This is idiotic. Most professors are NOT making $350, that's only a very few superstars. Professorial salaries, compared to cost of living, are much, much lower than they were 20 years ago. The people who got started more than 20 years ago are always talking about how they are the last ones who could buy a house in a nice suburbs and support a family.

It does vary from subject to subject and school to school. An English or Math professor in the faculty of arts and sciences is not going to be earning what a professor in the Law or Business school is earning. But the even fact that the Law professors have higher salaries doesn't explain why the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is so expensive to attend... those budgets are usually separate.

Colleges tend to throw a ton of money at things like fancy new student centers and sports. But sports bring in money you say? Yeah... if you have a winning team. For every college that has a winning team there are, by definition, a whole bunch that don't. Those colleges are wasting money. Also, while fancy student centers are nice and all, are they really necessary?

My BA alma mater used to have pretty, inexpensive traditions like afternoon tea and candlelight dinners. These things were special. They cut back on those sweet things, which were centered around the houses, and built a big fancy center like every college has, which was much more expensive than candles and little cakes. The cost since I graduated in '99 is up about 13k.

But blaming professorial salaries is absolute bullshit. You're always going to be able to point at an exceptionally high one, but that is EXCEPTIONALLY high.

I WISH my husband was earning $350k when we lived in the states.

Much as I favor education, and making education available, I think there is evidence that the skyrocketing costs of college are linked to the ease of obtaining and the rise in limits of student loans.

Note that federal subsidies and regulations also lead to massive bloat. An efficient teaching college will consist of at least 50% teaching staff. Most universities are far, far away from this. In the example cited on Coyote blog, the ratio is 6:1, i.e., only 1/7 of the staff is actually involved in teaching.

Somebody has to pay for the commissioners of indoctrination to tell the students what to think. Otherwise they might think for themselves and reach unapproved conclusions.

Face it, colleges have becomed overpaid gatekeepers of credentialism. These days, the credentials are worth less, and tending toward worthless for many. I've written this before, but it bears repeating. A degree in grievance studies is a red flag for me. I will never hire anyone who has one.

Yep, lets give more money to Harvard the has over 25 billion dollars in Endowments. Whoops wrong year. They have 31 billion dollars.

How about Harvard uses its own money first to help students. Actually let's make it fair. Government provides a subsidiary it has be covered
by Harvard itself. A nice 50/50 down the middle.

Actually taking the second to read the wiki page on Endowments

Found this interesting tidbit...

Large endowments have been criticized for "hoarding" money.[15][16][17] Most philanthropies are required by federal law to distribute 5% of their assets per year,[18][19] but university endowments are not required to spend anything.[18] Many universities with very large endowments would require less than 5% to pay full tuition for all their students. For example, it has been estimated that if in 2006 all the Harvard students had paid the maximum in tuition and fees, it would have amounted to less than $300 million.[20] In 2007, if Harvard had spent 5% of its $34.6 billion endowment,[21] all Harvard undergraduate and graduate students could have attended for free and the university would still have had $1.3 billion left over.[16] It would require less than 1% of the endowments of Harvard and Yale to allow all students to attend tuition-free;[18] Stanford, MIT, Princeton and Rice would require less than 2% of their endowments and 29 schools would require less than 3% for all their students to attend tuition-free.[18] Despite the decreasing values of endowments, congressmen, including Charles Grassley, have questioned whether the endowments are contributing enough to maintain their tax-exempt status.[17] After reviewing work in developing nations by 50 higher education institutions with endowments over $1 billion, Peter Hotez of George Washington University has stated that "pharmaceutical companies are doing more for the poorest people [in the world] than most of our wealthiest universities."[17]

Law profs make more than most profs because they are trying to compete with the market to bring in people. Typical peak salaries in the physical sciences is ~150,0000 (probably higher at Harvard as a private school). In fields where faculty don't bring in big grant money, the salaries are much lower.

Now administrative bloat and their salaries--that's a whole different story.

(1)  A school sells an education to the student with no guarantee of its value. If asked, the school reports that it offers degrees primarily to satisfy intellectual curiosity.

School Motto:  Our degrees enrich your life whether or not you get a better job. The student is an adult; ask him why he wants the degree.
Motivation:  Every additional student is mostly profit for the school, and the students with loans will pay up for this opportunity. Schools charge higher prices, financed by easy loans.
Mistake:  The student trusts that a college of fine intellectuals would not sell him something which is not worth the fees.

(2)  Our government arranges to loan money to the student in the name of equal opportunity. The easy money comes from Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association. It makes student loans directly to accredited schools. The government guarantees that Sallie Mae will receive full repayment if the student cannot repay the loan. The government specifically excludes student loans from bankruptcy, so the loan cannot be dismissed or reduced by the student.

School Motto:  Every teen deserves a degree and a better life. Government support proves we are doing good.
Motivation:  Politicians take credit for doing good. Schools lobby and support politicians with campaign contributions and honorary degrees. Schools are fundamentally a business.
Mistake:  The student trusts that the government would not lead him into misery. Wise politicians are looking out for him.

Schools make most of their money selling more and higher priced educations than could be supported by the individual finances of its students. They bask in the glow of government support. "We must be worth it, or the government would not be giving you a loan."

Why College Is A Waste Of Money
Consider the waste and dispair imposed by a college system that discards about half of the students who try for a degree.

Sallie Mae (government education loans) makes money. Most students can pay off their debt with a struggle. Sallie Mae gets partial recoveries by claiming the assets of the unfortunate students and co-signers. (Hey, they can go on welfare.) Loans that can't be repaid are reimbursed by the government. Sallie Mae is a fine place for politically connected managers to make large salaries in nice surroundings, "doing good".

Students and Taxpayers lose money. The students lose because they are tricked into buying an education which is valuable mostly because the certificate is required to get a good job. Government support hinders the development of competing models which could deliver at less cost the parts of education which are valuable for employment.

Many (maybe most) students buy an education which is worthless to them because it does not much improve their knowledge, thinking, or career prospects compared to what they spend. Many college students drop out with nothing but failure and debt.

( chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-great-college-degree-scam/28067 )
The Great College-Degree Scam
== ==
[edited] This supports the notion that credential inflation arises from a perceived need by individuals to demonstrate potential employment competence through a college diploma, a piece of paper. Employers are using education as a screening and signaling device, at a low cost directly to them (the taxes they pay), but at a high cost to prospective employees and to society as a whole.
== ==

The biggest component of a University's expenses come from faculty salaries. College tuition increases have outstripped inflation because faculty raises have outstripped inflation.

This has happened as a result of a desire to retain talent in the face of increasing enrollment. Increasing enrollment is a direct result of our culture's infatuation with 4 year degrees (and the magical belief that every field of study is equally important.)

This coupled with cheap government backed student loans have created the education bubble which is about to burst. We're going to see a lot of taxi drivers with PhD's.

We saw this happen in the the computer/tech industry as well.

There are several tech certs out there that are considered a joke among the the industry. There are the Microsoft Certified System Engineers (MCSE) certs. Shortly after M$ came out with them their were schools that were doing week long training sessions that the person would get a week long course, take the test on Friday and they were considered qualified. And they even have MCSE cruise ship courses. So saying to me that you are an MCSE does not impress me.

There is a top Cisco test that is eight hours long is done in front of other CCIE's and costs about $1,500. The people who can pass those tests make north of $100K. The number of people who can pass those tests are in a league of their own.

The point is that there are college degrees and certifications to respect. Others are a waste of time.

Higher education is stratospherically priced because there is easy (and free) money in it for the schools.

If you can get the government to guarantee tuition loans for students why would you charge less than what the students can get?