Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

March 5 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

Phi Beta Cons

The Right take on higher education.


Print   |  Text
 

The Coming Assault on Beadledom

As the country searches for solutions to skyrocketing tuition costs and crushing student-loan debt, one factor has gone largely unnoticed — until now. In a Washington Monthly piece titled “Administrators Ate My Tuition,” Benjamin Ginsberg documents what we in the profession have sensed for some time: Adminstration has mushroomed at the expense of every other sector on campus. “Forty years ago,” writes Ginsberg, “U.S. colleges employed more faculty than administrators. But today, teachers make up less than half of college employees.”

“Administrators Ate My Tuition” presents the highlights from Ginsberg’s book, The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why it Matters. The raw numbers contained therein tell the story. “Forty years ago . . . the efforts of 446,830 professors were supported by 268,952 administrators and staffers. Over the past four decades, though, as the number of full-time professors increased slightly more than 50 percent . . . the number of administrators and administrative staffers employed by those schools increased by an astonishing 85 percent and 240 percent, respectively.”

Although administration has burgeoned at both public and private institutions, the lion’s share of the growth has taken place in the latter. “Between 1975 and 2000, the number of administrators and managers employed by public institutions increased by 66 percent. During the same time period, though, the number of administrators employed by private colleges and universities grew by 135 percent.”

What do these increases in staff amount to in dollars? Adjusting for inflation, from 1947 to 1995, “overall university spending increased 148 percent. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent. Instructional spending, by contrast, increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase.”

Ginsberg finds that senior administrators have done particularly well under the new regime. From 1998 to 2003, deans and vice presidents saw their salaries increase as much as 50 percent. “By 2007, the median salary paid to a president of a doctoral degreegranting institution was $325,000. Eighty-one presidents earned more than $500,000 and twelve earned over $1 million.” Surveying these increases, a Chronicle of Higher Education piece (Presidents Defend Their Pay as Public Colleges Slash Budgets) notes the difficulties that public university CEOs face when arguing that their “budgets have been cut to the bone . . . while at the same time acknowledging their rarified personal financial circumstances in states where layoffs, program closures, and pay reductions have been all too common.”

It’s unlikely to get less thorny for these presidents — or for any in the army of university administrators — any time soon. In a number of states, the legislature is bracing itself for the blow that Medicaid payments are projected to strike against the next budget. To address the shortfall in Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn recently chose to raise taxes. It’s always possible that other states will not look to the Illinois model. In these states, then, cuts will soon be coming, some of which cannot help but come from the large higher-education portions of the various state budgets. But, as we’ve been reminded recently, budget-cutting is always a nasty affair. Accordingly, legislators are rarely eager to take the heat for cutting too deeply into teaching or student-aid budgets. But will any of them worry much over the political fallout caused by cutting administrative overhead? Not likely, in which case The Fall of the Faculty may soon become required reading in the nation’s statehouses.

New on Phi Beta Cons. . .


COMMENTS   5

EXPAND  

Oh My Head Hurts
   01/18/12 11:27

Complaints about too many administrators, making too much money, are fairly standard in public unionized education (because the administrators are not part of the union, duh). I have also heard it mentioned in public higher education, which may or may not be unionized. First time I've seen it mentioned as being worse, in the context of private higher education!

The real question is what those administrators do. For comparison, the high cost of certain college sports programs is generally justified on the theory that running those programs pulls in more money than the cost (perhaps via donations). Never mind the distortion of the educational purpose. So, I repeat, what do those administrators do? Do they distort the educational purpose, or make it happen? More likely some of each. I can say the same for certain academic departments (most of which have "studies" in the title).

I have not read the book, but I wonder if the numerous teaching assistants, who virtually run the classrooms and labs at universities nowadays, are counted as "faculty"? My guess is that they are not. If they were counted, how would that affect the analysis?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 SC
   01/18/12 12:50

The raw numbers under sell the story. Forty years ago many profs had (or shared) an administrative assistant. Today there are many fewer admins and many more educrats.

That said, previous poster has a good point about teaching assistants. Probably counted as staff when they should be counted as half a faculty member.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Lee
   01/18/12 20:12

I doubt teaching assistants are counted in the "administration" numbers. Universities usually have four classes of employees: faculty, administrative, union contract (NB not professors, but usually non-ex,pt union employees), and "other"--usually academic employees. These would be the teaching assistants. The "other" generally get no vacation or sick time (their work schedules coincide with the academic calendar, rich in vacation time) and usually no buy-in to the retirement program (401 or 403 or whatever).

Administrative can be the college president down to th sub assistant sub-adminstrative assisant to the junior adjunct professor in underwater basket weaving. And THAT category has ballooned--from Directors O'Diversity to Vice President of Visionary Publicity, and other such nonsense to the lowly admin assistant for every other professor...

Once upon a time, departments had ONE secretary; now there's an admin assistant for the department, one for the departmental admin assistant, one for th chair, once for the vice chair, once for the undergraduate advisor, one for the graduate advisor, and one for each of the star-prima-donna full professors. Then the associate and assistant professors share various numbers of admin assistants based on how much money the department has. EE tends to be once of the wealthier departments, so I will bet that there is an admin assistant for every two to three assistant/association professors. Adjuncts can either be on their own, if their are just cheap labor, but if they are fancy pants big names, they get an admin assistant. All those secrataries add up--in numbers and dollars. As someone who has walked in their footsetps, I hate to see too many of them canned, but really, five useless junior admin assistants are equal to one useless junior VP of something idiotic.

Actually, in my undergraduat days, back in the dark ages when we had one departmental secratary, one of the potential academic assistantship positions available tended to admin assistant type positions--typing up exams, putting together slide presentations and lecture notes, etc., for professors.

Also, back in those dark ages, assistantships were paid with "fee waivers" from the university. Essentially, the fees/tution were/was waived for the recipient by the university. Now, the department has to pay it to the university, so the department has to come up with the full moolah for the grad student getting the assistantship. Which means the department has to find the money somewhere...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/18/12 15:54

I think the increase in administration on college campuses has six causes.

1. Police work. The massive increase in student affairs staff in the 1970’s should be seen as a reaction to the protests of the 1960’s. This staff exists to monitor students and make sure they don’t start riots, hazing, revolutions, et cetera.

2. Federal paperwork. Somebody needs to keep track of all of the hoops universities need to go through to get money; grant writers have become a critical part of the university bureaucracy for getting money from the federal government as well as private foundations.

3. Lobbyists. It has been a traditional role in state colleges for a university president to beg legislative committees for appropriations. Now, lobbyists have also been sent to Washington, DC. Both private and public institutions send professional beggars to the Capitol and they often come back with swag, I mean “needed improvements“.

4. Accountability. Measuring the campus is an important part of any large college campus. Without at least some monitoring, waste becomes endemic. However, accountability measures can also clog a department chairman’s time with upward reporting paperwork. The more information a board or legislative committee asks for, the more time gets taken up compiling the information, and the more administrators who will get hired to do the work.

5. Keeping up with the Joneses. It’s probably embarrassing for a university president to go to a convention of university executives only to discover that he is among he most poorly paid executives at the conference, even if he is on the receiving end of sarcastic remarks from faculty snipers about how he is part of the “one percent”. Such a president may chafe at discovering how his six figure salary pales in comparison to what deans and vice president at a rival university are making. While disgruntled faculty compare their salaries to him, he compares his salary to Gordon Gee.

6. Increasing complexity of faculty hierarchy. There’s no nice way to put this, but the massive ranking system of faculty oligarchy needs somebody to keep track of it. For example, distinctions among the titles of assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor do not exist at streamlined schools such as BYU-Idaho. The seven-year “residency” process of tenure at modern universities not only promotes ideological uniformity among the faculty, but it also requires massive amounts of paperwork.

If one cuts down on paperwork, one cuts down on expense. To do this, one can’t just do temporary fixes; one needs to rethink how a university ought to go about its business. That isn’t as easy as it may seem at first glance.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JKB
   01/18/12 22:10

Milton Friedman explains what is happening using a term developed by a British doctor, Bureaucratic Displacement. Oh, and if you go earlier in the talk, he explains how after the government has taken over something, the money goes down, so enjoy the extra cash for now.

External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact