Professor Patrick Henry Winston ’65, SM ’67, PhD ’70
When I showed up in 1961, there had been a tuition riot the year before. Tuition had gone from $1,200 to $1,400, a hearty 16% rise. My house bill at ΦΔΘ was $110/month. So the total, rounding up, was, $2,500. It was a lot of money, especially for my family, which was too well off for me to qualify for financial aid, but not well enough off to handle the $2,500 without considerable sacrifice.
Now tuition, room, board, and fees have just topped $50,000, but of course you have to adjust for inflation, perhaps by using the handy inflation calculator provided by the US Department of Labor. With that adjustment, tuition, room, and board ought to be about $18,000.
So relative to the rest of the economy, MIT’s educational productivity has lagged behind by a factor of about 2.75 over the past 50 years.
I’m not really surprised. The last great technical contribution to education was the development of fast, cheap copying machines and before that the invention of the printing press in 1440. I don’t count computers, because I think that, for the most part, they just make us stupid. Education remains labor intensive out of proportion to just about everything else.
Also, there is the matter of growing administration. A while ago, the sometimes acerbic Philip Greenspun ’82, SM ’93, PhD ’99 poked around and found that in 1969, MIT employed 962 faculty and 622 administrators. During the past twenty years, the faculty has been stable at about 1,000, an insignificant 4% more than the 1969 number, while administration has grown from about 1,000 to about 1,800, almost three times the 1969 number and a presumably larger multiple of the 1961 number. Interestingly, in 1961, administrators had no productivity-multiplying computers; the only computer was the IBM 7090, in building 26, with impressive tape drives, shown off behind large glass windows along the hallway.
Like most MIT people, I like to look at the numbers. To graduate in four years, you have to take eight subjects a year. My fall subject has two lectures, two recitations, and one tutorial in each of fourteen weeks. Subtracting out holidays, quizzes, and short weeks, that leaves about 60 units of instruction. $50,000 / 8 / 60 ≅ $100, which is about the price of an excellent ticket for a performance of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. If I flatter myself and suppose that my lectures are twice as valuable as the other forms of contact, and note that they last 50 minutes, not 60, then a little algebra says they cost each student about $175 per hour. The best tickets at the Metropolitan Opera and good tickets at Rolling Stones Concerts cost about that per hour.
That’s why I think I’m obligated to practice my lectures more than ever. Opera singers and the Stones practice a lot for their expensive performances, so I figure I should, too.
April 5, 2010 at 3:15 pm
[…] Joyner | Monday, April 5, 2010 Artificial intelligence guru Patrick Henry Winston, who has been involved with MIT as either a student or faculty member since 1961, notes that […]
April 5, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Love this post. It’s just lovely in every way.
April 5, 2010 at 7:29 pm
It seems de rigueur for the professoriate to claim that teaching is incidental to its duties in the academy. Cheers to you sir for taking it seriously.
On the other hand, 20 years ago, I remember the development officer at my school telling me that tuition covered only 60% of the actual cost. So, maybe the price for a ticket to your class is actually 166% X $175, that is, closer to $300. McCartney plays three hours for less than that, and he is worth it.
April 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm
“So relative to the rest of the economy, MIT’s educational productivity has lagged behind by a factor of about 2.75 over the past 50 years.”
So sad to see a highly educated individual say something so utterly wrong. I’d have thought that one goal of education, not to mention educators, would be to make appropriate use of specialized terms. Prices and productivity are certainly linked, but one is not used to calculate the other. Labor productivity, which is what is commonly meant by “productivity” is calculated by dividing output by the number of hours or work used to produce the output. The productivity of any other input can be calculated in similar fashion.
I have to type this again, because this sort of puffery is so annoying. Dude, don’t pretend to know things. When you write as a specialist, write within your specialty. When you write outside your specialty, don’t wave around specialist terms to make yourself sound smart. Doesn’t work, and it sets a really poor example.