(04-14-2021 03:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I did a quick comparison between a hypothetical family of 3 making $150k per year that owns a home and has some good savings, and one that rents and has some, but not a significant amount, of savings. The difference in student/parent contributions were ~$20k between the two ($50k vs $30k).

Yep. It hurts double in high-cost areas (like California) where home values are sky high ... not to mention state/local taxes and cost of living (relative to a normalized salary figure). Some schools seem to expect that you'll take out second mortgages in addition to Parent-Plus loans ... or cash-out a bedroom or bathroom.

The tuition increases primarily serve to
A) increase the 'tax' on full freight students that can
B) subsidize more 'less than full freight' scholarships while
C) keeping our affordability the same and
D) increasing metrics like 'percentage of need met'

(04-14-2021 07:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 03:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I did a quick comparison between a hypothetical family of 3 making $150k per year that owns a home and has some good savings, and one that rents and has some, but not a significant amount, of savings. The difference in student/parent contributions were ~$20k between the two ($50k vs $30k).

Yep. It hurts double in high-cost areas (like California) where home values are sky high ... not to mention state/local taxes and cost of living (relative to a normalized salary figure). Some schools seem to expect that you'll take out second mortgages in addition to Parent-Plus loans ... or cash-out a bedroom or bathroom.

Yeah, it would be nice to be a bit more exhaustive and realistic with how families can finance the rising cost of ed.

That being said, I do understand the perspective that it's not the end of the world if parents/students need to take out a loan to pay for university since it is an investment in one's future.

(04-14-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That being said, I do understand the perspective that it's not the end of the world if parents/students need to take out a loan to pay for university since it is an investment in one's future.

Though that isn't always the case. It certainly CAN be and I'm sure that's what you're referring to...

but let me give you an example...
You're studying engineering or even art and could graduate this year but there is a class you want to take on 17th century french poetry, unrelated to your degree or goals... and it conflicts with a class you need to graduate... so you drop the class you need and take the poetry. You now either don't have your degree (and some people won't hire you) or you get your degree by taking out a 30,000 loan so that you can spend another semester at Rice.

Is that really an investment in your future?

I bring this up not to challenge you, but to note that a lot of people are spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on educations that don't have a hope of leading to a return on that 'investment'. Most degrees allow for numerous 'elective' courses that are intended to address education that doesn't lead to a return on that investment... but some people and some degrees are simply dead ends... either because the market for it doesn't exist or it does and isn't especially valued.

There is a joke in a movie taking place at Harvard where a kid is paying 50,000 for an education that he could get for $20 in late fees at the library... and there is SOME truth in that.

I wouldn't call such things an investment in your future... they are sometimes simply VERY expensive hobbies

The real question is where is all this money going? Do we really need another admin or empty bldg to boost someone ego or resume. If you're getting ur name on a bldg, pay for all of it and 30 years worth of maintenance. I went to Penn, graduating in 82. In 40 years, annual room, board and tuition has increased 10x. NOTHING HAS DONE SO IN THAT PERIOD, except maybe heath. It has all become a giant scam.

(04-14-2021 07:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 03:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I did a quick comparison between a hypothetical family of 3 making $150k per year that owns a home and has some good savings, and one that rents and has some, but not a significant amount, of savings. The difference in student/parent contributions were ~$20k between the two ($50k vs $30k).

Yep. It hurts double in high-cost areas (like California) where home values are sky high ... not to mention state/local taxes and cost of living (relative to a normalized salary figure). Some schools seem to expect that you'll take out second mortgages in addition to Parent-Plus loans ... or cash-out a bedroom or bathroom.

Exactly!!! Not to get off on the tuition tangent but when the EFC expects you to contribute 30+% of GROSS INCOME for this income range then something is out of whack!!! It also does not seem to take into account, or ignores, other children in the household that will attend college. Sorry for taking this thread down a rabbit hole but the "protecting the endowment" just twisted me off!!!

(04-14-2021 09:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That being said, I do understand the perspective that it's not the end of the world if parents/students need to take out a loan to pay for university since it is an investment in one's future.

Though that isn't always the case. It certainly CAN be and I'm sure that's what you're referring to...

but let me give you an example...
You're studying engineering or even art and could graduate this year but there is a class you want to take on 17th century french poetry, unrelated to your degree or goals... and it conflicts with a class you need to graduate... so you drop the class you need and take the poetry. You now either don't have your degree (and some people won't hire you) or you get your degree by taking out a 30,000 loan so that you can spend another semester at Rice.

Is that really an investment in your future?

I bring this up not to challenge you, but to note that a lot of people are spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on educations that don't have a hope of leading to a return on that 'investment'. Most degrees allow for numerous 'elective' courses that are intended to address education that doesn't lead to a return on that investment... but some people and some degrees are simply dead ends... either because the market for it doesn't exist or it does and isn't especially valued.

There is a joke in a movie taking place at Harvard where a kid is paying 50,000 for an education that he could get for $20 in late fees at the library... and there is SOME truth in that.

I wouldn't call such things an investment in your future... they are sometimes simply VERY expensive hobbies

NAILED IT!!!

(04-14-2021 09:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That being said, I do understand the perspective that it's not the end of the world if parents/students need to take out a loan to pay for university since it is an investment in one's future.

Though that isn't always the case. It certainly CAN be and I'm sure that's what you're referring to...

but let me give you an example...
You're studying engineering or even art and could graduate this year but there is a class you want to take on 17th century french poetry, unrelated to your degree or goals... and it conflicts with a class you need to graduate... so you drop the class you need and take the poetry. You now either don't have your degree (and some people won't hire you) or you get your degree by taking out a 30,000 loan so that you can spend another semester at Rice.

Is that really an investment in your future?

I bring this up not to challenge you, but to note that a lot of people are spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on educations that don't have a hope of leading to a return on that 'investment'. Most degrees allow for numerous 'elective' courses that are intended to address education that doesn't lead to a return on that investment... but some people and some degrees are simply dead ends... either because the market for it doesn't exist or it does and isn't especially valued.

There is a joke in a movie taking place at Harvard where a kid is paying 50,000 for an education that he could get for $20 in late fees at the library... and there is SOME truth in that.

I wouldn't call such things an investment in your future... they are sometimes simply VERY expensive hobbies

You're right that your example isn't what I'm talking about. In your example, I agree that the extra semester or year of tuition is NOT an investment in one's future. But why is that even a concern when it comes to affordability?

In that instance (which seems to be a really specific example and one that likely occurs infrequently), why should we care that Rice, a private university, is affordable in a way to avoid any loans, for a family whose student is going to it as a hobby?

People attending a school like Rice, which provides a top tier education, are investing in their future regardless of the major they choose - it just turns out some investments are either less risky or have a different ROI.

This isn't a defense of the increase in tuition across the board, and the burdens it adds to families. It's a comment on how relying on families taking out loans of a certain amount doesn't seem like a bad idea to an extent. I don't know how Rice does it, but it would be nice if they capped tuition responsibility in a more reasonable manner that didn't require a solidly middle class household to take out $50k loans each year. But $20k a year? That seems reasonable for the potential investment (but frankly, how people want to spend that investment is up to them).

(04-15-2021 09:14 AM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 09:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That being said, I do understand the perspective that it's not the end of the world if parents/students need to take out a loan to pay for university since it is an investment in one's future.

Though that isn't always the case. It certainly CAN be and I'm sure that's what you're referring to...

but let me give you an example...
You're studying engineering or even art and could graduate this year but there is a class you want to take on 17th century french poetry, unrelated to your degree or goals... and it conflicts with a class you need to graduate... so you drop the class you need and take the poetry. You now either don't have your degree (and some people won't hire you) or you get your degree by taking out a 30,000 loan so that you can spend another semester at Rice.

Is that really an investment in your future?

I bring this up not to challenge you, but to note that a lot of people are spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on educations that don't have a hope of leading to a return on that 'investment'. Most degrees allow for numerous 'elective' courses that are intended to address education that doesn't lead to a return on that investment... but some people and some degrees are simply dead ends... either because the market for it doesn't exist or it does and isn't especially valued.

There is a joke in a movie taking place at Harvard where a kid is paying 50,000 for an education that he could get for $20 in late fees at the library... and there is SOME truth in that.

I wouldn't call such things an investment in your future... they are sometimes simply VERY expensive hobbies

NAILED IT!!!

So Rice should lower their tuition to allow people to pursue their hobbies? Because that is the situation outlined above.

I get maintaining a lower price so people who want to pursue a undergrad degree, somewhat regardless of field, is beneficial. But I don't see the benefit in lowering its price so a student can more easily spend an extra semester just hanging out.

(04-15-2021 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 09:14 AM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 09:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-14-2021 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That being said, I do understand the perspective that it's not the end of the world if parents/students need to take out a loan to pay for university since it is an investment in one's future.

Though that isn't always the case. It certainly CAN be and I'm sure that's what you're referring to...

but let me give you an example...
You're studying engineering or even art and could graduate this year but there is a class you want to take on 17th century french poetry, unrelated to your degree or goals... and it conflicts with a class you need to graduate... so you drop the class you need and take the poetry. You now either don't have your degree (and some people won't hire you) or you get your degree by taking out a 30,000 loan so that you can spend another semester at Rice.

Is that really an investment in your future?

I bring this up not to challenge you, but to note that a lot of people are spending tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars on educations that don't have a hope of leading to a return on that 'investment'. Most degrees allow for numerous 'elective' courses that are intended to address education that doesn't lead to a return on that investment... but some people and some degrees are simply dead ends... either because the market for it doesn't exist or it does and isn't especially valued.

There is a joke in a movie taking place at Harvard where a kid is paying 50,000 for an education that he could get for $20 in late fees at the library... and there is SOME truth in that.

I wouldn't call such things an investment in your future... they are sometimes simply VERY expensive hobbies

NAILED IT!!!

So Rice should lower their tuition to allow people to pursue their hobbies? Because that is the situation outlined above.

I get maintaining a lower price so people who want to pursue a undergrad degree, somewhat regardless of field, is beneficial. But I don't see the benefit in lowering its price so a student can more easily spend an extra semester just hanging out.

My agreement was with getting a worthless degree and the cost of same. Taking extra classes is on the student and fine but should not increase their time on campus and since Rice does not charge by the semester hour take as many elective as you think you can handle. However what is a "gender studies" degree (or equivalent) really going to get you? FYI, not sure if Rice offers a gender studies degree but it may be on the horizon if I were to make a guess.

(04-15-2021 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that your example isn't what I'm talking about. In your example, I agree that the extra semester or year of tuition is NOT an investment in one's future. But why is that even a concern when it comes to affordability?

In that instance (which seems to be a really specific example and one that likely occurs infrequently), why should we care that Rice, a private university, is affordable in a way to avoid any loans, for a family whose student is going to it as a hobby?

People attending a school like Rice, which provides a top tier education, are investing in their future regardless of the major they choose - it just turns out some investments are either less risky or have a different ROI.

This isn't a defense of the increase in tuition across the board, and the burdens it adds to families. It's a comment on how relying on families taking out loans of a certain amount doesn't seem like a bad idea to an extent. I don't know how Rice does it, but it would be nice if they capped tuition responsibility in a more reasonable manner that didn't require a solidly middle class household to take out $50k loans each year. But $20k a year? That seems reasonable for the potential investment (but frankly, how people want to spend that investment is up to them).

That was only part of my comment... but it was certainly the only one that was really about RIce. Nobody would argue that a Rice education isn't worth more than most others... that is demonstrable... and Rice may have a few, but it doesn't have a lot of 'dead end' majors in terms of employment, partially because the quality of even a course you take as an elective... said differently, a BASIC Poli Sci course for non-majors at Rice is better than many 'for major' Poli Sci courses at many Universities.... not as in 'our 121 = their 401', but as in our 121 is better than their 101, and maybe better than their 201.

So an Art History major from Rice who finds limited outlets for their degree upon graduation can still likely leverage their business or Pol Sci courses, plus the general reputation of the University into a better position than an Art History major from many other schools.

So in terms of the frequency, I'd say that what I described happens more often at RIce than what happens at other schools, where they get a limited degree and can't find reasonable employment. It's one course at Rice that may extend you for one semester... it's potentially 4 years at 'the worst' schools.

You touched on specifically the reason why I didn't give a more common example... because it doesn't apply to an elite institution like RIce....

But there are THOUSANDS of universities, and many charge a whole lot for essentially worthless (from a value standpoint) majors

(04-15-2021 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that your example isn't what I'm talking about. In your example, I agree that the extra semester or year of tuition is NOT an investment in one's future. But why is that even a concern when it comes to affordability?

In that instance (which seems to be a really specific example and one that likely occurs infrequently), why should we care that Rice, a private university, is affordable in a way to avoid any loans, for a family whose student is going to it as a hobby?

People attending a school like Rice, which provides a top tier education, are investing in their future regardless of the major they choose - it just turns out some investments are either less risky or have a different ROI.

This isn't a defense of the increase in tuition across the board, and the burdens it adds to families. It's a comment on how relying on families taking out loans of a certain amount doesn't seem like a bad idea to an extent. I don't know how Rice does it, but it would be nice if they capped tuition responsibility in a more reasonable manner that didn't require a solidly middle class household to take out $50k loans each year. But $20k a year? That seems reasonable for the potential investment (but frankly, how people want to spend that investment is up to them).

That was only part of my comment... but it was certainly the only one that was really about RIce. Nobody would argue that a Rice education isn't worth more than most others... that is demonstrable... and Rice may have a few, but it doesn't have a lot of 'dead end' majors in terms of employment, partially because the quality of even a course you take as an elective... said differently, a BASIC Poli Sci course for non-majors at Rice is better than many 'for major' Poli Sci courses at many Universities.... not as in 'our 121 = their 401', but as in our 121 is better than their 101, and maybe better than their 201.

So an Art History major from Rice who finds limited outlets for their degree upon graduation can still likely leverage their business or Pol Sci courses, plus the general reputation of the University into a better position than an Art History major from many other schools.

So in terms of the frequency, I'd say that what I described happens more often at RIce than what happens at other schools, where they get a limited degree and can't find reasonable employment. It's one course at Rice that may extend you for one semester... it's potentially 4 years at 'the worst' schools.

You touched on specifically the reason why I didn't give a more common example... because it doesn't apply to an elite institution like RIce....

But there are THOUSANDS of universities, and many charge a whole lot for essentially worthless (from a value standpoint) majors

But we were talking about the cost of tuition at Rice and whether it was appropriate to charge that much. So I'm not sure why the fact that worse universities exist is super relevant to the conversation at hand.

But speaking broadly, I have a perspective that I'm not going to get too up in arms about any university offering degrees in fields that some define as "worthless" for a number of reasons. Those reasons range from the fact that this valuation is often based on a person's perspective (yes some degrees offer better ROIs/job opportunities, but we're talking about a secondary degree being worthless), to the fact that no one is being forced into paying a university to major in that degree, to the fact that these areas of studies are almost certainly not the driver in cost increases (but I could be wrong there). And as you said, even a degree that might be worth less than others across the board, can still be valuable coming from Rice.

So back to the original point I made, is the general perspective that Rice expects some families to take out loans an issue?

As a related aside to another comment (not made by you, but Musicowl), Rice's costs are almost certainly not increasing because we offer a BA in Women, Gender, and Sexuality (something that has been around since at least I was in school) - costs are increasing because of administrative bloat, capital projects, and frankly, because demand for higher ed is increasing (coupled with readily available loans).

(04-15-2021 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that your example isn't what I'm talking about. In your example, I agree that the extra semester or year of tuition is NOT an investment in one's future. But why is that even a concern when it comes to affordability?

In that instance (which seems to be a really specific example and one that likely occurs infrequently), why should we care that Rice, a private university, is affordable in a way to avoid any loans, for a family whose student is going to it as a hobby?

People attending a school like Rice, which provides a top tier education, are investing in their future regardless of the major they choose - it just turns out some investments are either less risky or have a different ROI.

This isn't a defense of the increase in tuition across the board, and the burdens it adds to families. It's a comment on how relying on families taking out loans of a certain amount doesn't seem like a bad idea to an extent. I don't know how Rice does it, but it would be nice if they capped tuition responsibility in a more reasonable manner that didn't require a solidly middle class household to take out $50k loans each year. But $20k a year? That seems reasonable for the potential investment (but frankly, how people want to spend that investment is up to them).

That was only part of my comment... but it was certainly the only one that was really about RIce. Nobody would argue that a Rice education isn't worth more than most others... that is demonstrable... and Rice may have a few, but it doesn't have a lot of 'dead end' majors in terms of employment, partially because the quality of even a course you take as an elective... said differently, a BASIC Poli Sci course for non-majors at Rice is better than many 'for major' Poli Sci courses at many Universities.... not as in 'our 121 = their 401', but as in our 121 is better than their 101, and maybe better than their 201.

So an Art History major from Rice who finds limited outlets for their degree upon graduation can still likely leverage their business or Pol Sci courses, plus the general reputation of the University into a better position than an Art History major from many other schools.

So in terms of the frequency, I'd say that what I described happens more often at RIce than what happens at other schools, where they get a limited degree and can't find reasonable employment. It's one course at Rice that may extend you for one semester... it's potentially 4 years at 'the worst' schools.

You touched on specifically the reason why I didn't give a more common example... because it doesn't apply to an elite institution like RIce....

But there are THOUSANDS of universities, and many charge a whole lot for essentially worthless (from a value standpoint) majors

But we were talking about the cost of tuition at Rice and whether it was appropriate to charge that much. So I'm not sure why the fact that worse universities exist is super relevant to the conversation at hand.

But speaking broadly, I have a perspective that I'm not going to get too up in arms about any university offering degrees in fields that some define as "worthless" for a number of reasons. Those reasons range from the fact that this valuation is often based on a person's perspective (yes some degrees offer better ROIs/job opportunities, but we're talking about a secondary degree being worthless), to the fact that no one is being forced into paying a university to major in that degree, to the fact that these areas of studies are almost certainly not the driver in cost increases (but I could be wrong there). And as you said, even a degree that might be worth less than others across the board, can still be valuable coming from Rice.

So back to the original point I made, is the general perspective that Rice expects some families to take out loans an issue?

As a related aside to another comment (not made by you, but Musicowl), Rice's costs are almost certainly not increasing because we offer a BA in Women, Gender, and Sexuality (something that has been around since at least I was in school) - costs are increasing because of administrative bloat, capital projects, and frankly, because demand for higher ed is increasing (coupled with readily available loans).

i was being just a tad facetious on the gender studies but agree with your cost increasing comments (bloat, cap proj etc.). I also believe that the ease of federally backed school loans are the largest reasons why universities (including Rice, although Rice also has peer pressure!!) annually increase tuition. Why not, loans are backed up by the government what do we really have to lose. We (university) gets paid either way.

(04-15-2021 03:14 PM)Musicowl1965 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right that your example isn't what I'm talking about. In your example, I agree that the extra semester or year of tuition is NOT an investment in one's future. But why is that even a concern when it comes to affordability?

In that instance (which seems to be a really specific example and one that likely occurs infrequently), why should we care that Rice, a private university, is affordable in a way to avoid any loans, for a family whose student is going to it as a hobby?

People attending a school like Rice, which provides a top tier education, are investing in their future regardless of the major they choose - it just turns out some investments are either less risky or have a different ROI.

This isn't a defense of the increase in tuition across the board, and the burdens it adds to families. It's a comment on how relying on families taking out loans of a certain amount doesn't seem like a bad idea to an extent. I don't know how Rice does it, but it would be nice if they capped tuition responsibility in a more reasonable manner that didn't require a solidly middle class household to take out $50k loans each year. But $20k a year? That seems reasonable for the potential investment (but frankly, how people want to spend that investment is up to them).

That was only part of my comment... but it was certainly the only one that was really about RIce. Nobody would argue that a Rice education isn't worth more than most others... that is demonstrable... and Rice may have a few, but it doesn't have a lot of 'dead end' majors in terms of employment, partially because the quality of even a course you take as an elective... said differently, a BASIC Poli Sci course for non-majors at Rice is better than many 'for major' Poli Sci courses at many Universities.... not as in 'our 121 = their 401', but as in our 121 is better than their 101, and maybe better than their 201.

So an Art History major from Rice who finds limited outlets for their degree upon graduation can still likely leverage their business or Pol Sci courses, plus the general reputation of the University into a better position than an Art History major from many other schools.

So in terms of the frequency, I'd say that what I described happens more often at RIce than what happens at other schools, where they get a limited degree and can't find reasonable employment. It's one course at Rice that may extend you for one semester... it's potentially 4 years at 'the worst' schools.

You touched on specifically the reason why I didn't give a more common example... because it doesn't apply to an elite institution like RIce....

But there are THOUSANDS of universities, and many charge a whole lot for essentially worthless (from a value standpoint) majors

But we were talking about the cost of tuition at Rice and whether it was appropriate to charge that much. So I'm not sure why the fact that worse universities exist is super relevant to the conversation at hand.

But speaking broadly, I have a perspective that I'm not going to get too up in arms about any university offering degrees in fields that some define as "worthless" for a number of reasons. Those reasons range from the fact that this valuation is often based on a person's perspective (yes some degrees offer better ROIs/job opportunities, but we're talking about a secondary degree being worthless), to the fact that no one is being forced into paying a university to major in that degree, to the fact that these areas of studies are almost certainly not the driver in cost increases (but I could be wrong there). And as you said, even a degree that might be worth less than others across the board, can still be valuable coming from Rice.

So back to the original point I made, is the general perspective that Rice expects some families to take out loans an issue?

As a related aside to another comment (not made by you, but Musicowl), Rice's costs are almost certainly not increasing because we offer a BA in Women, Gender, and Sexuality (something that has been around since at least I was in school) - costs are increasing because of administrative bloat, capital projects, and frankly, because demand for higher ed is increasing (coupled with readily available loans).

i was being just a tad facetious on the gender studies but agree with your cost increasing comments (bloat, cap proj etc.). I also believe that the ease of federally backed school loans are the largest reasons why universities (including Rice, although Rice also has peer pressure!!) annually increase tuition. Why not, loans are backed up by the government what do we really have to lose. We (university) gets paid either way.

Agreed on this point about ease of loans. Kinda of a double-edged sword, as they're readily available to help ensure that someone's financial status isn't an impediment to getting a post-secondary degree, which is still the best route to the middle class (or whatever is left of it).

I think one counter to that could be truly high-quality public universities that keep tuition low for all students. Find a way to make privates compete for talent that could get a similar degree for a fraction of the cost. That being said, it would likely require an increase in public funding to recruit and attract high quality faculty.

My dad was talking to some folks who teach French Horn majors at Rice (2 of them), apparently they have something like 7-8 students. While all in for classical music, one wonders how many jobs open up annually. Let's say there are 50 orchestras in the country. Ok 75. 2 players each, ok 3. So now that's 225, let's say 30 yrs of employment, so maybe 10 jobs open each year. I would be willing to bet that there are 200 graduates each year. Does this really make sense? Or is this just everyone paying so those French Horn profs have jobs?

(04-15-2021 04:01 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  My dad was talking to some folks who teach French Horn majors at Rice (2 of them), apparently they have something like 7-8 students. While all in for classical music, one wonders how many jobs open up annually. Let's say there are 50 orchestras in the country. Ok 75. 2 players each, ok 3. So now that's 225, let's say 30 yrs of employment, so maybe 10 jobs open each year. I would be willing to bet that there are 200 graduates each year. Does this really make sense? Or is this just everyone paying so those French Horn profs have jobs?

For what it is worth, I read a while back that competition for even second and third tier orchestras is outrageously brutal.

(04-15-2021 04:01 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  My dad was talking to some folks who teach French Horn majors at Rice (2 of them), apparently they have something like 7-8 students. While all in for classical music, one wonders how many jobs open up annually. Let's say there are 50 orchestras in the country. Ok 75. 2 players each, ok 3. So now that's 225, let's say 30 yrs of employment, so maybe 10 jobs open each year. I would be willing to bet that there are 200 graduates each year. Does this really make sense? Or is this just everyone paying so those French Horn profs have jobs?

Does it make sense to whom is the question.

I imagine Rice gets some benefit from that many majors, as they help support the program, which is one of the more public-facing sides of Rice.

Not all music majors want to play professionally, some could go on to teaching others in grade school, producing music professionally, or even into a totally unrelated field (Master Somm David Keck is a graduate voice alumni from Rice that had a very successful restauranteur career in Houston before packing up for Vermont).

And then there are those that want to play professionally - and while the positions are hard to come by, does that mean a university should not admit students who want a degree in the craft?

I don't know a ton of Shepherd school grads, but of the 5 I knew best, all 5 have had a job playing/singing (with three still playing professionally). Could be selection bias, but it seems like it can work out.

Seems like it's a calculated risk, and some students/parents are willing to take the risk.

Shepherd might not be the best point of comparison for Rice, either. It's comfortably a top 10, often top 5 program. A French horn from Rice is far more likely to get past the first hiring screen for an orchestra than one from somewhere like Texas Tech. Visual and Dramatic Arts is probably better illustrative at Rice.

Also, to calibrate the scale better, the League of American Orchestras counted 1,600 501©3 orchestras in the United States in 2017. About 2/3 of them have total budgets under $300k, reflecting the low average earning potential. I also found a citation on Statista (paywalled) that indicated music has the third worst mid-career median pay of all master's degrees, above counseling and social work but behind education and library science. I couldn't find anything specifically about how many graduates music schools produce any given year or how many jobs there are. Still, between 1,600 orchestras, I'd expect every top 10 school graduate to get a job relatively quickly (I know it's not easy, but something should fall into place).

What happened to athletics relevance?

I was just getting fired up enough to get my pitchfork and torch and head over to the board of trustees Merlot and Brie tasting event.

Does anyone know what the BOT's governance model is, or how hands-on university boards usually are with respect to athletics? Not exactly apples-to-apples, but is it possible that the BOT's view is: "We don't tell the President and the Department Head how to run the Poli Sci Dept - why should we tell the President and the AD how to run athletics? Those kinds of decisions can't be micromanaged at the Board level."