Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university?Why is Howard University still predominantly black?How to move forward following an unpleasant situation with colleagues?When did it become commonplace for data set providers to ask users to cite their paper(s)?Why doesn't the academic year start on January first?When and why did conferences pick up the habit of giving out conference bags to attendees?Why did most US Universities switch to semestersWhy does a university course become defunct?When and how did journal publications start to have such an important role in evaluating researchers?When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?When did “Publish or Perish” first become a thing?
What type of interpreter were most 8-bit BASIC implementations?
My PhD defense is next week and I am having negative thoughts about my work and knowledge. Any advice on how to tackle this?
Is it possible to protect saved games on Nintendo Switch from being played by other users?
Why should I invest so much in 401(k)?
Why is there potato in meatballs?
How to end sending data over I2C by Slave or Master?
How to fight an army of skeletons?
Designing Borders with QGIS
Sorting numbers in descending order but with `0`s at the start
Triangle puzzle
How was the Luftwaffe able to destroy nearly 4000 Soviet aircraft in 3 days of operation Barbarossa?
Why does the B-2 Spirit have a pattern of thin white lines?
How do the different seasons work for Eladrin?
If a photon truly goes through both slits (at the same time), then why can't we detect it at both slits (at the same time)?
Translate the French quote "Il n’y a pas d'amour, il n’y a que des preuves d’amour" to English?
Two people from small group of friends want to have a "meeting" with me. The circumstances are strange and give me a bad feeling
Triangular domino tiling of an almost regular hexagon
What is difference between idempotent magma and unital magma?
Starting a sentence instantly with a noun
What instructions should I give to an untrained passenger for Hand propping Cessna 172N as a pilot?
Should I present forged documents in a Penetration Test/Red team engagement?
How can I swallow pills more easily?
Why would one use "enter the name of the project to confirm"?
Is 'lay lady lay' grammatical?
Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university?
Why is Howard University still predominantly black?How to move forward following an unpleasant situation with colleagues?When did it become commonplace for data set providers to ask users to cite their paper(s)?Why doesn't the academic year start on January first?When and why did conferences pick up the habit of giving out conference bags to attendees?Why did most US Universities switch to semestersWhy does a university course become defunct?When and how did journal publications start to have such an important role in evaluating researchers?When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?When did “Publish or Perish” first become a thing?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.
Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?
university academic-history
add a comment
|
In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.
Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?
university academic-history
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– eykanal♦
Sep 12 at 16:36
add a comment
|
In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.
Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?
university academic-history
In 1873, Johns Hopkins University was started with an inflation-adjusted $144.5 million. In 1884, Stanford University began with an inflation-adjusted $139 million. Meanwhile, in 2009, KAUST was started with $10 billion. There's a difference of two orders of magnitude.
Why did it become so much more expensive to start a university in modern times?
university academic-history
university academic-history
edited Sep 12 at 16:36
eykanal♦
45k16 gold badges106 silver badges208 bronze badges
45k16 gold badges106 silver badges208 bronze badges
asked Sep 10 at 4:22
AllureAllure
56.1k25 gold badges156 silver badges218 bronze badges
56.1k25 gold badges156 silver badges218 bronze badges
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– eykanal♦
Sep 12 at 16:36
add a comment
|
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– eykanal♦
Sep 12 at 16:36
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– eykanal♦
Sep 12 at 16:36
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– eykanal♦
Sep 12 at 16:36
add a comment
|
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).
In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.
18
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
19
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
22
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
12
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
11
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
|
show 8 more comments
I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.
- Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.
- To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.
3
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
1
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
add a comment
|
I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:
Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.
Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.
Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.
14
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
5
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
14
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
4
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
|
show 3 more comments
Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.
The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:
Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.
In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.
In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.
add a comment
|
Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.
Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.
Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135919%2fwhy-did-it-become-so-much-more-expensive-to-start-a-university%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).
In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.
18
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
19
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
22
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
12
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
11
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
|
show 8 more comments
Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).
In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.
18
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
19
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
22
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
12
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
11
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
|
show 8 more comments
Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).
In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.
Besides all the factors that the other answer already lists, the elephant in the room is that KAUST has explicitly been designed to be a world-class university (rather than organically growing into one, as was the case with your other examples).
In short, it is not so much more expensive nowadays to found just any university - in fact new universities get founded all the time, virtually always spending considerable less money than $10 billion - but founding a university with the expectation that it will compete with the best in the world in a very short time frame is expensive. You need to compensate for all the natural growth in budget and prestige that established universities had over the last one or two centuries.
answered Sep 10 at 5:40
xLeitixxLeitix
113k40 gold badges283 silver badges417 bronze badges
113k40 gold badges283 silver badges417 bronze badges
18
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
19
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
22
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
12
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
11
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
|
show 8 more comments
18
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
19
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
22
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
12
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
11
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
18
18
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
I am not sure why this is inconsistent with my answer.
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 5:56
19
19
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
In other words, Stanford and Johns Hopkins were modest institutions at the time of their founding, by today's standards.
– Anonymous Physicist
Sep 10 at 5:57
22
22
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
@Allure, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to try to adjust budgets from the feudal 13th century to today, but Cambridge started very small and it doesn't take much budget to sustain a dozen or two lecturers whose only expenses are food, lodgings, parchment, and ink.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 10 at 6:48
12
12
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
@Allure According to Wikipedia, Stanford started with a total teaching staff of 35 and 555 students, while Cambridge had an academic staff of 7913, 12 340 undergraduate and 7610 postgraduate students in 2016.
– Arnaud D.
Sep 10 at 8:17
11
11
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
@Allure What I tried to say in my answer is that traditional top universities had one to multiple centuries to grow into the state that they are in now. If you found a university today your frame of reference is not how these universities started ages ago, but what kind of resources they have today (e.g., in terms of endowment).
– xLeitix
Sep 10 at 9:53
|
show 8 more comments
I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.
- Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.
- To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.
3
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
1
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
add a comment
|
I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.
- Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.
- To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.
3
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
1
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
add a comment
|
I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.
- Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.
- To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.
I would add two other factors to the good answers already available.
- Growth of science into multiple fields and disciplines have resulted in increased costs. Back in the day, for example, mathematics was considered one field. But nowadays, there are many diverse subfields within mathematics (e.g., pure maths, statistics, computational math, etc). Creating a university with various departments and faculties results in more human resources cost as well as facilities and equipment costs.
- To make scientific and technological advances possible, research has become more relient on expensive lab equipment in the late 20th century and 21st century in comparison with the early 20th century and before that.
answered Sep 10 at 7:44
EhsanEhsan
1,0461 silver badge11 bronze badges
1,0461 silver badge11 bronze badges
3
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
1
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
add a comment
|
3
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
1
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
3
3
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
"Expensive lab equipment" includes things as commonplace as computers, when you're comparing with 1873. The original mathematics departments at John Hopkins or Stanford needed lots of pens, paper, and blackboards; a new mathematics department today needs computers for all the staff, plus servers/clusters/supercomputers for running simulations/models.
– Stobor
Sep 12 at 1:35
1
1
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
@Stobor: I agree, although I don't consider personal computers for common day-to-day tasks as part of the research equipment. They serve multiple purposes such as communication, documenting, studying, and research simultaneously. However, you are taking about HPC and supercomputers, they are part of equipment dedicated solely to research.
– Ehsan
Sep 12 at 13:30
add a comment
|
I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:
Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.
Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.
Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.
14
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
5
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
14
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
4
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
|
show 3 more comments
I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:
Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.
Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.
Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.
14
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
5
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
14
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
4
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
|
show 3 more comments
I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:
Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.
Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.
Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.
I suspect that you’d probably need to look at the budgets for the institutions in question to get a definitive answer, but I can think of a few potential causes:
Increased administrative and bureaucratic costs. In the days when those universities opened, HR departments weren’t a thing, and there was significantly less regulation on businesses in general.
Increased cost and quality of facilities. Technology marches on - and the cost of building a university building before indoor plumbing was a thing is radically different to building a modern university building with electricity, running water, IT infrastructure, projectors and cameras for the lecture theatres, and all the inspections and certifications being done to make sure that all the work is being done in accordance with code.
Computers, in general. That’s an entire field of costs that didn’t exist back then - not only do they need the physical infrastructure and desktop computers for the staff and students to use, but they also need to pay for licenses for all the software that the students would use for their classes, for the university website, for their online learning system, for their class and room allocation system, for their centralised marking and enrolment system, etc.
edited Sep 10 at 4:57
answered Sep 10 at 4:47
nick012000nick012000
4,0632 gold badges12 silver badges27 bronze badges
4,0632 gold badges12 silver badges27 bronze badges
14
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
5
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
14
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
4
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
|
show 3 more comments
14
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
5
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
14
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
4
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
14
14
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
Land cost. You want your university to be located in an accessible location, and that may involve buying out existing land owners, and they will want to cash in. Another is the huge cost of hiring talents. Talents don't join a new, un-ranked university unless there is a HUGE incentive.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 5:28
5
5
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
@Prof.SantaClaus Land cost generally has not gone up by 100x in ~100 years. If that was the driving factor, it would cost 100 times the amount to start any business, and not be unique to universities. Talent cost also seems like a very minor factor - setting all salaries 50% above the market rate would be a huge incentive to attract talent, and would increase the overall budget by a few dozen percent at best, not anywhere close to 1000%
– Nuclear Wang
Sep 10 at 13:20
14
14
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
Computers, in general. — Even with all the licensing costs, computers are significantly cheaper than chemistry or biology labs, athletic facilities, modern dorms, bloated administrations, or Elsevier subscription packages.
– JeffE
Sep 10 at 17:40
4
4
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
Computer costs are negligible. A graduate student with salary, health insurance, a desk to work on, etc, costs ~$50k per year. They need a laptop worth $1k every three years.
– Wolfgang Bangerth
Sep 10 at 21:33
2
2
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
@NuclearWang I disagree. May be you should try renting/buying a place/land in big cities. Also, you should check out how much top universities pay for top talents; they easily exceed $1 Million USD per year, not including funding for scholarships, labs, etc. Also, some disciplines require expensive equipment, and huge on-going maintenance cost. So everything adds up.
– Prof. Santa Claus
Sep 10 at 23:20
|
show 3 more comments
Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.
The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:
Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.
In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.
In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.
add a comment
|
Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.
The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:
Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.
In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.
In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.
add a comment
|
Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.
The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:
Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.
In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.
In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.
Education inflation is currently running about 7-8% (source). I don't have any data on what this rate was a century ago, so I'll just assume it's been constant. The general rate of inflation in the US for the last century has averaged about 3.2%. This means that education inflation is about 4% in real dollars. If you compute 1.04^100, you get about 50, i.e., about two orders of magnitude in a century. This is pretty much the size of the effect you describe in the cost of starting up a new university.
The deeper question would be why inflation in certain areas, such as healthcare and education, is so much higher than the general rate of inflation. I don't think economists have a universally agreed upon explanation for this. My understanding is that there are several explanations, all of which are probably true:
Goods and commodities can always go down in value. The cost of a book, for example, is many orders of magnitude less than it was in the middle ages. But services can't become cheaper without bound. Services are provided by humans, who need to live. Therefore there is always a tendency for the non-service part of the economy to shrink in proportion to the service economy.
In most countries, healthcare and education are government monopolies, or nearly so. In such a setup, people are using something that they don't pay for, so there is no tendency to restrain their use of the resource.
In healthcare and education, people don't or can't make normal decisions on cost and value. For example, if the price of Greek yoghurt gets too high, I can decide to stop eating Greek yoghurt. But if education gets super expensive, I don't just tell my kids not to go to college.
answered Sep 11 at 21:18
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
14.9k2 gold badges40 silver badges75 bronze badges
14.9k2 gold badges40 silver badges75 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.
Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.
Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.
add a comment
|
Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.
Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.
Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.
add a comment
|
Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.
Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.
Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.
Instruments and reagent price is on drastic rise. I purchased students grade compound microscopes at Rupees 7000 (each) around 2010, whereas at 2019 the same instruments costs more than Rupees 20,000. (each) This is immense. Previously if a college or university lacked a facility to provide it to students, it was easier to provide it. Whereas in recent years it is much harder to purchase any instruments except plastic vials or centrifuge tubes or micropipette tips.
Unlike household objects like computer, phone, sewing machines etc; there has been no visible effort to drop the price of scientific instruments. The price is ever rising.
Often a lack of mentainance drastically increases the cost. Say a part of building is damaged. While it could be readily repaired, due to carelessness of authority it is not repaired until and unless some devastating thing happens. Same for electrical wire mess, garbages, household appliences that provides electric shock, etc. Although it may not be the global scenario, inaction or showoff to hide the problem, actually increases the hidden costs.
answered Sep 11 at 2:37
Always ConfusedAlways Confused
1557 bronze badges
1557 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135919%2fwhy-did-it-become-so-much-more-expensive-to-start-a-university%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– eykanal♦
Sep 12 at 16:36