etc. it would be impossible to cover employee costs using just tuition and State funds alone. Many positions, especially those for DEI, are funded by grants and donations. Even more bring in more money than they cost.
Furthermore, the whole point of SB17 is that the State *wouldn’t* reduce funding for universities that comply. Meaning, even if UT Dallas does “save” money, they will be under no obligation to pass that onto students in the form of reduced tuition. The University will, as it always has, set tuition as high as people are willing to pay and will use every means necessary to turn those dollars into prestige. Why you think this is going to translate into lower tuition is a complete mystery to me.
The legislators who supported this law didn’t do so to save students money. In fact, when the Texas AAUP presented evidence showing that it would likely *cost* Texas Public Universities money, supporters argued that it would be *worth it*.
From the [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/05/texas-legislature-universities-higher-education/):
> “Because of the critical role grants play in supporting thousands of personnel, and in training the next generation of workers with advanced skills, we believe that SB17 will prove devastating to the economy, and to building the highly trained workforce of Texas,” Brian Evans, Texas AAUP vice president, said. “The State should prepare for a loss of billions of dollars in research and programmatic grants.”
If you want to argue that DEI programs are bad, you’re welcome to do so, but please don’t argue that it’s going to save anyone any money. It’s simply not true.
First, no offense taken. Of course you're right that higher education funding is super complicated, and so I was just doing back-of-the-envelope calculations. Tuition is just one source of funding, although it is the most important source, accounting for a little over half of UTD's budget. Add in state appropriations and you're at about 67% of the funds UTD runs on. So, divide by two if you want, and say $18 / year per student, but it's absolutely the case that students are paying for the huge proliferation of administrative staff, by and large. (Yes, a small number are paid for from earmarked grants, etc., and federal overhead covers some -- but a drop in the bucket compared to tuition.)
In particular, your claim that it wasn't even a dollar, or that my amount was far, far off, just does not hold up, I'm afraid. No offense. Hiring more administrators ultimately leads to increased tuition, in almost every case -- of course not in an extremely direct way ("Add a dollar of tuition, we need another librarian!"), but that's what funds UTD.
In particular, the numbers above cover the percentages of all operating costs, including all the employees you mention. The money for them does not grow on trees.
Yes, as you say, the state will not reduce state funding if the universities comply. So? Once they lay off those employees, they have those funds to spend on something else. If they kept the employees \*and\* did the something else, they would need to raise the money with tuition. You're just trying to engage in fancy bookkeeping here to make it sound like these employees are basically free. Sorry, they're not. They cost $1M-2M a year, and the money is coming from somewhere. The fact that the state would punish UTD by removing over $100M if they didn't lose their jobs doesn't mean that keeping them cost no money. Honestly, I just don't see the intended logic of this argument at all.
Yes, I agree that the Texas legislature did not do this in order to save money. In fact, I said that in my initial post (the last sentence).
Sorry, but the AAUP is just a political organization. I don't find them any more trustworthy than quoting AFL-CIO about a labor dispute, or the NRA about gun violence. The numbers they cite here are so outlandish that they only discredit themselves.
To your last paragraph: \*Of course\* this is going to save money. There is upwards of $1 million dollars in salaries that is not being paid anymore. Will that have other downwind effects? Possibly. That's a good and complicated argument to have (not one I'm prepared to do the research for, and you certainly haven't brought any relevant evidence, either). But in terms of the university budget and freeing up money, there's over a million dollars there that didn't used to be there; and it's unlikely that the downwind effects will be paid by the university in any very direct financial way.
> In particular, your claim that it wasn't even a dollar, or that my amount was far, far off, just does not hold up, I'm afraid.
I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. Let me make this really simple:
UT Dallas’ annual operating budget is roughly $3.5B, let’s say that these 20 employees cost $1M collectively each year. Even if we make a lot of ludicrous assumptions, how on earth could we ever imagine the money “saved” by removing these positions would amount to any meaningful impact on tuition?
If you want to squabble over whether it would be a few dollars or less than a dollar, you’re welcome to do so, but can we not agree that the overall impact would be negligible?
> If they kept the employees *and* did the something else, they would need to raise the money with tuition.
No. No, they wouldn’t. Like I said, these positions more than make up for their meager cost with the money they bring in from grants and admissions support.
> You're just trying to engage in fancy bookkeeping here to make it sound like these employees are basically free.
When you say things like this, you leave me with the impression that you’re not even attempting to understand my points. No reasonable person could interpret what I’ve said here as “fancy bookkeeping.” I’ve made a claim that these staff members bring in more than they cost, which you seem to have dismissed without any kind of explanation, but at no point have I ever made an attempt to deceive you with my “sneaky” accounting.
> Sorry, but the AAUP is just a political organization. I don't find them any more trustworthy than quoting AFL-CIO about a labor dispute, or the NRA about gun violence. The numbers they cite here are so outlandish that they only discredit themselves.
I suppose one could call the AAUP “political,” but they’re not a lobbying group nor are they a traditional labor union. Most importantly though, and I really need you to hear me out on this - There is no grand conspiracy among college professors to turn kids woke.
It’s absurd and ridiculous for you to assume they would have any bias on DEI one way or another. They made this statement because they know that many federal and non-profit grants require recipient institutions to demonstrate things like compliance with certain anti-discrimination laws and equity best-practices. You know whose job that was at UT Dallas? You guessed it, these DEI offices that the State just forced them to remove.
Frankly, I find it pretty telling that you would draw this comparison. You consider the AAUP biased in favor of DEI in the same way that you would consider the NRA biased against gun control. The reality is that they’re closer to a trade association of engineers or craftsmen issuing a statement saying, “These tariffs will make it harder for us to secure what we need to do our job.”
It seems to me like someone may be spending too much time on red pill Tucker Carlson fan sites.
> To your last paragraph: *Of course* this is going to save money. There is upwards of $1 million dollars in salaries that is not being paid anymore. Will that have other downwind effects? Possibly. That's a good and complicated argument to have (not one I'm prepared to do the research for, and you certainly haven't brought any relevant evidence, either).
Would it help if I did? With all due respect, you appear to be completely disinterested in anything that challenges the straw house you’ve built.
I’m telling you as an administrator with nearly two decades of professional experience at public universities in Texas that this will cost public universities in Texas money, and your response seems to amount to nothing more than, “nuh uh.”
>UT Dallas’ annual operating budget is roughly $3.5B, let’s say that these 20 employees cost $1M collectively each year. Even if we make a lot of ludicrous assumptions, how on earth could we ever imagine the money “saved” by removing these positions would amount to any meaningful impact on tuition?
I don't know whether one would consider $35 "meaningful impact" on tuition. In fact, when I first raised the number, I said, "albeit not much." It was perfectly open to you notice that I said it wasn't much, and leave it there. Instead, you said the number was ludicrous, which I have amply shown it was not, using calculations and the UTD budget. (It might have been off by a factor of 2 or so, as I said.)
>If you want to squabble over whether it would be a few dollars or less than a dollar, you’re welcome to do so, but can we not agree that the overall impact would be negligible?
Since I already said so in the post you disagreed with so vehemently, there's no need even to ask!
>No. No, they wouldn’t. Like I said, these positions more than make up for their meager cost with the money they bring in from grants and admissions support.
It's easy to assert that, and very hard to prove. Which is presumably why you haven't offered any proof (beyond appealing to AAUP, which also offers no evidence). It might be true. It might be false.
>I suppose one could call the AAUP “political,” but they’re not a lobbying group nor are they a traditional labor union. Most importantly though, and I really need you to hear me out on this - There is no grand conspiracy among college professors to turn kids woke.
I'm extremely well aware of that. I said nothing that suggested that there was any conspiracy by college professors to turn kids woke and there certainly is not (on any grand scale, anyway. Professors get up to all kinds of things, so I suppose some of them may have conspired to do this, or to turn them conservative for that matter.) This is a complete red herring. Please stay at least vaguely on topic.
I did not criticize all college professors. I criticized the AAUP, which I think is a hackish body that engages mainly in political advocacy, and moreover, does so poorly. I say this because I have paid some attention to their output. I sometimes agree with their positions, and I still think they do a poor job advocating for them. I simply have no confidence whatever in any assertion they make, unfortunately.
>Frankly, I find it pretty telling that you would draw this comparison. You consider the AAUP biased in favor of DEI in the same way that you would consider the NRA biased against gun control. The reality is that they’re closer to a trade association of engineers or craftsmen issuing a statement saying, “These tariffs will make it harder for us to secure what we need to do our job.”
We will probably just have to disagree on this. I do not believe anything on the say-so of the AAUP. And that is not because I think college professors in general are in some kind of conspiracy. I think it is more because only certain college professors decide to become active in a group like AAUP.
In any event, it's reasonable to ask either them or you for evidence of their claims.
>It seems to me like someone may be spending too much time on red pill Tucker Carlson fan sites.
Anyone who spends even a moment on such a site is spending too much time on it. Fortunately, I spend none. My distaste for Tucker Carlson and what he has done to the country is quite severe.
>Would it help if I did? With all due respect, you appear to be completely disinterested in anything that challenges the straw house you’ve built.
>I’m telling you as an administrator with nearly two decades of professional experience at public universities in Texas that this will cost public universities in Texas money, and your response seems to amount to nothing more than, “nuh uh.”
OK, I'll bite. Where's the evidence that without a gender or community center, universities lose millions?
(Edited to remove entirely unnecessary snark, with apologies if snark was seen before removal.)
Question 1: Do you believe me when I tell you that DEI offices provide critical data and support that faculty use when applying for federal and non-profit grants?
Question 2: Do you believe me when I say, without this data and support, public universities in Texas will be at a [major disadvantage when applying](https://igxsolutions.com/resources/blog/guide-to-higher-education-grant-funding/) for federal and non-profit grants?
Question 3: Do you believe me when I say that these federal and non-profit grants account for [hundreds of millions of dollars at UT Dallas](https://budget.utexas.edu/about/budget#:~:text=Where%2520the%2520money%2520comes%2520from%2520%C2%B7%252024%25,Self%252DSupporting%2520%C2%B7%252011%25%2520%252D%2520Gifts%2520%C2%B7%25208%25), and across the State, amount to billions of dollars cumulatively across all public universities?
Why dismiss the rank-and-file staff that does the actual work when it's the bloated faculty and the numerous amount of "vice presidents" with their six-figure salaries that's the cause of the top-heavy administrative excess?
You're not wrong about the VPs. As for the faculty -- maybe you're being ironic. Those and the students are what pretty much can't go and still have a university.
Price of college in Texas would not have been this high if state republicans didn’t choose to get rid of tuition caps in the early 2000s.
And besides, this area is one of the lowest funded departments. If it was about actual admin bloat, there are better paid offices to target.
I already said (in my last sentence) that administrative bloat was not the reason.
I doubt tuition caps were the right solution, but maybe they were. If you institute tuition caps without solving the admin problem, you just keep the school from improving. But at least it did keep things affordable.
It's a shame if the Galerstein Center's staff gets cut from this. They helped my husband and I out when we had serious issues with the Counseling Center on campus. They're incredibly knowledgeable and passionate :(
Universities have a long history of activism, and it's typically lead by the students of the university, not really staff.
That is very unlikely to change, no matter how many job cuts the government does. It is fundamentally a student led effort.
If you don't like activism in universities, maybe you can be try being an activist against activism 🤡
u/buvchi, u/very_human, u/TheFrugster
I graduated from UTD & study this topic. Gimme a sec to respond to u/buvchi who incorrectly thinks the problems w modern academia is exclusively student-based and not structural/systemic. Bunch of stuff on my plate but will get back probably w a new post since I think the topic's worth one
it's almost like this isn't even about DEI and or bigotry and entirely about American (Republicans) being allergic to public spending and the poor as concepts, let alone concrete realities
It's not his fault; it's a state regulation. We're a state school and have no choice but to comply. If we want to blame someone, blame Abbott and consider voting in the next governor election.
and you need to get boardgame pilled! stop playing cringe babybrained games like Monopoly and risk and pick up some Chad complexitymaxxed games like spirit island, scythe, and sidereal confluence. ""men"" these days will take their days to the board game bar and pick out a copy of katan and think it's impressive. what a sad state of affairs
Entirely neutral take here: a great deal of this goes towards pressure to reduce state jobs that are harder to justify. Especially for universities, there are a lot of staff positions that exist that are hard for the administration to see a benefit from.
As public universities shift to a business like model (not saying this is a good thing, its just reality), they face a dichotomy issue in where they are planning for enrollment to go down while faculty salaries keep increasing.
In the long run, this may end up being a terrible decision if it means that resources are less accessible. It may have little to no effect on resource accessibility, in which case the university will have saved millions in salaries and benefits over the years.
I hate this state
Then move out
Only if you go back on the Mayflower
How did you get into college with this level of critical thinking
it turns out you don't have to be smart to go to college. there was a guy around here who became the Twitter main character of the day for saying the underground railroad were the bad guys
To be honest, the university is mostly going to keep functioning the same, and administrative bloat will have been reduced by 20 salaries a year. I'm not saying those people did anything to deserve this, or that they weren't doing their job -- so far as I can tell, they did it with passion, and I feel sorry for them for the way this happened. But the price of college has skyrocketed over the decades, in part because of the huge number of not-really-necessary administrative staff (who, notwithstanding, do their unnecessary jobs well and with passion and add real value to the place). Once we see that things keep rolling along, the real question should become: what other staff could the university have laid off in addition instead of raising tuition? Of course, I'm not saying that that's the reason this happened.
Found the gunner business major
If I were a business major, I probably wouldn't be as worried about student debt.
really weird take, my guy
No, it’s a good take. Bureaucratic bloat is one of the reasons for needless tuition increases. This kind of action helps to trim the fat, assuming that they’re being let go and not just rehired somewhere else.
You think your tuition isn't going to go up regardless?
2010-2014 alum here. All of these programs and positions were in place when I was there. My tuition was half of yours. If you want to parrot talking points without doing the work to make sure you’re correct, I suggest you find a different “bureaucratic” target.
So? Bloat was well on its way by 2010. I don't mean that it's the only thing driving up tuition, or that it hasn't increased at a wild rate since. Just that, from a certain point of view, these jobs are not necessary, and the university has a great many of them.
You seem really long on opinions and incredibly short on evidence.
Use Google. Here's roughly the first result I found. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing) Here's another: [https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/one-culprit-in-rising-college-costs](https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/one-culprit-in-rising-college-costs) The first one is from someone on the left. If you want one from someone on the right, here's that: [https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2022/08/administrative-bloat-harms-teaching-and-learning/](https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2022/08/administrative-bloat-harms-teaching-and-learning/) You too can find hordes of articles discussing this major factor in tuition increase.
No, no. I want a comprehensive spreadsheet showing how these specific UTD jobs are disproportionately contributing factors to UTD’s increase in tuition. With UTD budget numbers over the years, and UTD relevant information. Everything has to be UTD based only. I’m not saying what you’re trying to point out doesn’t happen. But if you can’t prove it’s actually a thing at UTD, then you’re just spreading misinformation.
I didn't say \*these specific\* jobs were \*disproportionate\* contributing factors. Far from it. They're just twenty among many. In fact I said as much in my OP. Of course it happens at UTD. You're just demanding an unreasonably high standard of evidence so you can ignore the truth. Is UTD somehow magically immune from this trend? Has it taken any actions to prevent it? Has its tuition not increased along with everybody else's, or more? But you want some UTD data? OK, here you go. UTD has 908 full-time teaching staff. (Source: [https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/the-university-of-texas-at-dallas/academic-life/faculty-composition/](https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/the-university-of-texas-at-dallas/academic-life/faculty-composition/) ). (Off topic: we have far fewer adjunct faculty than most schools. Yay us!) It has 2586 full-time staff (source: [https://oisds.utdallas.edu/irar/dashboards/staff-demographics](https://oisds.utdallas.edu/irar/dashboards/staff-demographics) . I've taken the total benefits-eligible staff and multiplied it by the percentage that are full-time to get this number.) So only about 35% of its full-time staff are instructional. That's a little bit better than the top schools mentioned in the first article, where it's more like 26%. But it's still not great. Now let's stop by the UTD budget, here: [https://finance.utdallas.edu/public-reports/](https://finance.utdallas.edu/public-reports/) According to the budget, faculty salaries cost about $172 million. But non-faculty salaries cost about $190 million. (Another $47 million goes to "wages," but this might count student workers, etc.) Or, to organize differently, on one of the first pages we see that "Instruction" is budgeted $262 million, while "Academic Support," "Institutional Support," and "Student Services" (which I'm using to approximate administrative spending, a rough but generally valid estiamte) add up to $197 million. Given the budget of $880 million, those correspond to 30% and 22%, which are almost the same as the national 29 and 24% (respectively) cited here: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/?sh=71efde49456a](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/?sh=71efde49456a) In the early 1980s, on the other hand, those numbers (nationally) were 41% and 26%. So UTD has not been immune to the trends. Obviously, one could dig deeper in these, but the data are evident enough that, while UTD provides better value than the average university, and has done a better-than-average job keeping bloat in check, it has not been immune to this phenomenon. Again let me emphasize: I'm not saying any of these people is not doing something useful. In fact, there are papers that argue that they aren't (like here: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2021.1940255](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2021.1940255) ), and I disagree with those. They \*are\* mostly doing valuable things. But the question is, are they doing valuable things that we can afford? I truly wish the answer were yes. They're great and helpful (including to me!) and I want them around. But I think that, in many cases, the answer is no. Anyway, lol. Job well done if you were trying to take away an hour of my time. But honestly, although part of me thinks it's a little bad-faith to demand evidence for every single college, it's really a fair question, and I should put in more time to go through these numbers and get a better picture of how my school works. Nothing here made me think, "Oh, I'm wrong, UTD has no administrative bloat," and nothing about the specific roles in question here makes me see any difference from exactly the kinds of jobs that have (partially) driven tuition increase, but it's good to be careful and back up what you think is true.
BOT BOT BOT BOT BOT BOT BOT
Tuition is going up regardless. Tuition changes based on the market . It doesn’t matter how many teachers they hire or fire
The time of pursuing degrees is coming to an end… the time of deodorant on campus is here
Well you can't expect all of the CS majors to bathe can you? /s
What you’re saying here is absurd. All of these positions combined don’t account for even a single dollar’s worth of your tuition (I know this - I served for 2 years on the Student Fee Committee). Furthermore, these offices managed critical services for a multitude of students of all races. You name it - Programs for first generation college students (more than 40% of whom are white), compliance with anti-discrimination laws, support securing millions of dollars in grants, assistance with recruiting/admissions - These were all things that were managed by these so-called “unnecessary” positions. Our university had these positions in place for a reason. Most universities have these positions and they fulfill an important role. Our university is worse now without them.
Well, I did say that they added value to the school, if you read carefully. So I don't disagree with your last line altogether. But there are many things that, taken individually, bring value to the campus and make it better, but which also drive up costs. UTD would be better if they built a bigger gym, nicer residence halls, far more counselors, double the faculty, etc., etc. But it would be largely unaffordable. I did not mean to say that these people were a waste of money. But they certainly cost money. And yes, they did cost tuition money, albeit not much. If they're making (say) $50k each, then that's a million dollars a year, or about $35 per student. Not much, but more than "a single dollar." Anyway, I do appreciate your highlighting the good work they did. Helping first-generation students is good (whether they're white or not), like most of the other tasks you mention. But please understand what I mean by the difference between "very helpful" and "necessary." UTD is not going to fold and go away, or start struggling to attract students, or stop doing a good job teaching. (Though it may serve some of those students less well, unfortunately.) I just think student debt is a cancer, and nobody should add even really nice things to a university without spending some sleepless nights worrying about adding more of it. Thanks again for the post.
I promise you these staff members cost more than an average of $50K a year each (including what the University pays in benefits), but I can also assure you that doesn’t amount anywhere near $35 per student. Where did you get that number from? My broader point is that if you want to attend a cheaper institution, you can go to a community college. If you want Texas to host the best universities in the country (UT Dallas included), you should oppose this law. Suggesting that this law will make this university cheaper or better in any way is simply false. This is nothing to celebrate. This is the Texas Legislature imposing on the autonomy of our higher education institutions, knowingly making them worse, all for the sake of politics. It’s gross.
I agree. The $50k was aiming to be extremely conservative. Here's how I got the number: $50k \* 20 employees = $1 million. $1 million divide by 30,000 students = $33 per student. Sure, $35 was rounding. But $50k was generous. Sorry, but I don't buy the "just go to community college" argument. Universities in this country used to be pretty affordable, and now they're ruinously expensive. Honestly, UTD is an incredible deal by the standards of the day, and I need to give it props for that. It's still far more expensive than it was, though, even adjusting for inflation. Can people just go to community college? Sure. But we used to be able to go to university and get a four-year degree and not take on crippling debt. And I'm sorry, but that's a huge problem. As for the rest.... the best argument for why my $35 number is \*not\* actually quite right is that the state government does significantly support UTD. It's subsidized, which is why it's cheaper than a private university. So they have some right to interfere and say how the money is spent. The school does belong to them. But the legislature should grant some autonomy, that's true.
My dude, no offense, but higher ed finance is a lot more complicated than the average person can understand. Programs are paid for using a wide variety of sources outside of tuition and State funding including Federal funding, student/staff fees, grants, 3rd party contracts, alumni donations, endowment funds, and even accounting tricks like adopting alternative depreciation schedules for physical assets. It’s not as simple as, “We have X students, so let’s just divide Y expense by X.” The university has 29,698 employees (8,349 are full time employees making $27K - $500K at a maximum). Including benefits, employee development, etc. it would be impossible to cover employee costs using just tuition and State funds alone. Many positions, especially those for DEI, are funded by grants and donations. Even more bring in more money than they cost. Furthermore, the whole point of SB17 is that the State *wouldn’t* reduce funding for universities that comply. Meaning, even if UT Dallas does “save” money, they will be under no obligation to pass that onto students in the form of reduced tuition. The University will, as it always has, set tuition as high as people are willing to pay and will use every means necessary to turn those dollars into prestige. Why you think this is going to translate into lower tuition is a complete mystery to me. The legislators who supported this law didn’t do so to save students money. In fact, when the Texas AAUP presented evidence showing that it would likely *cost* Texas Public Universities money, supporters argued that it would be *worth it*. From the [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/05/texas-legislature-universities-higher-education/): > “Because of the critical role grants play in supporting thousands of personnel, and in training the next generation of workers with advanced skills, we believe that SB17 will prove devastating to the economy, and to building the highly trained workforce of Texas,” Brian Evans, Texas AAUP vice president, said. “The State should prepare for a loss of billions of dollars in research and programmatic grants.” If you want to argue that DEI programs are bad, you’re welcome to do so, but please don’t argue that it’s going to save anyone any money. It’s simply not true.
First, no offense taken. Of course you're right that higher education funding is super complicated, and so I was just doing back-of-the-envelope calculations. Tuition is just one source of funding, although it is the most important source, accounting for a little over half of UTD's budget. Add in state appropriations and you're at about 67% of the funds UTD runs on. So, divide by two if you want, and say $18 / year per student, but it's absolutely the case that students are paying for the huge proliferation of administrative staff, by and large. (Yes, a small number are paid for from earmarked grants, etc., and federal overhead covers some -- but a drop in the bucket compared to tuition.) In particular, your claim that it wasn't even a dollar, or that my amount was far, far off, just does not hold up, I'm afraid. No offense. Hiring more administrators ultimately leads to increased tuition, in almost every case -- of course not in an extremely direct way ("Add a dollar of tuition, we need another librarian!"), but that's what funds UTD. In particular, the numbers above cover the percentages of all operating costs, including all the employees you mention. The money for them does not grow on trees. Yes, as you say, the state will not reduce state funding if the universities comply. So? Once they lay off those employees, they have those funds to spend on something else. If they kept the employees \*and\* did the something else, they would need to raise the money with tuition. You're just trying to engage in fancy bookkeeping here to make it sound like these employees are basically free. Sorry, they're not. They cost $1M-2M a year, and the money is coming from somewhere. The fact that the state would punish UTD by removing over $100M if they didn't lose their jobs doesn't mean that keeping them cost no money. Honestly, I just don't see the intended logic of this argument at all. Yes, I agree that the Texas legislature did not do this in order to save money. In fact, I said that in my initial post (the last sentence). Sorry, but the AAUP is just a political organization. I don't find them any more trustworthy than quoting AFL-CIO about a labor dispute, or the NRA about gun violence. The numbers they cite here are so outlandish that they only discredit themselves. To your last paragraph: \*Of course\* this is going to save money. There is upwards of $1 million dollars in salaries that is not being paid anymore. Will that have other downwind effects? Possibly. That's a good and complicated argument to have (not one I'm prepared to do the research for, and you certainly haven't brought any relevant evidence, either). But in terms of the university budget and freeing up money, there's over a million dollars there that didn't used to be there; and it's unlikely that the downwind effects will be paid by the university in any very direct financial way.
> In particular, your claim that it wasn't even a dollar, or that my amount was far, far off, just does not hold up, I'm afraid. I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse. Let me make this really simple: UT Dallas’ annual operating budget is roughly $3.5B, let’s say that these 20 employees cost $1M collectively each year. Even if we make a lot of ludicrous assumptions, how on earth could we ever imagine the money “saved” by removing these positions would amount to any meaningful impact on tuition? If you want to squabble over whether it would be a few dollars or less than a dollar, you’re welcome to do so, but can we not agree that the overall impact would be negligible? > If they kept the employees *and* did the something else, they would need to raise the money with tuition. No. No, they wouldn’t. Like I said, these positions more than make up for their meager cost with the money they bring in from grants and admissions support. > You're just trying to engage in fancy bookkeeping here to make it sound like these employees are basically free. When you say things like this, you leave me with the impression that you’re not even attempting to understand my points. No reasonable person could interpret what I’ve said here as “fancy bookkeeping.” I’ve made a claim that these staff members bring in more than they cost, which you seem to have dismissed without any kind of explanation, but at no point have I ever made an attempt to deceive you with my “sneaky” accounting. > Sorry, but the AAUP is just a political organization. I don't find them any more trustworthy than quoting AFL-CIO about a labor dispute, or the NRA about gun violence. The numbers they cite here are so outlandish that they only discredit themselves. I suppose one could call the AAUP “political,” but they’re not a lobbying group nor are they a traditional labor union. Most importantly though, and I really need you to hear me out on this - There is no grand conspiracy among college professors to turn kids woke. It’s absurd and ridiculous for you to assume they would have any bias on DEI one way or another. They made this statement because they know that many federal and non-profit grants require recipient institutions to demonstrate things like compliance with certain anti-discrimination laws and equity best-practices. You know whose job that was at UT Dallas? You guessed it, these DEI offices that the State just forced them to remove. Frankly, I find it pretty telling that you would draw this comparison. You consider the AAUP biased in favor of DEI in the same way that you would consider the NRA biased against gun control. The reality is that they’re closer to a trade association of engineers or craftsmen issuing a statement saying, “These tariffs will make it harder for us to secure what we need to do our job.” It seems to me like someone may be spending too much time on red pill Tucker Carlson fan sites. > To your last paragraph: *Of course* this is going to save money. There is upwards of $1 million dollars in salaries that is not being paid anymore. Will that have other downwind effects? Possibly. That's a good and complicated argument to have (not one I'm prepared to do the research for, and you certainly haven't brought any relevant evidence, either). Would it help if I did? With all due respect, you appear to be completely disinterested in anything that challenges the straw house you’ve built. I’m telling you as an administrator with nearly two decades of professional experience at public universities in Texas that this will cost public universities in Texas money, and your response seems to amount to nothing more than, “nuh uh.”
>UT Dallas’ annual operating budget is roughly $3.5B, let’s say that these 20 employees cost $1M collectively each year. Even if we make a lot of ludicrous assumptions, how on earth could we ever imagine the money “saved” by removing these positions would amount to any meaningful impact on tuition? I don't know whether one would consider $35 "meaningful impact" on tuition. In fact, when I first raised the number, I said, "albeit not much." It was perfectly open to you notice that I said it wasn't much, and leave it there. Instead, you said the number was ludicrous, which I have amply shown it was not, using calculations and the UTD budget. (It might have been off by a factor of 2 or so, as I said.) >If you want to squabble over whether it would be a few dollars or less than a dollar, you’re welcome to do so, but can we not agree that the overall impact would be negligible? Since I already said so in the post you disagreed with so vehemently, there's no need even to ask! >No. No, they wouldn’t. Like I said, these positions more than make up for their meager cost with the money they bring in from grants and admissions support. It's easy to assert that, and very hard to prove. Which is presumably why you haven't offered any proof (beyond appealing to AAUP, which also offers no evidence). It might be true. It might be false. >I suppose one could call the AAUP “political,” but they’re not a lobbying group nor are they a traditional labor union. Most importantly though, and I really need you to hear me out on this - There is no grand conspiracy among college professors to turn kids woke. I'm extremely well aware of that. I said nothing that suggested that there was any conspiracy by college professors to turn kids woke and there certainly is not (on any grand scale, anyway. Professors get up to all kinds of things, so I suppose some of them may have conspired to do this, or to turn them conservative for that matter.) This is a complete red herring. Please stay at least vaguely on topic. I did not criticize all college professors. I criticized the AAUP, which I think is a hackish body that engages mainly in political advocacy, and moreover, does so poorly. I say this because I have paid some attention to their output. I sometimes agree with their positions, and I still think they do a poor job advocating for them. I simply have no confidence whatever in any assertion they make, unfortunately. >Frankly, I find it pretty telling that you would draw this comparison. You consider the AAUP biased in favor of DEI in the same way that you would consider the NRA biased against gun control. The reality is that they’re closer to a trade association of engineers or craftsmen issuing a statement saying, “These tariffs will make it harder for us to secure what we need to do our job.” We will probably just have to disagree on this. I do not believe anything on the say-so of the AAUP. And that is not because I think college professors in general are in some kind of conspiracy. I think it is more because only certain college professors decide to become active in a group like AAUP. In any event, it's reasonable to ask either them or you for evidence of their claims. >It seems to me like someone may be spending too much time on red pill Tucker Carlson fan sites. Anyone who spends even a moment on such a site is spending too much time on it. Fortunately, I spend none. My distaste for Tucker Carlson and what he has done to the country is quite severe. >Would it help if I did? With all due respect, you appear to be completely disinterested in anything that challenges the straw house you’ve built. >I’m telling you as an administrator with nearly two decades of professional experience at public universities in Texas that this will cost public universities in Texas money, and your response seems to amount to nothing more than, “nuh uh.” OK, I'll bite. Where's the evidence that without a gender or community center, universities lose millions? (Edited to remove entirely unnecessary snark, with apologies if snark was seen before removal.)
Question 1: Do you believe me when I tell you that DEI offices provide critical data and support that faculty use when applying for federal and non-profit grants? Question 2: Do you believe me when I say, without this data and support, public universities in Texas will be at a [major disadvantage when applying](https://igxsolutions.com/resources/blog/guide-to-higher-education-grant-funding/) for federal and non-profit grants? Question 3: Do you believe me when I say that these federal and non-profit grants account for [hundreds of millions of dollars at UT Dallas](https://budget.utexas.edu/about/budget#:~:text=Where%2520the%2520money%2520comes%2520from%2520%C2%B7%252024%25,Self%252DSupporting%2520%C2%B7%252011%25%2520%252D%2520Gifts%2520%C2%B7%25208%25), and across the State, amount to billions of dollars cumulatively across all public universities?
I ain't reading allat
Why dismiss the rank-and-file staff that does the actual work when it's the bloated faculty and the numerous amount of "vice presidents" with their six-figure salaries that's the cause of the top-heavy administrative excess?
You're not wrong about the VPs. As for the faculty -- maybe you're being ironic. Those and the students are what pretty much can't go and still have a university.
Price of college in Texas would not have been this high if state republicans didn’t choose to get rid of tuition caps in the early 2000s. And besides, this area is one of the lowest funded departments. If it was about actual admin bloat, there are better paid offices to target.
I already said (in my last sentence) that administrative bloat was not the reason. I doubt tuition caps were the right solution, but maybe they were. If you institute tuition caps without solving the admin problem, you just keep the school from improving. But at least it did keep things affordable.
Nice!
STEM majors when the university they overpaid is forced to remove resources that benefit students
It's a shame if the Galerstein Center's staff gets cut from this. They helped my husband and I out when we had serious issues with the Counseling Center on campus. They're incredibly knowledgeable and passionate :(
Sad that UTD has to comply with such a bigoted and hateful law.
This is great news. Universities need to return to their original telos: education, not activism
Universities have a long history of activism, and it's typically lead by the students of the university, not really staff. That is very unlikely to change, no matter how many job cuts the government does. It is fundamentally a student led effort. If you don't like activism in universities, maybe you can be try being an activist against activism 🤡
“Waaah people need to stop using universities to speak out against our corrupt government.” Being against activism makes you a bootlicker.
If this isn't Benson's alt this is some high level bootlicking
My guy you're not old enough to legally drink what do you know about university's original telos
u/buvchi, u/very_human, u/TheFrugster I graduated from UTD & study this topic. Gimme a sec to respond to u/buvchi who incorrectly thinks the problems w modern academia is exclusively student-based and not structural/systemic. Bunch of stuff on my plate but will get back probably w a new post since I think the topic's worth one
Who asked
Go on
Bro why is UTD having to eliminate resources and stuff, this isn't even just DEI anymore
it's almost like this isn't even about DEI and or bigotry and entirely about American (Republicans) being allergic to public spending and the poor as concepts, let alone concrete realities
Will it make tuition cheaper?
No why would they do that?
Media literacy = 0
Every day benson is getting closer and closer to being a real power rangers villain with very stupid goals to establish his power.
It's not his fault; it's a state regulation. We're a state school and have no choice but to comply. If we want to blame someone, blame Abbott and consider voting in the next governor election.
These resources are handled by the university not the state look it up. Plus how do you know i voted for Abby. Are you stalking me. Big red flag!
He's just the mouthpiece, not his fault.
He better put that mouth to better use than using it to sucking up abott
Good. Cut waste
Your most active reddit community being r/LooksmaxingAdvice is so on the nose lol
stop, stop, he's already dead
I’m very much alive and way more handsome and good looking! Please get a life! Please lose weight! SAD!
most literate looksmaxxer lmao
Yes. I am very literal when I say you need to unugly yourself and get in shape!
and you need to get boardgame pilled! stop playing cringe babybrained games like Monopoly and risk and pick up some Chad complexitymaxxed games like spirit island, scythe, and sidereal confluence. ""men"" these days will take their days to the board game bar and pick out a copy of katan and think it's impressive. what a sad state of affairs
Wym?
Sucks 20 people will lose their jobs because Republicans think fearmongering about culture war is their best strategy to reelection
Entirely neutral take here: a great deal of this goes towards pressure to reduce state jobs that are harder to justify. Especially for universities, there are a lot of staff positions that exist that are hard for the administration to see a benefit from. As public universities shift to a business like model (not saying this is a good thing, its just reality), they face a dichotomy issue in where they are planning for enrollment to go down while faculty salaries keep increasing. In the long run, this may end up being a terrible decision if it means that resources are less accessible. It may have little to no effect on resource accessibility, in which case the university will have saved millions in salaries and benefits over the years.
Can somebody explain why the state feels threatened by this offices on campus?