Debtors on campus

It is absolutely shameful that some institutions of higher education are bed partners with some credit card companies and for what...money. And who suffers...students. It is also a matter of student privacy.

"Unspoken Link Between Credit Cards and Colleges"

by

Jonathan D. Glater

January 1st, 2009

The New York Times

EAST LANSING, Mich. — When Ryan T. Muneio was tailgating with his parents at a Michigan State football game this fall, he noticed a big tent emblazoned with a Bank of America logo. Inside, bank representatives were offering free T-shirts and other merchandise to those who applied for credit cards and other banking products.

"They did a good job," Mr. Muneio, 21 and a junior at Michigan State, said of the tactic. "It was good advertising."

Bank of America's relationship with the university extends well beyond marketing at sports events. The bank has an $8.4 million, seven-year contract with Michigan State giving it access to students' names and addresses and use of the university's logo. The more students who take the banks' credit cards, the more money the university gets. Under certain circumstances, Michigan State even stands to receive more money if students carry a balance on these cards.

Hundreds of colleges have contracts with lenders. But at a time of rising concern about student debt — and overall consumer debt — the arrangements have sounded alarm bells, and some student groups are starting to push back.

The relationships are reminiscent of those uncovered two years ago between student loan companies and universities. In those, some lenders offered universities an incentive to steer potential borrowers their way.

Here at Michigan State, the editors of the student newspaper wrote this fall that "it doesn't take a giant leap for someone to ask why the university should encourage responsible spending when it receives a cut of every purchase."

At Arizona State University, students set up a table on campus last spring to warn of the danger of debt and urge students to support limits on on-campus marketing.

The contracts, whose terms vary but usually involve payments to colleges or alumni associations that agree to provide lists of students’ names, have come under harsh criticism in Washington.

"That is absolutely outrageous, the sharing of students' information with the banks," Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, who oversaw a June hearing on campus credit card marketing, said in a recent interview. "That should be outlawed."

College campuses are one place that young Americans are introduced to credit and the possibility of spending beyond their means, a problem now confronting the nation as a whole. For banks, the relationships are a golden marketing opportunity. For colleges, they are a revenue source at a time of declining public funding. And for students, they help pay the bills and allow more shopping.

But debt incurred in college becomes a serious burden at graduation, especially in a recession in which jobs are scarce. A survey of more than 1,500 college students by US PIRG in Washington found that two-thirds had at least one credit card. Seniors with balances had an average debt of $2,623 on their cards.

University officials say that their agreements with card issuers comply with the law and bring in valuable revenue.

"It provides money for scholarships and other programs," said Terry R. Livermore, manager of licensing programs at Michigan State. He said that the program was aimed primarily at alumni and the university would not include sharing student information in future credit card contracts. "The students are such a minuscule portion of this program."

Jennifer Holsman, executive director of the alumni association at Arizona State, said the association tried to teach students about responsible uses of credit. "We work closely with Bank of America to provide educational seminars to students in terms of being able to get information about how to pay off credit cards, how not to keep balances," she said.

Credit card issuers say that they try to educate students to use cards responsibly and that the cards they offer on campus have more restrictive terms than cards offered to alumni.

"The available credit for undergraduates is capped at $2,500," said Betty Riess, a spokeswoman for Bank of America. "We want to take a fair and responsible approach to lending because we want to build the foundation for a longer-term banking relationship."

Ms. Riess said the bank had agreements with about 700 colleges and alumni associations, making it one of the biggest, if not the biggest, card issuer on campuses. She said that only 2 percent of the open accounts under those agreements belonged to students, but also said it was not possible to determine what percentage of program revenue resulted from fees and charges on those student cards.

Stephanie Jacobson, a spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase, wrote in an e-mail message that the bank had fewer than 25 contracts with colleges or alumni associations and that while some of the contracts gave it the right to ask for and use lists of student names and addresses, the bank had not done so since 2007.

That may be because football games present a marketing opportunity that requires no address information. Abigail D. Molina, a second-year law student at the University of Oregon, applied in 2007 for a Chase Visa offered at a tent outside a football game. In exchange, she received a blanket.

"I mostly wanted the blanket," Ms. Molina said. She added that this was her second university credit card. In 1994, when she was an undergraduate at the university, she applied for a card at a booth on campus and then accumulated about $30,000 in debt, almost all of it on the card. In 2001 she filed for bankruptcy. Looking back, she said it was "shockingly easy" to get the card, even as a first-year student.

Mr. Muneio, the Michigan State student, said he did not apply for a Bank of America card because he already had two Visa cards. "The last thing I need is another account to keep track of."

Many students are unaware of the contracts that universities have with credit card issuers and do not question the presence of marketers on campus or applications in their mailboxes, despite recent protests on a few campuses.

Sometimes, the contracts have confidentiality provisions. Universities may try to distance themselves, stating that the contracts are only between alumni associations and banks. But the universities provide alumni groups with lists of current students’ names, addresses and telephone numbers, which the groups pass on to banks.

The New York Times obtained information about and, in some cases, copies of contracts between lenders, public colleges and their alumni associations using open records requests. Because private colleges are not subject to open records laws, they are not included.

While most universities contacted for this article did not provide detailed financial information on the contracts — the University of Pittsburgh, for example, confirmed only that it had an agreement — two did share numbers.

The alumni association of the University of Michigan is guaranteed $25.5 million over the term of its 11-year agreement with Bank of America. Under the agreement, the association agreed to provide lists of names and addresses of students, alumni, faculty, staff, donors and holders of season tickets to athletic events.

Much of the money goes toward scholarships, said Jerry Sigler, vice president and chief financial officer of the alumni association. He was unsure what students were told about the program.

"Students are generally told how they can opt out of having their information publicly displayed in directories or provided in response to requests like this," Mr. Sigler added. "But it's not to my knowledge specific to the credit card program."

Michigan State University gets $1.2 million a year but is guaranteed at least $8.4 million over seven years, according to its agreement. The contract calls for a $1 royalty to the university for every new card account that remains open for at least 90 days, $3 for every card whose holder pays an annual fee, and a payment of a half percent of the amount of all retail purchases using the cards.

For cards that do not have an annual fee, the bank pays $3 if the holder has a balance at the end of the 12th month after opening an account, a provision that appears to give the university an incentive to get cardholders into debt.

A few schools have adopted policies that prohibit sharing student contact information.

Ball State University's alumni association, which has a contract with JPMorgan Chase, does not provide information on students, said Ed Shipley, executive director of the association. "Who we market to is our alumni because that's our purpose," he said. However, the bank is permitted to set up marketing tables at athletic events.

The University of Oregon, whose alumni association also has a marketing agreement with Chase, stopped providing student addresses as concern grew about student debt, according to Julie Brown, a university spokeswoman. The university still permits marketing booths at athletic events.

Some research suggests that students may be using credit cards less frequently, in favor of debit cards linked to their bank accounts. A survey last spring by Student Monitor, a Ridgewood, N.J., company that tracks trends on campus, found that 59 percent of undergraduate students had debit cards, up from 51 percent in 2000.

But universities have arrangements with banks that offer debit cards too, perhaps raising some of the same issues that the credit card deals do.

At New Mexico State University, for example, students are given the option of opening a bank account with Wells Fargo if they want to convert their campus identification into a debit card.

The accounts are not mandatory, said Angela Throneberry, assistant vice president for auxiliary services at the university. But, she said, "There's some revenue sharing that happens as part of this."


Universities and money lenders...good idea?

Academic salaries

Well, what do you expect from a society that wants the technology of science and does little to promote science. Go Tigers....

"Academic Salaries"

Faculty salary gains continue to lag behind bigger increases for administrators, football coaches

by

Michael Heylin

July 14th, 2008

Chemical & Engineering News

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of University Professors' (AAUP) survey of the economic status of the academic profession in 2007–08 reports an average salary increase over the previous academic year of 5.1% for what it calls continuing faculty—those who were employed full time at the same institution both years. This figure best approximates the raise an average faculty member received for this academic year, although it does include the effect of promotions.

Because of the recent sharp rise in the rate of inflation, the average constant-dollar salary for all academics as a group fell slightly, by 0.3%, between the 2006–07 and 2007–08 academic years. It was the third such decline in the past four years.

The average 2007–08 nine-month salary for all full professors at all institutions responding to the survey is $102,900. For all associate professors it is $73,000, and for all assistant professors, $61,100.

Entitled "Where Are The Priorities?" the report comments on the growing divergences among the salaries of faculty members, which are relatively low and growing slowly; senior administrators, which are considerably higher and growing faster; and college football coaches, which are off the charts and growing much faster.

The report also comments on dramatic changes in the staffing of universities between 1976 and 2005 with the number of full-time nonfaculty professionals and part-time faculty exploding while tenured/tenure-track faculty inched up by just 17% over these 29 years.

AAUP is an organization of about 47,000 individual members. Its headquarters is in Washington, D.C., and it has chapters on many campuses. Primarily concerned with academic freedom, AAUP has been gathering comprehensive data on full-time faculty salaries every year for almost 50 years.

The organization gathered data on a total of 386,300 faculty members from 1,386 institutions for its 2007–08 survey. They are presented as a report of the Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession, chaired in 2008 by Saranna Thornton, a professor of economics at Hampden-Sydney College, in Virginia. AAUP’s director of research and public policy, John W. Curtis, and Research Associate Doug Kinsella gathered much of the data.

The response rate was high for Ph.D.-granting schools, 88%. For institutions where the top degree awarded is a master’s or a bachelor’s, it was 57% and 54%, respectively. Two-year colleges were the least responsive, about 25%. The data come directly from the schools, not from individual faculty members. Data are for all disciplines combined; they are not broken down by discipline.

The National Center for Education Statistics indicates a nationwide total of 675,000 full-time faculty members in 2005.

The AAUP survey reveals that a major factor affecting faculty salaries is the type of institution. The average salary of full professors ranges from $118,400 for those at Ph.D.-granting institutions to $83,600 for those at bachelor’s-granting schools and $71,800 for those at two-year colleges.

Another major salary factor, especially for Ph.D.-granting institutions, is the faculty member’s institutional affiliation. Full professors at private, but not church-affiliated, Ph.D.-granting institutions earned an average of $144,300 in 2007–08. This is 32% more than the $109,600 for those at public institutions. For assistant professors at these private schools, the gap is smaller but still significant at 20%, $78,800 compared with $65,400.

GENDER IS NO LONGER a major factor in faculty salaries at bachelor's- and master's-granting schools. At the former, women's average salaries are between 95% and 98% those of men and at the latter, 95% or 96%.

At Ph.D.-granting schools, the gender gap is a little larger, with women's average salaries at 91% or 92% those of men. It is possible that much of this difference is due to the women being somewhat younger than the men.

AAUP does not gather data on the age of faculty members. Response to the American Chemical Society’s annual salary surveys indicates that male Ph.D. chemists are on average about seven years older than female Ph.D. chemists.

Women, as a group, are still at a disadvantage compared with men in that relatively fewer of them are on the faculties of prestigious higher paying institutions. In addition, relatively fewer of them are full professors at all types of institutions.

Taking the cream of the crop, full professors at the 25 largest Ph.D.-granting institutions ranked by the number of such professors reveals an average salary of $121,600, with men at $123,100 and women at $114,300. Harvard University is number one, with $187,900 for men and $173,700 for women.

AAUP also presents data on the institutional cost of benefits for faculty members. It averages $20,800, or 27.5% of salaries.

When full-time faculty of all ranks, from full professor to instructor, from all schools—from those granting Ph.D.s to two-year colleges that rank their faculty—are combined, just over 40% of the total are women, according to the AAUP survey. Women’s share ranges from 20% of full professors at Ph.D.-granting universities to just over 51% of all faculty members at two-year colleges with faculty ranks. At two-year colleges that do not use academic ranks, 54% of the faculty are women.

Data from the latest annual salary and employment survey of ACS members in the domestic workforce (C&EN, March 3, page 37) are generally in line with the AAUP data. The average 5.1% salary increase for continuing faculty from the AAUP survey is close to the 5.5% average increase for individual Ph.D. chemists from the ACS survey. Also, constant-dollar median salaries of chemists as a group have been on a slow decline since highs of four years ago.

The average nine-month contract for all full professors of chemistry at Ph.D.-granting schools of $110,000 from the ACS survey is lower than $118,400 average for all full professors from the AAUP data. This pattern persists for master’s-granting schools—$75,800 versus $80,000—and bachelor’s schools—$65,000 versus $68,100.

Women's salaries as a percentage of men’s salaries are generally in the 90% range for both surveys. For full professors at Ph.D. schools, it is 91% for both—$101,500 versus $111,400 from the ACS survey and $109,900 versus $120,700 from AAUP.

ONE AREA in which chemistry varies considerably from the norm is the percentage of faculty who are women. The ACS survey indicates that 16% of the full professors responding are women, as are 27% of associate professors and 29% of assistant professors. The breakdown from the AAUP survey is 26%, 40%, and 48%, respectively.

To explain the stagnancy of faculty salaries, the AAUP report points to the stresses and strains that colleges and universities face today. "Students are enrolling in record numbers, legislators and employers are demanding greater skill levels from graduates, and higher education is increasingly being called upon to do the work of economic development," the report states. "At the same time, the share of institutional funding provided by state and federal governments continues to decline. Given these competing pressures on institutions, financial decision-making has become a matter of determining priorities."

The tone of the report's analysis is that faculty members are getting the short end of the stick in priority setting.

One concern, first expressed in last year's AAUP survey, is that in 1995–96 and 2005–06, salary increases for university presidents were more than six times salary increases for faculty. In this year's report, data show that over the past two years, the salary gains for presidents and other senior administrators continued to outstrip gains for faculty members by about two to one.

Another issue raised is that college football coaches in 10 major conferences in 2007 had an average salary increase of 12.4% and an overall average salary of $1,041,000. For full-time full professors at the same schools, their average increase was 3.5% in 2008 and their average salary was $104,500,

The AAUP report claims that universities are embracing the operating strategies of for-profit corporations with growing fervor and that the allocation of staff within a university indicates its priorities. For example, the size of full-time faculty has stagnated. And teaching and research functions are increasingly outsourced to poorly paid non-tenure-track adjunct faculty, part-time faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students.

The report presents Department of Education data to quantify what AAUP sees as a dilution of the teaching and research function. The DOE data indicate that full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty grew by 17% between 1976 and 2005, whereas student enrollment increased by 60%. Over the same period, lower paid part-time faculty grew by 214% and full-time non-tenure-track faculty grew by 223%—increases that AAUP considers a deprofessionalization of the faculty role in higher education.

The governance role of faculty is also on the decline. The report points to DOE data showing that over these years the number of full-time administrators increased by 101% and that of full-time nonfaculty professionals increased by 281%.

AAUP's report suggests that faculty may have been complicit in their weakening role in governance "by choosing to spend more time in what we enjoy (teaching and research) and less time doing what we find onerous (administration)."

The report concludes with a disclaimer and a question. It says it does not raise questions about priorities and salaries to denigrate the work of certain individuals or groups and to pit them against each other.

But still it asks, "Why is 'the market' employed as a rationale for skyrocketing salaries for some individuals [such as the football coaches], when the same 'market factors' supposedly dictate extreme measures to reduce the cost of employing faculty?"