Page 257 - Crisis in Higher Education

228 • Crisis in Higher Education

execute research projects that benefit society. Education and research, not
football, are the two primary outputs of universities.
Many organizations are PSOs, so it is wise to ask: How do other PSOs
cope with tendencies to hire more administrators? The simple answer is
this: These tendencies are counterbalanced by a desire to be profitable. For
example, when partners in a law firm hire an assistant, they must judge
whether the assistant allows the firm to be more productive; that is, to
generate more work and make more money.
The lack of an identifiable and measurable “bottom line,” which does
not have to be profit, causes universities to lose focus. Boards of trustees
and leadership are trying to hit multiple targets that change over time.
One day a university is pushing a research agenda in this field or that field.
Another day it is developing a student-centered help program so students
make better choices about what courses to take, get assistance with their
financial aid, or gain access to courses they need for graduation. All of
these and many others sound like good ideas, so universities move for-
ward. Yet questions arise: Where does one proposal rank among others?
Who benefits from this investment and by how much? How does this
impact the bottom line? These questions are neither asked nor answered.
Consequently, decisions are made that are defensible and sound reason-
able when looked at in isolation, but when examined in total are incon-
sistent, increase costs, and often do not achieve the benefits described in
the proposal. For decades, universities simply increased tuition to pay for
these programs. In the last decade or so, customers, including students,
parents, other family members, friends, and governments, have pushed
back and want to know why costs have risen so rapidly.
The unfocused approach, which expanded programs, services, and
facilities, as well as the natural tendency for administrators to beget
administrators caused universities to hire an army of highly paid func-
tionaries including executive VPs, VPs, associate VPs, assistant VPs,
provosts, deputy provosts, associate provosts, executive vice provosts,
assistant vice provost, deans, executive associate deans, senior associate
deans, and so on. These people have subordinates, specialists, and cleri-
1
cal staffs, which further expands the network of administrators. Hiring
administrators becomes learned and insidious behavior. The results are
illustrated in Figure 11.2 as administrators and support staffs have grown
at an alarming rate in both central/university-level administrations and
college administration.