Hamilton College Alumni for Governance Reform

I have written extensively about Hamilton's tuition, ending in my book The Great American College Tuition Rip-off, which can be found on Amazon.com.

College costs are not determined by actual costs, but rather by demand, and the willingness to pay. As parents were willing to go into debt, students to borrow and the government to grant, the academic establishment took the money and ran. The result has been fewer hours taught by professors, extensive staffs, luxury four color magazines, and climbing walls. The student to faculty ratio has remained about the same since 1961, 9:1, but the student to employee ratio is now 2.9 to 1. Drive up the Hill and you will see the parking lot full of employees cranking out news releases.

In my comparison of Hamilton vs. Alfred University, a college of about the same size, but not an elite school, the tuition is about half.

Extra money is simply piled into programs, extra-curricular activities, etc, etc.

When colleges and universities lost their connection with organized religion and the great multiculturalists took over, the result is that Hamilton, as others, is a revenue maximizing organization. More money in and more money out.

As I pointed out with an examination of Williams, about half the students pay full costs. These students have family incomes above $200,000 per year. The concentration is then on minority students with about 25% of the student body, then foreign students and then foreign students for about 15%. The result is that about 10% of the students defined as, white, euro-Americans at Williams receive financial aid. And who knows how much of that is simply debt. I imagine similar statistics can be gathered for all other elite colleges, Less qualified minorities receive more aid than more qualified, but poor, EuroAmericans.

In short, for most, Hamilton College is an elite institution where the sons and daughters of wealthy parents get their ticket punched on the way to another elite institution, where they will again get their ticket punched. It is a fine machine for turning out stock brokers, corporate lawyers and gynecologists.

However, as I have pointed out in another article, Hamilton College has not turned out many notable alumni since 1950, and the most notable alumni have been those born near the Hill, or in rural towns across the country. Root and Bristol, the former, and Pound and Wolcott the later, among others.In short, a noticeable decline in the graduates of Hamilton College.

When Hamilton College transitioned from a more or less local or rural school in upstate New York, to an elite school with a national geographically dispersed student body, the dynamic of the student body changed. Rather than have a significant number of appleknockers, the overwhelming numbers of students were from the suburbs of Greenwich, Darien, Shaker Heights, etc. They were less achievement oriented and more status oriented. Therefore, they individually never took the risks that would result in singular achievement, (write poetry, found a company) but more inclined to corporate success. Status, not achievement, is the fundamental dynamic of their existence. (Despite billions made in the internet, no Hamilton grads can be seen.)

So, what is the sense of worrying about Hamilton College that produces an alumni body that that either individually or collectively are not very important? Does it really matter that Hamilton parents are willing to pay $140,000 in tuition so that Johnny can get a job with Citibank? Yet, I am sure it does for Johnny and his parents.

Aren't the professors kidding themselves that they are doing valuable "reseach." The vast majority of it will not survive beyond their deaths. Aren't they really simply courtiers to the sons and daughters of Wall Street bankers. One cannot even think that they are virtuously teaching any lessons of our civilization to future leaders. That went out the window with multiculturalism.

The majority of Hamilton Alumni, students and parents of those students do not care what is taught at Hamilton, as long as their ticket is punched for the next academic gig, and life in the Elysium Fields of New Canaan.

College tuitions are high among the elite colleges and universities because it is a way the wealthy elites can exclude more dynamic competition. This is furthered by draining resources to specific minorities, rather than a strict a need basis which would give more scholarship money to EuroAmerican students, that is stiffer competition for those jobs at Citibank.

paul streitz

For your consideration - these figures are not out of line with tuition charged by "elite" private secondary schools, both boarding and day. In fact, tuition charged by some of the NYC "Ivy League" schools roughly equals that charged by nos. 2-5 on your list.

Prudent fiscal management is what enabled some of these colleges (Hamilton included) to survive through the vicissitudes (sheer number of students and the nature of their academic interest) of the college age population.

President Bollinger's remarks at Columbia in defense of Ahmadinejad's visit caught my attention in light of what to the Alexander Hamilton Center. Here is what Bollinger said:

"I would like to add a few comments on the principles that underlie this event. Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas—to understand the world as it is and as it might be. To fulfill this mission we must respect and defend the rights of our schools, our deans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes."

Has Hamilton's president ever spoken publicly about why the college backed off on the original agreement? I've surfed the web and found nothing. She was prepared to defend Ward Churchill on academic freedom grounds, but not the Alexander Hamilton Center. Strange.

[ed note - reproduced this comment under Richard I. "RD" Queen, Ahmadinejad, Columbia & Hamilton for context]

Now, I'd like to see a breakdown of cost versus value.

The book The Great American College Tuition Rip-Off is available on Amazon.com.Tuitions have risen because colleges can raise tuitions faster than the rate of inflation. Parents are willing to pay more for education. Government grants just end up raising tuitions. The rise in tutitions is caused by a rise on the demand side of the equation, not fundamental underlying costs. I suggest you read the book before going further.

"Prudent fiscal management is what enabled some of these colleges (Hamilton included) to survive through the vicissitudes (sheer number of students and the nature of their academic interest) of the college age population."

Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a decrease in the number of hours taught by each faculty member, an enormous increase in the number of non-teaching employees, and an ennormous increase in the luxury facilities. Swimming pools, squash courts and climbing walls. Expenses were ramped up to meet revenue.

Competitive salaries alone between Hamilton and Alfred, for "better teachers" do not make up the difference in spending per pupil. Haamilton as other private schools and institutions have raised tuitions, "because they can." Million dollar salaries are now paid to headmasters of private schools.

The whole of elite schools is an oligopoly run by the wealthy, for the benefit of their wealthy children. Scholarships are given to foreign and minority students, that would not offer competition in the society.

What you have is a basically cultural Marxist faculty and adminstration using funds provided to them by the obliging wealthy elites to destabilize and deconstruct the United States and Western civilization. The prep school boys that turned into the trustees of Hamilton were no match for the harned cultural Marxists such as Tobin, et al. The CM did an admirable job of deconstructing a liberal arts education under the banner of diversity and multiculturalism.


"Li Qi, a candidate for May graduation from Hmilton, has been awarded the college’s Bristol Fellowship. For his project Qi will study circus troupes in four different countries: France’s Circus of the New Stars and The French National Circus School; Russia’s Amateur Circus Association and Great Moscow State Circus; Brazil’s National Circus and Egypt’s Cairo Circus. Qi, a former acrobat in the Fujianese Circus, is a Higher Education Opportunity Program student at Hamilton."

paul streitz

Hey does anyone know where I can find The Great American College Tuition Rip? I've looked everywhere.

Streitz has been blowing this hot air for ages.....and still nobody listens. It's like grade inflation. Everyone is against it until their kid gets a bad grade. Let's see who opts for Alfred over Hamilton. Bottom line, the education is still outstanding at Hamilton.

Hamilton has become a great resort, kind a like a cruiseship, the USS Lollipop. The students know it. Some faculty will admit to it. Good learning occurs, of course. But the question is how much value-added in four years and at what price. Is Hamilton better than SUNY-Geneseo or Grove City. Debatable.
Good colleges don't need a juice bar and daily wellness information. A train of overpriced speakers don't necessarily lead to reflection and stimulation. If parents can send their kids to a high-priced resort, why not. It's relatively safe and has all the amenities.

Huff and Puff:

The kids are probably outstanding at Hamilton...The administration, trustees and specific members of the faculty are corrupt and have earned the condemnation they have received by some on this web site...Just the facts Maam!!!!!...The facts are enough!!!!...Innuendo is not required...

Unfortunately, you've let your disdain for the administration (past and present) and liberal faculty cloud your view of the college. By many measures, students continue to get an outstanding education, despite the unfortunate behavior of a few bad faculty (left and right), administrators, trustees, students, and alumni. This past weekend (Alumni Weekend) I learned that 20 of the 21 students that applied to med school last year were accepted. That's nothing short of outstanding.

It's fine to attack the policies and behaviors you deplore, but by going too far you cheapen your arguments.

Again, if you believe Geneseo provides a comparable education, they by all means send your children there. I know both places well and they don't come close to the Hamilton educational experience.

"The administration, trustees and specific members of the faculty are corrupt and have earned the condemnation they have received by some on this web site..." -- Hal 9000

Simply outrageous.

I would posit that Hal 9000 hasn't been on campus since the movie was released.

Huff and Puff,

"unfortunate behavior of a few bad faculty (left and right)"

What "right"? Now you are being outrageous.

Yikes!

Your posit is wrong...I have returned twice since 1968, and the experiences were OK--then!!!!...I wish you would attempt to overturn or argue against the facts here, not just call me "outrageous" for internalizing them and being honest about the behavior exhibited by the parties over the past several years..

If condemnation leads to reform, perhaps we can improve the governance of the institution and allow us to respect and admire our alma mater once again..Denial is not a good first step...

Blow,

"What "right"? Now you are being outrageous."

Paquette's unfortunate behavior. Need I say more?

How many times can this guy tell the Annie Sprinkle
story? Time to let his program successes do the talking.
To date, there are none.

Can someone name substantive governance reforms that have been implemented to rectify the abuses that have occurred and the basis of which is available for review by regular alumni? Or specific examples of policy & practice that have increased transparency to alumni & accountibility?

Why does the administration continue to withhold the final report on the Kirkland Project (even from manifold former trustees)? Or provide a coherent reasoned explanation of its conduct in the handling of the AHC? Or provide an explanation as to why the alumni are refused access to the proposed changes in the bylaws the draft of which was affirmed last spring? Or provide an explanation, beyond business is good, for the absence of any curriculum?

For RAE,

I believe calling people "corrupt" is quite an accusation, and under these circumstances, outrageous and unacceptable.

This blog, which started out with the greatest intentions, has turned into a continual revolving tape loop of a litany of sound-bite complaints.

Condemnation does not lead to reform; action does. And for all the excellent programming the AHI may bring, HCAGR's involvement in same accomplishes absolutely nothing towards the stated purpose of "governance reform" at Hamilton College - it only embodies and fosters the divisiveness that emerged in early '05.

For "a fan's notes",

I would suggest you do some HOLAC surfing. There are many examples of increased transparency, e.g, campus speakers, policy post-KP among them.

Your last paragraph is but one voice of the chorus refrain we've been hearing ad nauseam on this blog. JHS issued her statement on the KP; if you want to know about the by-laws, call your class president; and follow along the discussion on HOLAC, the College catalogue, and in the academic journals, about the lack of requirements (see also, Brown University).

For both of you,

Have you ever engaged a Trustee or administrator one-on-one, by email or phone, or maybe even in person? They're accessible and ready to talk.

A Fan's Notes:

Clearly the alumni are not a constituency that counts...As long as the college obtains the dollars it wants and is not hurt by the declining percentage of alumni who donate, why do anything??..Things are pretty cozy just the way they are...

Take it or leave it works for them and Dartmouth--at least so far..Until some pocket book crisis hits, which requires some accommodation, the reformers can go fish...

Yikes,

You won't get anywhere with these people. They hide behind an ideological, vindictive, self-righteous curtain. They won't engage in constructive dialogue.

For Huff and Yikes,

Let me turn the tables. Have either of you ever tried to speak to Professor Paquette? As Bill O'Reilly puts it, he doesn't appear to be hiding under his desk.

If one guy Paquette constitutes the right on Hamilton's campus, he must be one dangerous man. So much for ideological balance, however. You say trust in the good will of a predominantly left-wing faculty. How different is Hamilton from Duke in producing left-wing lemmings. Paquette would have to have been crazy to trust his AHI to the "good will of the faculty. The trustees mendacity showed in the Tobin affair.
The Kirkland Project represents the majority culture on most college campuses, and it ain't a pretty sight.
As for Ward Churchill, if he was so obvious, why was he ensconced for years as head of a department with a $130,000 a year salary at a state university? Why was Kirkland Project paying him big bucks as an expert?

Prof. Paquette is nowhere near as accessible as the many Trustees, administrators and Alumni Council members present at the many College events hosted for alumni, on campus and elsewhere.

Frankly, my only beef with Prof. Paquette is that the founders did not want the AHC/AHI to operate under the same standards of oversight that other campus organizations do.

I believe the view that the left-wing radicals are in charge of the campus is bordering on absurd, particularly coming from intelligent, well-educated people.

I believe that any alum who has a problem with Hamilton's administration owes it to him/herself and the College, to speak with someone who might be a position to know, rather than simply accept views that are often pure anti-Hamilton propaganda.

If you don't trust the administration and the Trustees, how about your fellow alumni who serve on the Alumni Council? I'll bet some of them might even be friends, with whom you might speak candidly of your concerns.