Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The Fall of Faculty and The Rise of the Administrative University

George Rainbolt

A Harangue

In The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why it Matters, Benjamin Ginsberg, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins, argues that many of academia’s ills are caused by a rise in the number of administrators. From 1975 to 2005, the average student-to-faculty ratio has held steady at about 15 full-time equivalent (FTE) students for each FTE faculty member. Over this period, the average student-to-administrator ratio has dropped from 84 to 68 and the average student-to-staff ratio has dropped from 50 to 21. (1) He also points to large variation (more than 400%) in students per staff across apparently similar institutions. (2) Among the problems laid at the door of this increase administrators are: (useless) strategic plans, a great deal of wasted time, reduced faculty governance, reduction in the quality and quantity of instruction and research, and increased costs for students.

There are some worthwhile things in this book. Ginsberg’s comments about strategic planning put the utility and effectiveness of this process into perspective. He effectively argues that most strategic plans are inter-changeable. His comments about a herd-mentally among those who read The Chronicle of Higher Education have some validity. He also usefully points out that if faculty object to administrative management, they must be willing to spend the time and energy necessary to shoulder administrative tasks. I also agree that it is useful to look at the student-to-staff ratio across similar institutions. If the ratio is low compared to similar institutions, that does seem to be a good reason to consider reductions in the number of staff. Although Ginsberg does not explicitly discuss this point, it is always worth remembering that, while the creation and dissemination of knowledge is the fundamental purpose of higher education, service work, and therefore much of the work done by staff and administrators, is valuable merely as a means to the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

On the other hand, the book has a number of flaws. The tone often seems more appropriate to a blog than to an academic book. For example, regarding a person at Florida State University whose job description is “Serves as primary requestor and receiver of the Offices of the Provost and President,” Ginsberg remarks:
“Perhaps this might be seen by some as a radical notion, but it seems to me that if the provost and president could learn to do their own requesting and receiving (this might entail learning to use the telephone), the need for still more faculty layoffs and program cuts might be reduced. Just a thought.” (3)
This sort of tone makes it harder to reflect on a person’s argument.

Ginsburg does not effectively argue that the increase in administrators has been harmful to universities. He cites examples of wasteful and/or harmful administrators, but he does not consider the data that support the view that non-academic factors are important to teaching and research. It is not clear to me that the staff members who organize major fairs and the staff members who track the budget of a research grant are doing harm to academia. The key is to have the minimum number of staff needed for to maximize effective teaching and worthwhile research.

Ginsberg’s causal arguments are often weak. He often fails to consider alternative causes of the ills he cites and overlooks the possibility of multiple causal factors. For example, reduction in state support is a possible cause of increased tuition and fees, but that view does not get a credible discussion in the book. There are many cases where anecdotes substitute for data. For example, Ginsberg claims that university administrators are corrupt and gives several examples. He provides no data about whether university administrators are more corrupt than administrators at other organizations.

In some case, the causal hypotheses suggested by Ginsburg are unsupported by evidence. For example, he objects to the rise of civility codes at many universities and claims that they are caused by administrators’ desire to control faculty combined with extreme left-wing views of a few faculty members. It is not clear to me how one could get good evidence for or against this claim, but it does not fit with my experience. I have not seen administrators leading the charge for civility codes.

Finally, Ginsberg does not look very deeply at possible causes for an increase in the number of administers. He considers hypotheses such as increased reporting requirements and students demanding higher level of ancillary services (such as rec centers and counseling), but attributes most of the increase to administrators’ desire to increase their power and prestige. While this desire may well be part of the cause of the increase in administrators, many groups want to increase their power and prestige and we need to look for the structural factors that enabled the increase in university administrators. For example, one might argue that the increase in the percentage high school graduates who go to college has brought to universities a group of students who require more from the institution.

Every student, faculty member, or staff person who has been frustrated by a university administrator will have a spark of recognition when Ginsburg describes the different types of bad administrators and their effects. On the other hand, in a world with not enough time to read, I cannot recommend this book.

George Rainbolt
Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Georgia State University.

-------------------------------------
(1) Chapter 1, Table 3. Page numbers are not cited because I read a Kindle edition of this book.
(The data and definitions are from the National Center for Education Statistics.)

(2) Chapter 7, Section “The Board.”

(3) Chapter 6, Section “Administrative Priorities”