3 ms·

The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top students

The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top students (and athletes). To attract these students they invest in massive infrastructure projects (new buildings and renovations), often with the support of earmarked donations from wealthy alumni. These new facilities must then be staffed with administrators and maintenance workers. Along with the new facilities come new departments and schools of X and Y which also need their own administration. The short answer is: administrative bloat. That's where all the money is going. Universities employ far more non-teaching staff than ever before. A large bulk of this staff is essentially dedicated to marketing the university to prospective students, a zero-sum competition with other universities. One of the big problems is that wealthy donors love to earmark their donations for big projects that carry their name. It's way less sexy to donate a bunch of no-strings-attached money that the school can use to pay salaries and keep tuition down. For donors who actually want to help future students, the usual route is named scholarships. But then, of course, scholarships also require admin staff to oversee them. And schools can have thousands of these scholarships.

peteradio 4y ago
Is the admin always on vacation? I applied to my undergraduate almamater for several positions and wasn't hearing back. I would call every week for about 6 weeks and received out of office messages for each person that entire time. It really gave the impression that people are collecting state funded salaries while doing very very little.
dap 4y ago
> The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top students (and athletes). To attract these students they invest in massive infrastructure projects (new buildings and renovations), often with the support of earmarked donations from wealthy alumni. These new facilities must then be staffed with administrators and maintenance workers. Along with the new facilities come new departments and schools of X and Y which also need their own administration. > The short answer is: administrative bloat. I don't get it -- you're saying it's "bloat" and bad that the competitive market for students is causing universities to invest in themselves? You've actually convinced me that a large chunk of costs for nameless "administrators" might be going to useful purposes because investing in buildings and programs requires non-educational staff to keep things going.
- chongli 4y ago
  It's a zero sum game. Bob the student can either attend Charles State or Derek University, not both. If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. The building itself may have been donated by some magnanimous billionaire, but the water to fill the pools and run the showers, the chlorine and other chemicals, the electricity to run the pumps and keep the lights on, the lifeguards, the cleaning crew, the maintenance crew, the swim team coaches, management, HR staff, and so on are all part of the school's operating costs. It is these costs that are paid for by tuition money.
  - dap 4y ago
    > If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. Why do you think it's zero sum? Everything I've read suggests the total number of college students is increasing while school count isn't. Schools are increasing capacity, but not necessarily fast enough. Bob may not matriculate, but many others might because of the aquatic center. I can't imagine schools are building an aquatic center for one individual who might not even matriculate. I can imagine schools building an aquatic center to increase the overall matriculation rate. If it works, and this example is representative, then what you're describing sounds like a competitive market causing all the producers to make investments to improve their product. (You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate.) If it doesn't work, then it sounds like it was just a bad decision, and possibly one with long-term costs for upkeep. But as far as I can tell, on average these things _are_ working, because colleges are only getting more selective.
    - chongli 4y ago
secabeen 4y ago
> The short answer is: administrative bloat. That's where all the money is going. Universities employ far more non-teaching staff than ever before. A large bulk of this staff is essentially dedicated to marketing the university to prospective students, a zero-sum competition with other universities. Do you have a citation for this claim? The Ed department publishes higher-ed expenditure data, and it doesn't show "far more" administrative expense on a real per-student basis compared to 10 or 20 years ago: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.a...

peteradio 4y ago

Is the admin always on vacation? I applied to my undergraduate almamater for several positions and wasn't hearing back. I would call every week for about 6 weeks and received out of office messages for each person that entire time. It really gave the impression that people are collecting state funded salaries while doing very very little.

dap 4y ago

> The money is going into a bottomless pit of administrative and bureaucratic overhead. Universities are caught up in a zero-sum competition for the top students (and athletes). To attract these students they invest in massive infrastructure projects (new buildings and renovations), often with the support of earmarked donations from wealthy alumni. These new facilities must then be staffed with administrators and maintenance workers. Along with the new facilities come new departments and schools of X and Y which also need their own administration. > The short answer is: administrative bloat. I don't get it -- you're saying it's "bloat" and bad that the competitive market for students is causing universities to invest in themselves? You've actually convinced me that a large chunk of costs for nameless "administrators" might be going to useful purposes because investing in buildings and programs requires non-educational staff to keep things going.

chongli 4y ago
It's a zero sum game. Bob the student can either attend Charles State or Derek University, not both. If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. The building itself may have been donated by some magnanimous billionaire, but the water to fill the pools and run the showers, the chlorine and other chemicals, the electricity to run the pumps and keep the lights on, the lifeguards, the cleaning crew, the maintenance crew, the swim team coaches, management, HR staff, and so on are all part of the school's operating costs. It is these costs that are paid for by tuition money.
- dap 4y ago
  > If Charles State spends a million dollars trying to attract Bob, Derek U spends a million and a half, and Bob decides to go to Derek U, Charles State has wasted a million dollars. Furthermore, the fancy new aquatics complex at Derek U may have been the deciding factor for Bob but it does nothing to make him better at electrical engineering, his chosen major. Why do you think it's zero sum? Everything I've read suggests the total number of college students is increasing while school count isn't. Schools are increasing capacity, but not necessarily fast enough. Bob may not matriculate, but many others might because of the aquatic center. I can't imagine schools are building an aquatic center for one individual who might not even matriculate. I can imagine schools building an aquatic center to increase the overall matriculation rate. If it works, and this example is representative, then what you're describing sounds like a competitive market causing all the producers to make investments to improve their product. (You could argue they shouldn't, that we'd rather they be affordable and not have aquatic centers, but that's a different debate.) If it doesn't work, then it sounds like it was just a bad decision, and possibly one with long-term costs for upkeep. But as far as I can tell, on average these things _are_ working, because colleges are only getting more selective.
  - chongli 4y ago

secabeen 4y ago

> The short answer is: administrative bloat. That's where all the money is going. Universities employ far more non-teaching staff than ever before. A large bulk of this staff is essentially dedicated to marketing the university to prospective students, a zero-sum competition with other universities. Do you have a citation for this claim? The Ed department publishes higher-ed expenditure data, and it doesn't show "far more" administrative expense on a real per-student basis compared to 10 or 20 years ago: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_334.10.a...