4 ms·

> there was a time in very recent history when these same schools ran successfully with much smaller administrations. as the comment you're replying to has alr

by exe34 2y ago

> there was a time in very recent history when these same schools ran successfully with much smaller administrations. as the comment you're replying to has already stated: > one clear driver is continually increasing rules, regulations, and compliance, along with fears of audits and lawsuits. I'd even make an analogy to increased malpractice insurance costs for doctors due to increasing number of lawsuits doctors face. > For example, there are more compliance costs around IRBs for human subjects, export controls of potentially sensitive data, companies we can't work with (e.g. in China), contracting with companies we can work with, intellectual property and startups, Title IX, discrimination, Federal funding do's and don'ts, cybersecurity requirements, travel to foreign countries (soon to be implemented), and a lot lot lot lot more. Also, like security, these things only ratchet upward, never down.

like_any_other 2y ago
First, I don't think we should take it as a given that all the admin. growth is just efficiently working on complying with regulations. And I'm pretty sure foreign countries, and travel to them, already existed in 1976. As did patents, contracts with other companies, and sanctions that US entities had to respect - remember, in 1976 there was the cold war. Second and more importantly - these same schools ran successfully with much smaller administrations. The regulations you cite are not a law of nature - are universities or their bloated administrations lobbying to have this regulatory burden reduced or streamlined? It sure doesn't look like it.
- lc9er 2y ago
  Do you work in higher ed? It’s ok to admit that you weighed in on a topic you don’t understand, then bow out gracefully, since you’ve repeatedly been given accurate responses to your assertions.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legislation_in_the_United_States#Rise_of_the_IRB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legisla... The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Like blaming being three hours late on a single red light.
    - skywhopper 2y ago
      You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Please stop.
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        Such assertions are a lot more persuasive if you can point to significant errors the poster has made.
        exe34 2y ago
        > The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Could you give some hints as to what would constitute sufficient evidence to convince you?
        achierius 2y ago
        Just looking in from the outside of this conversation, > More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: ... Is it that those were just bad examples and the actual bulk of the work is coming in from elsewhere? Or is it the case that these areas were already in place, but have since come to demand additional work that they didn't before (for what reason?)? &c
        exe34 2y ago
        Have you considered the other "half"? (note, the claim of "half" was from the person dismissing all the arguments).
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kzs0 2y ago
      His/her first statement was directly answered in the original comment. When that was noted, they swapped to undermining the basis for the comment. It’s pretty typical for techies to provide an opinion without basis and desire for it to be treated on the same level as those “in the know” So everyone should always be included in conversations if desired, but coming in with an uninformed opinion spoken loudly, desiring more to be “right” than to come to an understanding, won’t typically be appreciated.
    - skywhopper 2y ago
      Please have an informed opinion. Mouthing off about things you don’t understand based on distorted statistics with political bias that you also don’t understand is not the same thing as having an informed opinion. Believe me, plenty of folks who work “in the industry” of higher ed have ill-informed opinions on this subject as well, but the folks throwing rocks without even trying to understand what’s really going on are just trolls.
- scheme271 2y ago
  Are you using 1976 as a baseline? Given this and your other comments in this thread, it seems like it. I'm sure the regulatory and compliance environment have changed significantly in the last 50 years. E.g. OSHA and other agencies have significantly increased the monitoring and procedures needed to run a chemistry research lab due to accidents and deaths.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    The ancestor comment cited statistics on admin. growth from 1976 to 2018, that is why I mention 1976. Otherwise, your comment is very representative of the defenders of admin. bloat - a learned helplessness in simply assuming that all this busy-work must be serving some purpose, then pointing some example of superficially beneficial regulation. But even if we grant that all the regulations are as crucial as chemistry lab safety, that doesn't explain the bloat: regulatory compliance comprises 3 to 11% of schools’ nonhospital operating expenses, taking up 4 to 15% of faculty and staff’s time. - https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureau...
    - stogot 2y ago
      This answer eliminates the “regulations are the reason” counterclaim
- coliveira 2y ago
  It is just funny how technology was supposed to help society become less bureaucratic, but it has done just the opposite. Now to do anything, you need a bunch of administrators that will manage the systems that one needs to be "more efficient"!
fluidcruft 2y ago
Most IRB's further outsource to consulting firms and blindly do what the consultants tell them to do (not included in head counts). That is just to say the administrative people added are just trained to follow expensive rules and lack any domain knowledge whatsoever.

by exe34 2y ago

like_any_other 2y ago

First, I don't think we should take it as a given that all the admin. growth is just efficiently working on complying with regulations. And I'm pretty sure foreign countries, and travel to them, already existed in 1976. As did patents, contracts with other companies, and sanctions that US entities had to respect - remember, in 1976 there was the cold war. Second and more importantly - these same schools ran successfully with much smaller administrations. The regulations you cite are not a law of nature - are universities or their bloated administrations lobbying to have this regulatory burden reduced or streamlined? It sure doesn't look like it.

lc9er 2y ago
Do you work in higher ed? It’s ok to admit that you weighed in on a topic you don’t understand, then bow out gracefully, since you’ve repeatedly been given accurate responses to your assertions.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legislation_in_the_United_States#Rise_of_the_IRB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legisla... The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Like blaming being three hours late on a single red light.
  - skywhopper 2y ago
    You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Please stop.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      Such assertions are a lot more persuasive if you can point to significant errors the poster has made.
      - exe34 2y ago
        > The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Could you give some hints as to what would constitute sufficient evidence to convince you?
        achierius 2y ago
        Just looking in from the outside of this conversation, > More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: ... Is it that those were just bad examples and the actual bulk of the work is coming in from elsewhere? Or is it the case that these areas were already in place, but have since come to demand additional work that they didn't before (for what reason?)? &c
        exe34 2y ago
        Have you considered the other "half"? (note, the claim of "half" was from the person dismissing all the arguments).
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kzs0 2y ago
    His/her first statement was directly answered in the original comment. When that was noted, they swapped to undermining the basis for the comment. It’s pretty typical for techies to provide an opinion without basis and desire for it to be treated on the same level as those “in the know” So everyone should always be included in conversations if desired, but coming in with an uninformed opinion spoken loudly, desiring more to be “right” than to come to an understanding, won’t typically be appreciated.
  - skywhopper 2y ago
    Please have an informed opinion. Mouthing off about things you don’t understand based on distorted statistics with political bias that you also don’t understand is not the same thing as having an informed opinion. Believe me, plenty of folks who work “in the industry” of higher ed have ill-informed opinions on this subject as well, but the folks throwing rocks without even trying to understand what’s really going on are just trolls.
scheme271 2y ago
Are you using 1976 as a baseline? Given this and your other comments in this thread, it seems like it. I'm sure the regulatory and compliance environment have changed significantly in the last 50 years. E.g. OSHA and other agencies have significantly increased the monitoring and procedures needed to run a chemistry research lab due to accidents and deaths.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  The ancestor comment cited statistics on admin. growth from 1976 to 2018, that is why I mention 1976. Otherwise, your comment is very representative of the defenders of admin. bloat - a learned helplessness in simply assuming that all this busy-work must be serving some purpose, then pointing some example of superficially beneficial regulation. But even if we grant that all the regulations are as crucial as chemistry lab safety, that doesn't explain the bloat: regulatory compliance comprises 3 to 11% of schools’ nonhospital operating expenses, taking up 4 to 15% of faculty and staff’s time. - https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureaucrats-and-buildings-the-case-for-why-college-is-so-expensive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureau...
  - stogot 2y ago
    This answer eliminates the “regulations are the reason” counterclaim
coliveira 2y ago
It is just funny how technology was supposed to help society become less bureaucratic, but it has done just the opposite. Now to do anything, you need a bunch of administrators that will manage the systems that one needs to be "more efficient"!

fluidcruft 2y ago

Most IRB's further outsource to consulting firms and blindly do what the consultants tell them to do (not included in head counts). That is just to say the administrative people added are just trained to follow expensive rules and lack any domain knowledge whatsoever.