JLFJR wrote:rogers3 and others need to take BUSI 101 again. Just because subsidized state schools and soon to be extinct small private schools pay more than market salaries doesn’t mean LU should. LU pays market rate salaries. If we didn’t, our faculty and staff would leave (ministry or not) but we don’t have a turnover problem. LU offers one of the best benefit packages around and the opportunity for faculty to benefit from overload teaching online. You would be surprised what the faculty earn at LU. It is true that some could make more money elsewhere but would have to endure an atmosphere that is intolerant and hostile toward their worldview. There are intangible benefits at LU in that regard. Liberty’s financial success is tied to its commitment to operate according to sound business principles based on the free market. Many of our competitors are free spenders who expect the taxpayers, their donors and students to cover their losses through more and more subsidies, gifts and excessive tuition. After all that, many also spend down their endowments every year by far more than they earn. Their practices are not sustainable. By contrast, LU’s endowment increased by 19% last year, more than all but two universities in the US (and the two that were ahead of us were due to special one-time gifts). LU’s endowment has grown by double digit % rates for years. LU’s goal is to operate under a sustainable business model that will allow it to carry out its Christian mission permanently and not irresponsibly over-spend hoping that others will bail us out. Been there, done that. So don’t compare LU to schools that operate that way. Our mission is not to make the local economy flourish, even though they are benefiting greatly from our success.
I'll ignore the BUSI 101 comment...after all, I did take that at Liberty! I appreciate the response, and as a graduate who loves the school, I feel strongly about its mission as well as the impact Liberty has on our local community. Now, having spent some time working in higher ed, I do question the rationale of your argument. Are you suggesting that building school facilities and our endowment on student debt is really a sustainable action?
I'd argue that a school that has a growing endowment that is drawn on at a maneagable level to partially fund the institution is no less sustainable. At most schools, donors are happy to contribute and give back to the institution, building both the endowment and facilities. Why does this not happen here?
There are plenty of other things I'd love to discuss (the "free spenders" charge for example), but they'll have to wait.