Dec. 25, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
This way they can learn early to have others pay their way. They can follow in their parent's footprints and depend on taxpayers for a whole life of free stuff, with minimal work.
Of course, those private university professors whose kids get a free ride are ok, right?
The five kids free anecdote is grossly misleading. Most private schools do not have "deep pockets" (one third are living on the financial edge; few have any significant endowments) and the tuition benefit for most private schools is much more restrictive than the anecdote would suggest, if it exists at all. Some private schools are reducing or eliminating this benefit. A smarter way would be to increase KU merit scholarship funding and expect that children of university employees would be deserving based on merit, not nepotism.
Faculty and staff children have a shot at one scholarship? I wonder how many scholarships they are explicitly denied access to due to the need to avoid the appearance of favoritism or nepotism.
It sees unlikely that very many professors would want their children to attend KU if they had other options. Thanks to the attitudes of people like the first few posters above, Kansas does not have a university that is even in the top 100. Both KU and K-State dropped in the last national rankings. You can attend a higher ranked university just by crossing the state line to Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, or Oklahoma. The disparity will get even bigger if the Legislature cuts more funding this year.
Tuition benefits seem like a minor point. Professors obviously believe that education is important, so it's hard to imagine them wanting their kids to stay in Kansas. This isn't a state for educated people.
Kansas is simply not a state for quality higher education.
Education is important. Unfortunately, FORMAL education is a gigantic rip-off. Maybe if KU didn't have high school graduates teaching math classes and charging full tuition for it they may get a little more respect both nationally and from their customers. Oh wait...I forgot - Univer$ities don't have customers. They have slaves.
Actually a fair number of KU faculty have children attending the University. Here is a KU press release about one: Rodolfo Matias Torres (http://www.chem.ku.edu/kyle-young-and-rodi-torres-win-prestigious-nsf-graduate-research-fellowships).
I happen to know that this KU undergraduate turned down Caltech.
IMHO the faculty and staff at KU should be afforded all the financial opportunities available to the average Kansan for whom they work.
If another Kansas Board of Regents school is offering better benefits than KU, then that either those benefits should be mirrored at KU, or the other school should have the benefit removed. There should be consistency across the board. Regarding the idea that faculty shouldn't want to send their kids to Kansas, I say hogwash. Professors know more about the quality of individual programs than people on the outside looking in. Kansas has a number of programs that are nationally ranked, and many others that are on the rise.
Well I'm not afraid to ask the obvious (and probably politically incorrect questions): why should KU's, or for that matter any state-supported school's) faculty receive this tax-payer supported perk? I had to manage my education funding, and that of my kids -- why should they get it at my expense?
any classes taken by KU staff through tuition assistance counts as income. So the "student" is paying taxes.
what freebies do you think they get, and what does it cost you?
Its not 1960 any more, you would have to make about $30,000 so the student would have to have a full time job making $14 hours a week and work that job year round just to break even, not to be able to eat they would have to get a second job.
Just try finding a 12,000 house nowadays. Just try finding a house of equivalent value for the present day wages, not to mention utilities, gas, etc. I guess you haven't been awake, but people are paying a higher percent of their incomes for the basics than when I was young.
Even so when I was young! I only had 12,000 in student loans with my Bachelor's, paid 450 per month in rent on a 3-bedroom, 2-bath home with a fenced yard, and my car payment was 90$ per month, and gas was around two dollars per gallon at its highest. I had a job that paid 11$ per hour, and that was LIVING, back then! (Early 90s.) Never had to choose which bill to "skip" that month, didn't have to worry about how I was going to buy groceries.
The job I was offered upon graduating paid 13.45 per hour, and I didn't have to panic about making ends meet. That same job, today, or rather its equivalent, since most social programs have been slashed, pays around 10 per hour, and still requires a degree. Costs of living have increased exponentially, and although I make a little more than I did back then, my standard of living has taken a nosedive. (That same house now rents for 1350.) My parents were "paid for" by their parents, but they certainly couldn't have afforded to put me through, and I know, the way things are structured right now, my own are going to need loans, scholarships, grants, or the military.
Why don't some people understand that? How are they completely unable to see that wages have not kept up with living costs, and we have to do a whole lot more with considerably less?
Because they don't want to.
Ahh... That whole, "Conveniently Cognizant" thing!
Rick Levy made $188K last year at KU. Donna Ginther $171K. Not exactly poster-profs for the need for subsidized tuition for dependents of KU employees.
It would have been much better politically if the task force had been savvy enough to identify some hard-working staff members or lesser-paid humanities professors to serve as examples of KU employees whose kids could benefit from a tuition break. But no, they let Rick Levy stand up and tell his story . . . never a shortage of words there.
They are fighting for everyone not just themselves. Think about every admin assistant who could get their degree or put their kids through college.
Tuition assistance is a nice benefit for faculty, but in these times of decreasing budgets and higher tuition, it makes little sense for some of the highest-paid state employees to receive these benefits.
There is a possibility that this will drive away quality faculty, but I think the possibility is remote, as most faculty want to send their children to better schools in other states and countries for a well-rounded experience.
KU should focus on using its resources and scholarships to recruit the best students from the state, country and world, regardless of faculty status of their parents.
ummm highest paid state employees???? The average KU professor makes about $70k, not a whole lot for people who have earned a PhD and can have debt over $100k because of this. Don't let the salaries of a few (Drs & Lawyers) lead you to believe that all are paid like kings.
The last I heard, the average KU faculty salary was about $110,000 per year. And that was several years ago. Does the 70K figure include the TAs to bring the average down? As far as the staff employees are concerned, they may be KU classified employees, but they are on the same retirement system as other state employees who get no tuition assistance. Bottom line, KU Faculty members are the highest paid public employees in the state and can well afford to educate their children. I'd like to see some actual proof of what KU Faculty and staff make. By law that information is open to the public.
No it does not include TA, the average however is inflated because of the pay from law and medical, you will not find a Professor making that in social work, humanities, English, education, ect. I know professors that have been at KU 20+ years that are not making 100k.
Some of you people just do not get it. It's not all about Levy or Ginther this benefit helps the facility maintenance worker who makes 35k a year or any other staff person on campus. This benefit is common throughout higher education. For example, most Ohio and PA state schools allow dependents of their faculty and staff get 100% tuition benefits on undergraduate degrees and tax at 40% graduate tuition. This is huge for administrative assistants and lower level employees. Do people making six figures take advantage, sure but the vast majority of university employees are not making six figures. Think about the big picture and do not let the fact that you paid for your own education get in the way of the betterment of the community. This benefit is a huge recruiting tool and also helps in retention.
Pretty sure the Congo has higher education standards than Kansas
Why should they be different from all the other hard working low paid citizens of this state. The average income in Kansas is round $50K. The average income at KU (pick a number) is between $70 and $100+K.
Kansas and others have programs to help the children of low income families. If the faculty/staff member fits the definition then by all means extend support. If not, why should they receive a perk not available to the general public.
I keep hearing about attracting good people. Apparently we can pay substantial salaries to do do so. I am unaware that we are having problem attracting staff or TAs - those most likely to need tuition assistance and most likely to qualified for what is available to other lower income citizens.
Good lord people we can not pay to help our disabled yet we should advance a perk to people making more then twice the average income in Kansas.
Then you need to take a better look at the school, there is a reason they are falling in the ratings and have a very poor retention compared to comparable schools. It is pretty much a farm league for the big schools now, people come get experience then are taking jobs are better colleges.
You are right to a point. That said because of challenges in a few of our schools should we extend a new expensive and inequitable perk to all? Just pay the high performers more.
Of course burried in all this is how much Kansas (not a wealthy state) can pay to compete with private universities and university in far wealthier states. We just may have to be selective. After all the primary purpose of KU is to provide advanced educational opportunities to our citizens.
Research should pay for itself. If your good you will bring in plenty of money and be well rewarded.
every other regents school does it, except KU. The state wants to put caps on professors salaries, the state has schools that it does not want to fund at a adequate level, the school is going to have to do something drastic to make people want to stay here and/or move here.
Or they can leave. The salaries at other regent schools are on average noticeably lower than KU.
We have a properly elected state government that is questioning the costs of higher education in the state. If they actually cut money to KU and limit tuition increases just how many will actually leave? Will that really limit educational opportunity or improve it for those who have to pay for it??
In short do I need a "world class" professor or a good journeyman professor to educate an undergraduate.. Do I really need world level competitive education at the advanced level in all my schools?
We are asking our public employees at the federal level to endure furloughs. Why is KU better?
A point I forgot. The rich faculty members arguing here are those where extending a salary increase would lead to about half of it going for taxes. A scholarship to a dependent could be manipulated to be that dependent's income and taxable to him/her. Since few people in that age range make much money it is essentially untaxed at the federal level and only taxed a bit in Kansas.
This all sound like greed to me.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·