If support staff salaries represent under 3% of payroll (and that's probably an overestimate, since they won't get paid as much as teaching staff and administrators), then growth in the proportion of support staff can't explain an approximately 100% increase in tuition.
You're probably right. And I should have been more clear that support staff hires are a *contributor* to the problem and not the whole story. Nevertheless, if "support staff" includes very highly-paid administrators and assistant deans - the way it does in US colleges - then that 3% might pull a lot more weight.
According to the definition in your article, support staff includes "educational consultants, student exchange program coordinators, testing services, research and development, guidance counselors, and tutoring and exam preparation services". I don't see how that category, as you've described it, could include administrators and assistant deans.
There is another important factor that I plan to cover in a follow-up: Ontario's sunshine list contains a large number of university employees (both administrators and professors) earning more than $400,000. I would imagine that salary bloat plays a significant role in all this - and, for Ontario at least, the numbers are available.
Of course, I won't know how significant this is until I properly work through the data.
Can I ask how you generated figure 1? Statscan does count the numerator (academic staff) but to my knowledge no one counts the denominator (total staff at universities). So what was the source of the data?
Also, I would be careful about equating intl student fees to "cost of education". Institutions charge what the market will bear; in many cases, that's well above cost.
Ok. This one was a few months back so I had to push my poor old memory (and notes) to their limit. StatCan lists all University employees in their Employment by Industry dataset (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1410020201). You need to expand: Educational Services > Education special > Universities
I'm not sure why they call it "Education special", but it definitely doesn't mean "special education" - as the total employment count for universities in 2023 was 343,499.
That's an interesting point about international fees and market constraints. I wonder if there's any hard evidence one way or the other.
Ah, ok, it's from SEPH. Interesting, didn;t know it was broken down this way. Thanks.
The thing to remember here though is that the *vast* majority of university payrolls - if you look at it by simple headcount - are made up of students working PT.
It's killing certain cultural institutions...which, in some cases, might be a good thing. Perhaps we're better off without them. University for the masses it probably one good example.
If support staff salaries represent under 3% of payroll (and that's probably an overestimate, since they won't get paid as much as teaching staff and administrators), then growth in the proportion of support staff can't explain an approximately 100% increase in tuition.
You're probably right. And I should have been more clear that support staff hires are a *contributor* to the problem and not the whole story. Nevertheless, if "support staff" includes very highly-paid administrators and assistant deans - the way it does in US colleges - then that 3% might pull a lot more weight.
According to the definition in your article, support staff includes "educational consultants, student exchange program coordinators, testing services, research and development, guidance counselors, and tutoring and exam preparation services". I don't see how that category, as you've described it, could include administrators and assistant deans.
There is another important factor that I plan to cover in a follow-up: Ontario's sunshine list contains a large number of university employees (both administrators and professors) earning more than $400,000. I would imagine that salary bloat plays a significant role in all this - and, for Ontario at least, the numbers are available.
Of course, I won't know how significant this is until I properly work through the data.
6117 seemed to be the only NAICS designation that the Statistics Canada table made available. They seemed to place only teaching staff in 6113: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3710014401
I'm not 100% sure, of course, but it seems possible that something like "educational consultants" can cover a lot of ground.
Can I ask how you generated figure 1? Statscan does count the numerator (academic staff) but to my knowledge no one counts the denominator (total staff at universities). So what was the source of the data?
Also, I would be careful about equating intl student fees to "cost of education". Institutions charge what the market will bear; in many cases, that's well above cost.
Ok. This one was a few months back so I had to push my poor old memory (and notes) to their limit. StatCan lists all University employees in their Employment by Industry dataset (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1410020201). You need to expand: Educational Services > Education special > Universities
I'm not sure why they call it "Education special", but it definitely doesn't mean "special education" - as the total employment count for universities in 2023 was 343,499.
That's an interesting point about international fees and market constraints. I wonder if there's any hard evidence one way or the other.
Ah, ok, it's from SEPH. Interesting, didn;t know it was broken down this way. Thanks.
The thing to remember here though is that the *vast* majority of university payrolls - if you look at it by simple headcount - are made up of students working PT.
It's killing certain cultural institutions...which, in some cases, might be a good thing. Perhaps we're better off without them. University for the masses it probably one good example.