3 ms·

The examples in the article are a bit varied, so we cannot conveniently assign a single, much less single pathological cause, or even nefarious cause, apart fro

The examples in the article are a bit varied, so we cannot conveniently assign a single, much less single pathological cause, or even nefarious cause, apart from "general malaise and decadence" perhaps. But some of the examples do point to bloated administration as a seat of troubles. Yale, for example, has a <1:1 undergrad student to administrator ratio. That's right, more than one administrator per student. But what's important here is not just how this impacts the cost of education having to pay all those salaries and build and maintain the facilities to hold their offices. Administration has also been the motor by which, shall we say, the "new ideological norms" have been imposed on universities, and conspicuously so in recently years, by commissars in administration. I wouldn't be surprised if hiring decisions and admissions are also guided or influenced by such new ideological policing. In a way, they can't help but be influenced by them, directly or indirectly. This leads to a positive feedback loop that concentrates wackiness in universities. (I'm not objecting to concentration per se. A university is a community and certain commonly held norms must govern every community. It is essential for the common good of that community, and these are not arbitrary. I am objecting to some of the insane norms that are being imposed and highlighting the way in which it is or may be occurring.)

bumby 4y ago
>Administration has also been the motor by which, shall we say, the "new ideological norms" have been imposed on universities In his book The Coddling of the American Mind Jonathan Haidt covers some of this in-depth. He speaks about the growth of administrators and their general CYA approach, which seems evidenced in the article, among other causes. But where he draws an important distinction from your conclusion is that he claims these universities are reacting to changes in the student culture and administrators aren't the root cause themselves. He goes on to describe how, because colleges are now run as businesses, they must conform to their customers (students) preferences. Beyond the obvious extravagance of new facilities, this also extends towards cultural policies. Some of that leads to an overly protective safety culture (e.g., expecting third parties to intervene to solve issues) which, in turn, creates the need for more administrators. What's interesting in his book is that he lays the case that this is even more prevalent in prestigious universities because the overly protective safety culture is more prevalent in upper-middle and upper class American culture, which is over-represented in these institutions.
- goatlover 4y ago
  > He goes on to describe how, because colleges are now run as businesses Why did anyone think this is a good thing?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    It's not a good thing, but what else do you expect in a capitalist system? The whole system is tilted toward the "business" construct that even human beings are forced to incorporate in order to remain competitive. What chance do Universities have?
  - bumby 4y ago
    My guess is that people couldn't forecast this particular result, except in hindsight. I'm sure if you ask most college deans "Would you prefer more money for your department?" the answer is always going to be "yes". So it starts as a one small decision to get more money and that decision leads to another, and another...It's a slow mission creep that can eventually morph the entire culture to one that is ROI focused. I'll give one example from experience. One college used to have a "veterans coordinator" that was really just an ancillary duty assigned to an employee. Just one of those side duties that every has as part of their job. When the new GI Bill was passed, the administration realized how many more veterans may be available for college. They decided to hire a position to focus solely on that program. I mean, who is going to be against the idea of helping veterans transition from service back to civilian life via education, right? Once they saw how much money was involved, they could justify even more hires. Now there are whole teams that only focus on veterans on campus. On one hand, it's a great service to provide a specific population. On the other, it's administrative bloat predicated on an ROI calculation.
Bran_son 4y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if hiring decisions and admissions are also guided or influenced by such new ideological policing. They are. If this is what they do openly, just imagine how severe the tacit, unofficial discrimination is, that they don't (yet) dare write down as official policy: Study: Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req... The University’s New Loyalty Oath [..] Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath-11576799749 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat... Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity [..] In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/ https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...

bumby 4y ago

>Administration has also been the motor by which, shall we say, the "new ideological norms" have been imposed on universities In his book The Coddling of the American Mind Jonathan Haidt covers some of this in-depth. He speaks about the growth of administrators and their general CYA approach, which seems evidenced in the article, among other causes. But where he draws an important distinction from your conclusion is that he claims these universities are reacting to changes in the student culture and administrators aren't the root cause themselves. He goes on to describe how, because colleges are now run as businesses, they must conform to their customers (students) preferences. Beyond the obvious extravagance of new facilities, this also extends towards cultural policies. Some of that leads to an overly protective safety culture (e.g., expecting third parties to intervene to solve issues) which, in turn, creates the need for more administrators. What's interesting in his book is that he lays the case that this is even more prevalent in prestigious universities because the overly protective safety culture is more prevalent in upper-middle and upper class American culture, which is over-represented in these institutions.

goatlover 4y ago
> He goes on to describe how, because colleges are now run as businesses Why did anyone think this is a good thing?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  It's not a good thing, but what else do you expect in a capitalist system? The whole system is tilted toward the "business" construct that even human beings are forced to incorporate in order to remain competitive. What chance do Universities have?
- bumby 4y ago
  My guess is that people couldn't forecast this particular result, except in hindsight. I'm sure if you ask most college deans "Would you prefer more money for your department?" the answer is always going to be "yes". So it starts as a one small decision to get more money and that decision leads to another, and another...It's a slow mission creep that can eventually morph the entire culture to one that is ROI focused. I'll give one example from experience. One college used to have a "veterans coordinator" that was really just an ancillary duty assigned to an employee. Just one of those side duties that every has as part of their job. When the new GI Bill was passed, the administration realized how many more veterans may be available for college. They decided to hire a position to focus solely on that program. I mean, who is going to be against the idea of helping veterans transition from service back to civilian life via education, right? Once they saw how much money was involved, they could justify even more hires. Now there are whole teams that only focus on veterans on campus. On one hand, it's a great service to provide a specific population. On the other, it's administrative bloat predicated on an ROI calculation.

Bran_son 4y ago

> I wouldn't be surprised if hiring decisions and admissions are also guided or influenced by such new ideological policing. They are. If this is what they do openly, just imagine how severe the tacit, unofficial discrimination is, that they don't (yet) dare write down as official policy: Study: Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req... The University’s New Loyalty Oath [..] Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oath-11576799749 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat... Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity [..] In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/ https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...