3 ms·

[flagged]

csomar 2y ago
Then how did the universities operate before the increases? How come digitalization is not able to reduce the admin numbers. You are the one to justify why you need this additional overhead and not the other way around.
- PhotonHunter 2y ago
  They didn’t used to have to deal with FAR and DFARS compliance, export compliance, cybersecurity, iEdison reporting, and so on. Nevertheless, the administrative component of F&A indirects has been capped at 26% for years. The universities have to fill the budget gap with other funds (and no, not tuition, that is not used for the research enterprise).
  - lc9er 2y ago
    This is exactly it. A modern university has needs that are far greater and demanding than one of 50+ years ago. And generally, the people doing the ground-level work are underpaid and overworked. If anything, there may be a glut of VP and C-level positions, but they don’t make up the bulk of employees.
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  In addition to what the other commenter said, most of the public universities doing scientific research used to be far better funded from their states than they are today on a cost-per-student basis. Additional administrative staff that many universities now have is often necessitated by their regulatory complexity as well as the need for generating different sources of funding. These are broad statements that do oversimplify matters, but part of the full story.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  Why would digitization reduce the number of university admins? I'm sure there were some clerks and secretaries whose jobs were automated, but the universities also had to add huge IT departments. Plus, everything about a university is more complicated now then in was 50 years ago. In 1970, Harvard had 6000 applicants for 1200 freshman spots. Today it has 54,000 for 1900 spots. I'm sure the percentage that are international is vastly higher now. Probably a higher percentage want to visit campus. Financial aid is a lot more complicated. So just the admissions office is doing much more work.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    > In 1970, Harvard had 6000 applicants for 1200 freshman spots. Today it has 54,000 for 1900 spots. Why not sort descending by SAT score and call it a day? Evaluating things like extracurriculars continues to be classist bullshit and is probably responsible for making acceptance criteria "complicated".
    - fraggleysun 2y ago
      Because SAT scores, alone, tell you nothing about a candidate outside of their ability to completely that test.
    - aoanevdus 2y ago
      By this metric I would have got into any school I wanted, but that’s just because I put an exceptional amount of effort into preparing for the test. My grades and extracurriculars weren’t top-notch. I did go to an elite-ish school and it was clear that many other students deserved to be there more than me (ie. were able to contribute to society more in various ways), and in my view that difference was legible in the admissions process.
    - ungreased0675 2y ago
      Alternatively, why have they not expanded the number of available seats with the more than adequate resources available?
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Because when it comes to Harvard, out of 54,000 applications you'll have at least 1900 perfect SAT scores. Then how do you decide who to admit? You still need some process.
- scarby2 2y ago
  > Then how did the universities operate before the increases? Easily. Every additional rule and regulation has a compliance cost, we've added far too many rules and regulations.
wendyshu 2y ago
[flagged]
- timcobb 2y ago
  > false The shallowest of dismissals… not interesting/disappointing to encounter
gotoeleven 2y ago
The EO in question literally just reduces the amount that can be spent on overhead. Maybe they should try reducing overhead?
- hooverd 2y ago
  "Overhead" here is things like physical plant and shared resources.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  because most of that overhead isn't removable. all of your chemistry/biology/physics research has labs and lab managers as overhead. that is intrinsically expensive.
mlrtime 2y ago
So why not just use the endowment, why does the tax payer need to fund this? 22.3 Billion isn't enough?
- tzs 2y ago
  They are using their endowment. They spend around 4-5% of it each year.

[flagged]

Then how did the universities operate before the increases? How come digitalization is not able to reduce the admin numbers. You are the one to justify why you need this additional overhead and not the other way around.

PhotonHunter 2y ago
They didn’t used to have to deal with FAR and DFARS compliance, export compliance, cybersecurity, iEdison reporting, and so on. Nevertheless, the administrative component of F&A indirects has been capped at 26% for years. The universities have to fill the budget gap with other funds (and no, not tuition, that is not used for the research enterprise).
- lc9er 2y ago
  This is exactly it. A modern university has needs that are far greater and demanding than one of 50+ years ago. And generally, the people doing the ground-level work are underpaid and overworked. If anything, there may be a glut of VP and C-level positions, but they don’t make up the bulk of employees.
HelloMcFly 2y ago
In addition to what the other commenter said, most of the public universities doing scientific research used to be far better funded from their states than they are today on a cost-per-student basis. Additional administrative staff that many universities now have is often necessitated by their regulatory complexity as well as the need for generating different sources of funding. These are broad statements that do oversimplify matters, but part of the full story.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
Why would digitization reduce the number of university admins? I'm sure there were some clerks and secretaries whose jobs were automated, but the universities also had to add huge IT departments. Plus, everything about a university is more complicated now then in was 50 years ago. In 1970, Harvard had 6000 applicants for 1200 freshman spots. Today it has 54,000 for 1900 spots. I'm sure the percentage that are international is vastly higher now. Probably a higher percentage want to visit campus. Financial aid is a lot more complicated. So just the admissions office is doing much more work.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  > In 1970, Harvard had 6000 applicants for 1200 freshman spots. Today it has 54,000 for 1900 spots. Why not sort descending by SAT score and call it a day? Evaluating things like extracurriculars continues to be classist bullshit and is probably responsible for making acceptance criteria "complicated".
  - fraggleysun 2y ago
    Because SAT scores, alone, tell you nothing about a candidate outside of their ability to completely that test.
  - aoanevdus 2y ago
    By this metric I would have got into any school I wanted, but that’s just because I put an exceptional amount of effort into preparing for the test. My grades and extracurriculars weren’t top-notch. I did go to an elite-ish school and it was clear that many other students deserved to be there more than me (ie. were able to contribute to society more in various ways), and in my view that difference was legible in the admissions process.
  - ungreased0675 2y ago
    Alternatively, why have they not expanded the number of available seats with the more than adequate resources available?
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Because when it comes to Harvard, out of 54,000 applications you'll have at least 1900 perfect SAT scores. Then how do you decide who to admit? You still need some process.
scarby2 2y ago
> Then how did the universities operate before the increases? Easily. Every additional rule and regulation has a compliance cost, we've added far too many rules and regulations.

wendyshu 2y ago

[flagged]

timcobb 2y ago
> false The shallowest of dismissals… not interesting/disappointing to encounter

gotoeleven 2y ago

The EO in question literally just reduces the amount that can be spent on overhead. Maybe they should try reducing overhead?

hooverd 2y ago
"Overhead" here is things like physical plant and shared resources.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
because most of that overhead isn't removable. all of your chemistry/biology/physics research has labs and lab managers as overhead. that is intrinsically expensive.

mlrtime 2y ago

So why not just use the endowment, why does the tax payer need to fund this? 22.3 Billion isn't enough?

tzs 2y ago
They are using their endowment. They spend around 4-5% of it each year.