tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post5983071701993461363..comments2024-03-09T03:20:20.004-05:00Comments on Tenured Radical: More Annals of the Great Depression: What Divides Us And WhyTenured Radicalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-59231986356575826932010-04-22T06:24:53.859-05:002010-04-22T06:24:53.859-05:00Wonderful post, thanks for putting this together! ...Wonderful post, thanks for putting this together! "This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!"<br />-----------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.dissertationwritinghelp.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Dissertation Writing</a> | <a href="http://www.dissertationwritinghelp.co.uk/dissertation-advice.html" rel="nofollow">Dissertation Advice</a>Dissertation Writinghttp://www.dissertationwritinghelp.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-4677970681479410652009-10-22T10:20:45.556-05:002009-10-22T10:20:45.556-05:00At one level availability of tuition benefits for ...At one level availability of tuition benefits for faculty/staff children is a specific case of the more general policy issue of fringe benefits equity: <br /><br />- Unhealthy (and older?) folks, including smokers and overeaters, benefit more from employer-subsidized health plans<br />- Large families benefit more from subsidized family health insurance plans<br />- Those with cars benefit more from free and subsidized campus parking<br /><br />Some employers have responded to such inequities with so-called "cafeteria" benefits plans. And I'm aware of a (non-profit) org that offers a cash stipend for employees who decline the health insurance benefit. (I don't know if anyone can decline, or only those who are covered by another's family plan.) <br /><br />As for dependent tuition plans, it seems critical to distinguish among those (a) restricted to the home institution, which is viewed as a high-caliber option; (b) restricted to the home inst, but parents would pay for a "better" college; and (c) portable. <br /><br />Finally, I am struck by the irony that, in general, the most selective private colleges and universities -- including Zenith -- advertise "need-blind" admissions. If faculty (and staff on many campuses) ability to pay declines, the financial aid formulas should compensate (if not dollar for dollar). Why are the faculty unwilling to trust the financial aid programs that these institutions advertise as being central to attracting the best and brightest students?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-14873610288245150462009-10-04T12:54:10.323-05:002009-10-04T12:54:10.323-05:00Nice argument Golden -- if we had contracts that s...Nice argument Golden -- if we had contracts that specified such things. But even labor contracts are renegotiated periodically: they are not open ended instruments.<br /><br />And *of course* this sucks for people. But the move from an administration proposal to "this benefit will disappear" misrepresented the situation dramatically. Those of us who aren't permitted to benefit don;t think it should be taken away; we think we should be included, and if our colleagues aren't willing to stand up for simple inclusion, we aren't willing to stand up for a process that cuts all of our benefits and leaves some of theirs intact.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-68946259326354908872009-10-04T10:42:14.930-05:002009-10-04T10:42:14.930-05:00Let's look at this from a different point of v...Let's look at this from a different point of view -- contract law.<br /><br />Does the fact that a contract is not entirely fair and can be entered into between only some members of a population invalidate the contract?<br /><br />Some members of the Zenith population feel that they accepted lower salary over many years, with a promise of tuition benefit later. Then, twenty years (for some) into this contract, known locally as the Golden Handcuffs, the administration suggests a unilateral reduction in the benefit.<br /><br />I don't think anyone would be surprised that those Zenith faculty who saw this as a contract feel done in.<br /><br />Was the original contract unfair in that it was of use only to breeders of college-bound progeny? Of course.<br /><br />But does that unfairness invalidate the contract?Golden Handcuffednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-82748270853727518632009-10-04T07:54:37.289-05:002009-10-04T07:54:37.289-05:00Have you thought of adopting a seventeen year old ...Have you thought of adopting a seventeen year old who wants to go to Zenith? Have you thought of doing this regularly every year until you retire? At that point you'd have so many grateful graduate "children" to take care of you there wouldn't be a problem with needing other people's children's help. And doing this, or even just talking about doing it, might highlight the actual problem with the axioms they are working on.Jo Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04336386420525045949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-32435299646876475722009-10-03T15:22:32.053-05:002009-10-03T15:22:32.053-05:00TR, count me among those who are with you on this....TR, count me among those who are with you on this. I thing that tuition benefits are a wonderful and relatively low-cost way to recruit and retain faculty while supporting the mission of education overall. But this dedicated spinster auntie would like to see the definition of "family" extended to include her nieces and nephews whose working-class parents probably won't be able to afford to send them to college, period.<br /><br />My word verification word, by the way, is "hetorses", which I believe is defined as the painful contortions that some het folk go through when it's suggested to them that they are, in fact, the beneficiaries of privilege.Notorious Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08700875559325201086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-37549090911142744152009-10-03T14:33:06.712-05:002009-10-03T14:33:06.712-05:00oh, also, like Dr. Crazy, I come from a family whe...oh, also, like Dr. Crazy, I come from a family where hardly anybody before me had a college education. My parents had Associate's degrees, and one uncle has a degree in Landscape Architecture from Cal Poly. Guess who paid for my education? Me and Pell Grant and Cal Grant. I didn't borrow my way through college, and I worked 30-40 hours a week while taking a full load. It's nice to pay for your kid to go to college, sure. Or to be able to subsidise their living expenses a bit. But nobody in my family expects their parents to pay. <br /><br />Now, if you want to make that tuition thing a bit fairer, maybe it would be better to revisit the financial aid laws that make a child the financial responsibilty of the parent for several years after the age of majority and funding systems that make it necessary for families to borrow more than the cost of a house.<br /><br />Seriously -- if we are supposed to be investing in future generations, shouldn't it be for better funding for <i>all</i> students?Another Damned Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231085915472400163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-44288233586222902822009-10-03T12:45:53.913-05:002009-10-03T12:45:53.913-05:00Put me in with you on this one, TR. At SLAC, all ...Put me in with you on this one, TR. At SLAC, all FT employees get the tuition benefit, and there is a trade scheme with several other colleges, although people have to want to come to SLAC in order for the trade to work. In reality, this benefit probably helps staff more than faculty, because SLAC is not nearly as selective as most faculty want their children's colleges to be. So most of my faculty friends with really bright and motivated kids are paying for their students to go to good state universities, some paying out of state tuition. We also have a spousal benefit that allows up to 2 courses a semester for free, I think. It's a good deal, and if they were to cut it, it would hurt the lowest-paid employees most.<br /><br />I think it's probably pretty cost-effective, considering what a lot of staff get paid.<br /><br />But I do take your point, and think that, in most cases, especially those where the benefit is limited to faculty, I'd be really pissed off. <br /><br />As it is, I really can see places to trim fat at SLAC, and much of it has to do with what some of my colleagues see as entitlements, but some also have to do with the extreme differences in pay and in budget oversight for the different schools at SLAC. And there are administrators who are paid too much :-)<br /><br />Still, last year, our top administrators took no pay increases, and we were all given the same raise across the board, rather than a raise that was a percentage of our salaries. It's good to work somewhere where the administration looks at the overall picture. OTOH, for the singles like me, who are not too high up on the faculty wage scale, the long-term costs of such policies are going to hurt.Another Damned Medievalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05231085915472400163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-3110957786962745502009-10-01T13:45:41.588-05:002009-10-01T13:45:41.588-05:00This is a great discussion (that I am coming to la...This is a great discussion (that I am coming to late), though I also wish that there might be a place for discussing a crucial point TR makes at the beginning of the post:<br /><br /><i>the ongoing scrutiny of the budget process by a committee of trustworthy people we elected, that any attempt to curtail faculty benefits and privileges (even those unequally distributed, as I will discuss below) is part of an ongoing conspiracy by the administration to proletarianize the faculty.</i><br /><br />TR nails this, and especially the sense that there is a huge amount of fat somewhere in the budget -- always somewhere elsewhere. This is a destructive posture because it makes it difficult (as the rest of the post documents) for faculty to be serious participants in the very real conversations about the university and its finances that are going on everywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-86439983663026004082009-09-30T15:04:05.544-05:002009-09-30T15:04:05.544-05:00I think the last Anon brings up a great point -- S...I think the last Anon brings up a great point -- So often the faculty claim to be working on behalf of "social justice," but in reality have very little idea about the wages, working conditions, or circumstances of the university staff. Social justice apparently means making sure that you maintain your own and your children's status quo.<br /><br />Every state university where I have been associated had zero tuition rebates for faculty (much less their dependents). That seems like a bonus for Zenith, but not at all the norm (My state employers don't even provide faculty with free access to gym facilities -- Something I would actually use). Perhaps those complaining would be wise to compare this benefit with comparable institutions.GayProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11289510184782252498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-87026452995881688112009-09-30T12:39:40.361-05:002009-09-30T12:39:40.361-05:00If universities provide tuition benefits because e...If universities provide tuition benefits because education is the business they're in -- just as clothing stores provide discounts to employees on store merchandise or airlines provide discounts to employees on air travel -- why is the benefit limited to faculty? Why don't all staff, who after all are part of the same community, enjoy this benefit?<br /><br />Yes, I'm a staffer and I'm tired of hearing faculty complain about tuition benefits being threatened. Many staff employees also have advanced degrees and made sacrifices to get them; many staff chose to work for universities rather than industry because they value education above all. But apparently the children of staff do not merit the same educational opportunities as do those of faculty.<br /><br />There's an evil elitism at work that assumes faculty produce superior children, who will flourish in private schools, and staff produce inferior children, whose educational needs can be fulfilled by free public schools.<br /><br />I say, let the faculty children cast their lot with ours in the public schools, and let all the parents devote themselves to improving those schools.<br /><br />Signed,<br />StaffMonsterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-51324659432132224652009-09-30T08:25:05.144-05:002009-09-30T08:25:05.144-05:00To all commenters:
I think the people who respond...To all commenters:<br /><br />I think the people who responded pretty much answered the questions posed, and I don't feel I need to. I think the question of class, as many people pointed out, is very relevant: Barbara Ehrenreich's "Fear of Falling" seems like a relevant text to return to at times like these.<br /><br />Just to weigh in personally on child care and parental leave policy: yes, for all the reasons Dr. Crazy says and one more -- frankly, it is the only reason women get to work at all, despite the fact that even with subsidies they are often paying 1/3 - 1/2 of their income as an academic professional. And yes, I believe in parental leave which, in most institutions, also exists in a very broad context of leaves granted for family purposes, health reasons, and sabbatical/scholarly leave. Both of these things, by the way, attempt to replicate government policies in progressive industrialized countries.<br /><br />And finally, the point that keeps being missed is a very simple one: if you have a benefit, extend it to everyone in your community (as several commenters note, other schools do.) It isn't a reason to get rid of it, and no one every advocated that. But also, the Zenith administration is not proposing to get rid of it -- not anything like that. It is proposing to scale back the <i>increase</i> temporarily. And what has caused the firestorm is the failure of some of us to agree that this is an apocalyptic situation and should be taken off the table. <br /><br />I'm really not exaggerating: the blowback from this has been, in my view, uncivil and out of line. And as to people having very strong responses viz. their children -- I know that, and to some degree sympathize, since I have parents, and know parents, and I have watched similar things play out in my circle. But it's no excuse to misrepresent what's really going on or bully your colleagues who are trying to return the conversation to something more like a policy discussion where everyone's interests are on the table equally. And as this post shows, there are many alternatives out there that should be explored including, as Dr. Crazy suggests, acknowledging that there is not just one path to academic excellence.<br /><br />My bottom line is that workplace benefits should be as generous as any institution can afford, including educational benefits (which, by the way, I know *have* been extended to individual faculty for their own use as a part of private retention negotiations.) But all of them should be available to everyone, and narrowing eligibility to one category of person --dependent children -- privileges a single set of values and needs over the vast majority of values and needs that are out there.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-75936265392506439982009-09-30T06:14:13.481-05:002009-09-30T06:14:13.481-05:00Interesting post.
From my vantage point, at a reg...Interesting post.<br /><br />From my vantage point, at a regional southern public university, I am envious that there is a policy like this to argue about. At my institution, there is a 50% tuition discount if a child attends our school. That's all. <br /><br />In the Georgia state system, there are no tutition discounts at all, at least outside of the flagship. When I asked a dean during an interview about this, his response was simple: "The actuaries figured out that the policy was not cost-effective." <br /><br />There's nothing fair about the elite SLAC/Ivy League tuition benefits, but for those who could actually take advantage of them, how could they not fight to keep them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-18244356177763455162009-09-30T01:27:20.079-05:002009-09-30T01:27:20.079-05:00Tuition for children is one of the reasons I decid...Tuition for children is one of the reasons I decided to go on for my PhD. I knew I'd never be able to afford college for my kids since I have to pay off 100K dollars of my own student loans. <br /><br />My school offers benefits for partners, spouses, and oneself in addition to children -- AND it offers this benefit fully to adjuncts, like me. It's one of the ways my school is kind to adjuncts since they can't afford to pay them much per class (at least, not much for where we live). It also helps keep adjuncts (almost all women here) around for a good long time.Fie upon this quiet life!https://www.blogger.com/profile/12047096700049201873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-16449971747907227812009-09-29T23:11:02.164-05:002009-09-29T23:11:02.164-05:00Shaz - I want to answer your question about childc...Shaz - I want to answer your question about childcare even though you posed to TR. I think childcare is different. I'd say that quality and affordable childcare means that there is more equity between me and my colleagues in terms of expectations and distribution of duties. I support this because it means that then there's not an excuse for people to be unavailable for committees, unavailable for certain teaching schedules, etc. I get something in return if my colleagues have better childcare - something concrete and immediate. This directly benefits the community of which I'm a member. In contrast, the tuition benefit for colleagues with college-aged children doesn't have a direct impact on my working life, nor does it directly benefit the institution (unless there's some sort of productivity provision about people who receive the benefit). So basically, I think quality and affordable childcare for infants/toddlers really benefits all workers in the community (regardless of whether they have children or are child-free) as well as the institution, whereas I would characterize a tuition benefit as a perk that has no direct benefit on coworkers or the institution.Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-87775164163417676932009-09-29T21:38:43.450-05:002009-09-29T21:38:43.450-05:00I get that parents might viscerally freak out at t...I get that parents might viscerally freak out at the thought of suddenly not being able to pay for the college education they thought they could. So I have a bit of sympathy for anyone who sees plans go awry beyond their control. But that isn't a justification for good policy.<br /><br />It is institutional unfairness, exacerbated when it seems like a zero sum game. I wonder whether some of this resistance to losing a benefit is also largely an attitude I see a lot of in our dying CA public Universities -- cut anyone else, not me! I would like to see more sense of community when it comes to cuts, rather than all the selfish gathering the wagons against all outsiders. Cutting benefits in proporition to one another seems reasonable.<br /><br />That said, TR: I wonder where you come down on, say, subsidizing on-campus child care. I find that more complicated because it has more gendered implications. Quality child care (especially infant) is a financially losing proposition (especially if the mostly-female workers are paid a living and appropriate wage). And having affordable and acessible childcare is something that often more directly affects female employees. So should Universities subsidize child care for its employees? That clearly priviliges people with children, but is that inequity worth the equity it assists in other areas?<br /><br />It certainly seems less direct an employee-impact to reduce/take away tuition benefits, so less problematic in my mind. Though, of course, the notion of higher education as an (increasingly) costly privilege is such a problematic notion to begin with...shaznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-86807207541996334942009-09-29T21:29:58.403-05:002009-09-29T21:29:58.403-05:00As an academic who was one of the first in her ext...As an academic who was one of the first in her extended family to attend college at all (and who has cousins younger than her who has many in her extended family, including cousins younger than her, who dropped out of high school), and as an academic with two parents who had no education beyond high school, and who worked her way through college/grad school with low-wage jobs (work study, temping, etc.) and for whom there was NO money saved for college by her parents, I don't really get the perspective that one is owed a tuition benefit for one's children if one chooses an academic career, opportunity cost of academia or not. The reality is that as a recently tenured professor living in a similar cost-of-living area as my mother and my stepfather (an immigrant), I make more than the two of them combined. If I had a child, with my current income and even without a partner, I could afford to save for college for them. Not enough for an elite, private institution, or even enough for an elite, out-of-state institution, but my children wouldn't be denied college because of my career path. But no, they might not go to the "right" college with the money that I could save. I'm ok with that, because I didn't go to the "right" college either.<br /><br />The fact is, such a belief that the institution "owes" (some of) its employees such a benefit is a very class-dependent one, and, as you noted, a very hetero-/homo-normative one: it assumes that a) all people want/will have children; b) that doing so is a social and moral good; and c) if one had chosen some other career path, that one would have - obviously - been racking up a hefty college fund for one's children, one that would provide an elite education for them, as if that is a baseline necessity for all children (or perhaps just for the children of privileged academics?). <br /><br />It also assumes that only an elite education will allow children to succeed in their future lives, which is also not my experience, having attended regional universities for undergrad and MA, and finding my way to an elite school for the PhD because I got fully funded for five years to go there (and yet, still took out loans, for a girl can't live in Boston on a stipend of 9K alone, which was what it was when I entered my program in 1997).<br /><br />The fact is, worker benefits change all the time, based on financial situations of their employers. There is nothing sacred (or nothing more sacred) about a tuition benefit, in comparison with other benefits. And there is absolutely no reason why, when universities change other benefits that were in place at the date of hire (like health plans, or like, say, SALARIES or raise schedules), that they should not also consider possibly changing this particular benefit, particularly when it is not distributed equally among all workers.<br /><br />The claim that this is equivalent to an employee-only education benefit (a benefit that normally exists in order to improve the quality of one's workers and to encourage promotion within an organization, which ultimately benefits the organization) is a red herring. All you have to be to get such a benefit is an employee, which all employees, by definition, are. To say that this benefit is equally open to all is the equivalent to making a benefit dependent upon one, I don't know, becoming a marathon-runner. Sure, everyone could, in theory, run a marathon. But what if you've got bad knees? What if you think marathons are stupid? Such a policy dictates an employee's life choices outside the realm of their employment status. While it's true that not all choose to take advantage of benefits that are available to all employees, a benefit that requires a private life choice in a particular direction to go into effect, a life choice that is outside one's job description, is discrimination.<br /><br />Sorry this was so long, TR. The short version is, I'm with you on this one. And thanks for the historical context and for the thoughtful and thought-provoking post.Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-65507438332324255892009-09-29T21:13:44.686-05:002009-09-29T21:13:44.686-05:00When I was a young professional I was told "D...When I was a young professional I was told "Do you want to be a mommy or do you want to be a manager(ie partner)" when I discussed maternity leave. Twenty years later office day care was provided during the busy seasons for professional mommies in order to keep their training and expertise available. This is a benefit available only to mommies (or daddies) and not to childless professionals in the firm. Would you consider this unfair?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-41001086101871524462009-09-29T19:58:16.071-05:002009-09-29T19:58:16.071-05:00This is a difficult issue, and there are serious e...This is a difficult issue, and there are serious equity questions, but I'd like to make 4 points. <br />1) When you say that "Some colleagues make unproven claims of varying extravagance about how they only came to Zenith in the first place because of the benefit currently under discussion, or that they have turned down attractive offers from other, unnamed, institutions only because of promised benefits that Zenith now threatens to rescind," you're not arguing in a very impressive way. You want people to present documentary proof about the effect tuition benefit had on them? I once left a place that had a tuition benefit for a place that didn't, but only after carefully calculating the value of the benefit and making sure the new job would allow me to put a huge amount of money each month into a college savings plan.<br />2) I have as chair tried to hire a great person who had a tuition benefit (at a major private university--several of them have this, not just SLACs); he really liked us, but his accountant told him he would be "crazy" to leave his current job before 2014<br />3) Since this is a benefit that people look forward to having in the future, if you want to change it you need to make it two-tiered: current people keep the benefit they thought they had when they were hired.<br />4) Isn't your argument the same as Sen. John Kyl made about his not needing maternity care in his insurance? With the answer from Debbie Stabenow?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-6105756993999035072009-09-29T19:22:45.565-05:002009-09-29T19:22:45.565-05:00A fabulous post, TR. The inequity issue in the wor...A fabulous post, TR. The inequity issue in the workplace between parents and the childless/childfree is something I commented on in response to one of your previous posts. I also agree with the first three commenters that tuition, and access to elite education, is seen not so much as a "bonus" but an expectation of academia. Rosmarinaus's point about academics not being able to afford (without tuition assistance) to send their children to the kind of institutions they teach at is an important one. <br /><br />Ruthibell: The notion of community you raise is why we pay taxes. This issue of tuition benefits is not (theoretically) about the "community" supporting the group's children, but about a specific, personal, employee benefit. People feel that this is something that they have earned. As TR points out, in practice it IS members of the "community" (willingly or not) subsidising the tuition of the children of some members of the group. But people receiving the benefit don't regard it as some sort of payout from a mutual aid society, but rather as another type of employment perk, like a corporate car or an expense account. <br />The fact that it is a perk not all (supposedly "equal") employees can access is the issue here, not the abstract value of educating society's children. If an employer is handing out a benefit in cash or in kind, it should be available to everyone equally. Those with children (who make use of the tuition aid) are effectively receiving a fat raise over their colleagues who do not receive that benefit.Katrinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816155888326772079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-80446260288096272832009-09-29T19:06:15.260-05:002009-09-29T19:06:15.260-05:00Interesting, though not very new argument. As I w...Interesting, though not very new argument. As I will,hopefully show below, your position had a bit more validty a few years ago.<br /><br />The crux of the argument is that everyone should have the same benefits. At first blush this sounds obvious, but benefits that are of interest to a sub set of employees are given all the time. Tuition benefits are available to everyone at my place of employment, but are not used by everyone, nor is everyone interested in them.<br /><br />Aha, you say, but everyone has the opportunity! This is, I think your strongest argument. When gays and lesbians who want children can not have them, then, perhaps tuition benefits can be seen as unfair. However, as impediments to having children fall, then not having them is a choice for gays and lesbians as it is for hetero couples. When being childless is a choice, tuition benefits for children look a lot like tuition benefits for employees. It's there to take advantage of when you want.<br /><br />So, I think the argument that the policy unfairly discriminates against gays and lesbians has some force, though the force continues to weaken. The other arguments are less powerful.<br /><br />The social security argument might be great in theory, but we all know that the reality is that we paid for our parents and today's children will pay for us.<br /><br />The argument that it's unfair because I can't take advantage of the benefit sounds like John Kyl wondering about why ob/gyn should e included in the health care bill, he doesn't use them.<br /><br />Ultimately, what concerns me the most about this post is that it demonstrates an attitude much morecommon onthe right,I think: if it doesn't benefit me, what's the point.<br /><br />TR you have no decendents, you will die reletively soon, by your argument you should be opposed to any present cost for a future benefit. Why worry about glo al warming, I'm gonna die.<br /><br />Any tuition remission whether it is for employees or anyone is an investment in thefuture, whether I'm there or not, I think that I have some responsibility to it.<br /><br />Thank youAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-617187788410072362009-09-29T15:44:57.507-05:002009-09-29T15:44:57.507-05:00Wow, very interesting discussion. My university ju...Wow, very interesting discussion. My university just put out a call for people to suggest ways to cut the budget. I'd like to suggest something, because my tuition is already going up by something like 30% next year, but I don't even know what to suggest.<br /><br />I agree with you completely. A benefit only some employees can use is completely unfair. At the very least they should reduce it so it merely discounts tuition if these people's children go to your university. My private industry experience means I'm only aware of tuition benefits FOR the employee. As someone who uses this, and probably one of the few people who use this, I always keep in mind they could cut it out at any time. Obviously, not every employee would be able to go to school, so even though it's offered to everyone I could see them cutting it if they needed to cut costs. It's not like a 401k match, or healthcare, where each employee can equally participate.<br /><br />Maybe at least suggest an income cap. It does seem unfair that a long-time tenured and somehow highly compensated professor would get the same benefit as an administrative assistant in some department when only one of them really needs it. Very thoughtful and interesting post though.FrauTechhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466617977964303158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-87010962139804894372009-09-29T15:41:34.816-05:002009-09-29T15:41:34.816-05:00Having disagreed with you on the previous Great Ch...Having disagreed with you on the previous Great Child Debate, I am with you on this one. Especially the argument that such a benefit "ought to be extended as part of an equal compensation package granted to every worker for whatever educational purpose s/he chooses." I'm in the UK, where I'm relieved to say we neither have tuition fees paid as a benefit for our children, nor (as yet) sky-high tuition fees. As a result we don't have these painful debates either, for which I'm grateful.<br /><br />Having said that, I think there may be two entangled issues here. It's about where we draw the boundaries of our community. The defenders of the tuition benefit at zenith are drawing the boundary around zenith employees and their children and saying zenith as a community should support the children of its faculty (and staff?). I would disagree with that, but I *would* argue that on a national scale it is right for all adults to support (via taxation) the education and health of all children. I get the feeling that you would agree with this TR--but I'd be interested to hear. Versions of the arguments you made are sometimes used to attack public funding of education and other services that are primarily accessed by children. I've heard people say things like, 'I don't have kids, why should I pay taxes to pay for schools'. To which I would say, not so much that we need to educate those kids to pay for all our retirements, but that children are part of the human community, not possessions of their parents, and we all have a duty towards all of them.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for another interesting post.Ruthibellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-8171140755002233492009-09-29T15:19:57.496-05:002009-09-29T15:19:57.496-05:00Right On TR!!!Right On TR!!!Matt Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14136331581631099471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36212542.post-16372870990628386382009-09-29T14:38:16.235-05:002009-09-29T14:38:16.235-05:00Thanks for the comments here, everyone. Infantryy...Thanks for the comments here, everyone. Infantryyone -- *please* stop leaving multiple, lengthy comments only tangentially related to the post. I encourage you to write your won blog if you have so much to say, even to leave a long comment and then just link to the blog you are commenting on. It's too much.Tenured Radicalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703980598547163290noreply@blogger.com