Bret Devereaux

To oversimplify a bit, when you bring in business-world managers to the provost or chancellor positions, promising to 'shake up' the university, they are going to want to do stuff, which means creating new units to do those things. 16/xx

Those new units need someone to run them and these tend to be professional adminstrators, rather than elevated faculty (like the old deans and provosts). They have any number of titles - vice provost, vice president, asst. dean. Each university is different. 17/xx

Those new administrators (who are paid typically quite a bit more than traditional university staff, like dept. managers, registrars, bursars, etc) need staff, so they hire staff to run the new centers/initiatives etc. All of which costs money, of course. 19/xx

These initiatives tend to stack up over time, so you get a layer-cake of new initiatives on top of old centers, all of which keep running and soaking up funds. Sometimes you have multiple initiatives designed to solve the same problem, all running in parallel. 20/xx

The other big structural change with the business model - it's a fairly common initiative - is an effort to create centralized administration by pulling functions out of the departments or colleges and putting them together in big new university bureaucracies. 21/xx

Often this is a 'service center' or 'business center' - you can often tell it's new because it exists in a big off campus building (because it's new building for new unit). The *promise* of these things is that they'll be cheaper and more efficient than dept staff. 22/xx

Which you can understand: these business-model guys were brought in to fix cost-growth, remember? The *problem* is that they don't work. Moving functions away from depts. (or registar/advising/etc) makes it harder for faculty/students to use them. 23/xx

So depts./colleges refuse to give up their staff in these roles - they want someone down the hall, not halfway across campus (or sometimes off of it!). So the promised cutbacks on dept. staff never materialize; instead both fill out the same paperwork in parallel. 24/xx

And of course the deanlet or vice-provosts of each unit fight to stick around and get more staff and resources. And so all of these centers and initiatives - often designed to save money - end up costing more money. 25/xx THREAD CONTINUES...

...and in turn that compliance burden both means you need more staff at all levels, and at the same time creates demand for initiatives and centers and more centralized administration to handle new compliance paperwork. To be clear, that's being imposed from outside...27/50

...sometimes by state legislatures that have gone to war with the universities (and like imposing lots of compliance rules on teaching), sometimes by the federal government. All of it costs money and it gets tied up with universities trying to be lawsuit proof. 28/50

Because, of course, you show that you are trying to be in compliance with <regulation> by creating a new administrative unit with a dedicated vice/assistant/deputy dean/provost/chancellor to oversee it. It doesn't matter if they do anything - they just need to exist. 29/50

Which gets us to the sticky problem with expanding administrations and why everyone likes to hide behind the phrase 'administrative bloat' without actually talking about who they mean...30/50

To be clear, I'm papering over a lot of variance. I am sure many of these initiatives do good work - what works and what doesn't is often hyper-localized. But a lot of them impose new paperwork burdens in place of making any kind of actual changes...33/50

But it is often open secret at some universities that these programs exist to give the university cover so that it can be *less* diverse or equitable in its admissions and hiring (typically so it can chase after more affluent students who make more lucrative donors). 36/50

Again - not all such programs are like this! But some are. Worse yet, the effect these new administrative elements (all of them, not just diversity) is to drive up costs, making the university less affordable for the very folks some of these offices are trying to help. 37/50

(To be **very** clear, this is not saying "administrative bloat is diversity offices" - a line you will hear put forward, typically in bad faith. There are a lot of these top-down initiatives, only small number are about diversity and some efforts at diversity are real). 38/50

I should note I am also leaving out another form of university bloat: athletics bloat centered on the 'revenue' sports, only a tiny, TINY few of which actually bring in money (if you think your alma mater makes money off its sports teams, you are *almost*certainly*wrong*) 39/50

I don't feel qualified to speak to athletics except to say "it's a problem with broad negative impacts." Others have done a lot more than me. If you want a good starting point, read J. Smith, "Cheated" (2015). https://www.amazon.com/Cheated-Scandal-Education-Athletes-Big-Time/dp/1612347282 … 40/50

So now you might ask "who the hell is responsible for all of this?" which brings us to university governance. So the president/chancellor/rector/whatever in theory runs the university. In a big state school, it is likely that s/he answers to a 'board of trustees.' 41/50

Sometimes that's a board of governors, or regents, or trustees. Again, each university system is different, often with different names. Most state public schools have their board of trustees selected by the governor. 42/50

By and large it is the board of trustees who make decisions about who the chancellor is and the overall direction the university is going to make. Consequently, if you want reform within the university administration - if you are looking to ditch the business model...43/50

...and its oversaturated administrations, you have to start with the trustees. Typically that means getting the governor to appoint trustees who share that vision - that's why the business model of education started with state desires to engage in cost-cutting. 44/50

Finally I should note that most universities have a 'faculty senate.' In theory that makes the faculty self-governing; in practice the faculty senate can't do anything without approval from the chancellor/president/whatever,who in turn wants to keep the trustees happy. 45/50