Why is There So Much Administrative Bloat Nowadays in Higher Education?
The administration of higher education has undergone significant changes in recent decades. There is a notable increase in federal regulations affecting universities, alongside the professionalization of administrative roles. This article explores these changes and their implications, backed by data from several states.
Regulatory Burden and Professionalization
Universities today face stringent federal regulations regarding how sexual offenses are processed and gender equity issues are managed. These regulations have led to an increase in administrative tasks and the creation of new student service roles. Traditionally, many administrative tasks were handled by faculty members on special assignments. However, with the push towards professionalization, full-time administrators now perform these roles.
Administrators no longer return to teaching after a few years but receive specialized training in areas like marketing, admissions, advising, and tutoring. These professionals, unlike tenured faculty, are easier to dismiss if they do not perform effectively. This shift towards professionalization reflects a broader trend in higher education, driven by state funding cuts and a push towards entrepreneurialism.
The Impact of State Funding Cuts
The data from several states highlights the significant reduction in state funding for higher education over the past few decades. For instance, Colorado has seen its state support for higher education cut by nearly 69.4 percent from 10.52 in fiscal 1980 to 3.22 in fiscal 2011. This trend, extrapolated, could lead to zero state funding by 2022. South Carolina has fared similarly, with a 66.8 percent reduction in state investment in higher education, leading to zero funding projected to occur by 2031.
State Start Year (1980) Peak Year Your Current Fiscal Year Funding Slope Zero Year Colorado 10.52 13.85 in 1971 3.22 69.4% 2022 South Carolina 16.72 18.19 in 1975 5.54 66.8% 2031 Rhode Island 9.81 10.35 in 1981 3.72 62.1% 2031 Arizona 12.27 15.13 in 1974 4.68 61.9% 2032 Oregon 10.85 12.77 in 1970 4.18 61.5% 2036 Minnesota 14.17 15.08 in 1978 6.27 55.8% 2037 Montana 10.88 12.13 in 1983 5.08 55.8% 2034 Virginia 10.47 11.37 in 1979 4.86 53.6% 2038 Vermont 7.78 10.88 in 1970 3.79 51.3% 2032The Pursuit of Financial Growth
Universities have adapted to these funding cuts by adopting a more entrepreneurial approach. Undergraduate students, who typically pay higher tuition fees, are heavily recruited, driving the need for more administrative positions. Additionally, research faculty are now judged primarily on their ability to bring in research funding, which can come from various sources, including government agencies and industrial partners. Managing these funding streams requires specialized administrative talent, and universities are willing to pay for it.
The data clearly indicates a trend towards decreased state funding, which in turn drives a race to the bottom in terms of administrative efficiency and effectiveness. To reverse this trend, state funding needs to be restored to levels seen in 1980. Only then can the problem of administrative bloat be addressed effectively.