Ginsberg uses government data to show that while the ratio of faculty to students has changed very little since , the ratio of administrative staff broadly defined to college students has nearly doubled. They do not understand the character of the university or its purposes.
Ginsberg eventually admits that the primacy of the faculty in university affairs is a comparatively modern phenomenon, dating from the first push for tenure by the nascent American Association of University Professors in The rise of modern research universities provided a push as well. The Golden Age for faculty, however, came in the generation after World War II, between and or shortly thereafter. The rise of "the all-administrative university" began after , marked by the marginalization of tenure and the faculty members it protects in favor of increasing reliance on easily fired instructors employed on a temporary or part-time basis.
Although Ginsberg is basically correct in his assessment of the weakened faculty role in university administration and governance, he mentions but does not adequately assess three reasons for it. First, the Golden Age had rested upon popular support and deep admiration for higher education as the means to a better life for the students who attended, and a better future for the entire nation resulting from scholars' earnest, disinterested, and unfettered pursuit of greater understanding of the starry heaven above us, and the moral law within.
historian of science / writer / urban photographer
The violent Vietnam Era protests brought public attention to universities, and a growing popular conception that they were loosely run, corrupting rather than educating their students. Faculty lacked the discipline, dispassionately objective political disposition, and good judgment expected of temporary guardians of our youth.
This ebbing of popular support played into the hands of administrators, alumni, and trustees with the capacity to clip the faculty's wings. Second, as Ginsberg does note, the rising demand for faculty, which had made it tough to recruit good professors in the s and s, dried up. In those early postwar decades, one had to offer low teaching loads, good pay with nice annual salary increases, and a lot of power and independence.
As the number and size if not the quality of Ph. Third, this increasing supply of prospective faculty members encountered declining demand for their services. Meanwhile, the Ph. Ginsberg, a political scientist, looks at universities as he might assess international relations, in terms of grand strategies and power struggles. The term "Realpolitik" is part of one chapter title.
He very perceptively notes how the emerging issues of race, class, and gender worked to the benefit of university administrations. Affirmative action programs, for example, led to the creation of a bureaucracy of personnel police to vet academic appointments, previously the faculty's domain. Deanlets in charge of students' residential experience, all the college that happens outside the classroom, persuaded university presidents to create special courses promoting such causes as tolerance and diversity, which were often ideologically driven academic drivel—and also beyond faculty control. Ginsberg views faculty members as relatively altruistic followers of the scholarly tradition, genuinely interested in creating and disseminating knowledge, and in helping students make the transition from adolescence to adulthood by developing an inquisitive, mature mind necessary for the assumption of responsibility.
- How To Successfully Market High-Priced Products;
- Am I That Name?. Feminism and the Category of Women in History.
- Remarks on Benjamin Ginsberg’s Fall of the Faculty | ACADEME BLOG.
- Writing GNU Emacs Extensions;
He is clearly partial to the liberal arts tradition, scorning the vocational emphasis of the modern university curriculum. In short, college faculty members are, by and large, Good Persons. By contrast, university administrators really don't care much about the traditional mission of creating and disseminating knowledge, and view students as cash cows providing revenues in the form of fees now and donations in the future. Interested in maximizing their own power and income, the administrators are, by and large, Bad or at least Not-So-Good Persons.
And because the bad guys are winning the upper hand over the good guys, American universities are in peril. There is some truth to what Ginsberg says, but only some. It's unlikely that the percentage of faculty members destined for either sainthood or eternal damnation differs markedly from the percentage of administrators.
Most faculty get more joy out of helping students than most administrators. But administrators derive satisfaction and serve the common good by, for example, curtailing professors' ability to use the free time secured by low teaching loads to write papers almost no one reads. The chief administrators, with trustee support, then distribute these incremental revenues in ways that meet faculty needs, but also those of other university constituencies.
The Fall of the Faculty by Benjamin Ginsberg
They give the faculty nice facilities, good pay, and fringe benefits, and let them do what they want with most of their time. As a price for providing these things, the deanlets hire lots of assistants, building empires with growing budgets and troops. To Adam Smith the ideal would be for students to pay professors directly, who would then subcontract with the university for classroom space, keeping student records, conferring degrees at the appropriate time, etc. There would be no need for much of the administrative overhang we have today, and professors would better serve their students—or lose income.
This is not the argument Ginsberg makes, which is fine, but he doesn't provide adequate support for the argument he does make, which isn't fine. The Fall of the Faculty could use, for example, more empirical detail on the proportion of university budgets going for the enhanced administration of modern times. How does the number of deanlets in research-intensive universities of which his own Johns Hopkins is probably the single best example compare to the number in institutions that concentrate on teaching, not research?
Do schools with faculty unions have different patterns than ones without? Answering such questions would illuminate the causes and consequences of the rise in administration.
The all-administrative uni?
Also, there are enormous variations in American universities. Boards that accredit and license educational institutions require reams of reports and often make time-consuming site visits to inspect campus facili- ties. A variety of state agencies demand data and, in the case of public institutions, conduct extensive audits, reviews, surveys, and inspections.
But, as burdensome as this paperwork blizzard might be, it is not clear that it explains the growth in administrative personnel that we have observed. Often, af! As Barbara Bergmann has pointed out, though, across the nation only a handful of administrators and staffers are employed in this endeavor. Yet, when we examine the data, precisely the opposite seems to be the case. Between and , the number of administrators and man- agers employed by public institutions increased by 66 percent.
During the same time period, though, the number of administra- tors employed by private colleges and universities grew by percent see Table 5. These numbers seem inconsistent with the idea that external mandates have been the forces driving admin- istrative growth at Americas institutions of higher education. It should also be noted that while mandates from government agencies or accrediting bodies are conventionally viewed as exter- nal forces acting on a school, this is not entirely true. Often, admin- istrators welcome and even encourage the intervention of external agencies because these can help administrators gain the upper hand over the faculty in course planning and curricular matters.
After all, if a particular course of action is required by a licensing or accrediting agency, how can the faculty refuse? I once resisted efforts by administrators to change the class times of courses within a program I directed. Finally, I was informed that the change sought by the administration was required by the licens- ing body that nominally exercised authority over this area.
Since this particular licensing board was known for the somewhat lack- adaisical manner with which it approached its responsibilities, I was surprised that it had taken an interest in my class schedules. I learned later that the contact between the licensing board and school administrators had been initiated by the latter. In essence, the university was compelled to respond to an external mandate that its own administrators had helped to initiate. A similar phenomenon is apparent in administrators reactions to the report of the so-called Spellings Commission, the Commis- sion on the Future of Higher Education, launched by the former education secretary Margaret Spellings in One of the main recommendations of the Spellings report was the development and publication of accountability measures that would permit comparisons of student performance across schools.
Many critics question whether such measures applied across different types of schools have much validity, and the fact that the testing industry was rather well represented in drafting a federal report recom- mending more testing, raised questions and more than a few eyebrows. Eventually, in response to opposition from Americas premier universities, the proposal was tabled. Initially, though, the idea of accountability measures was welcomed by administra- tors at hundreds of colleges and universities as well as their col- leagues at regional accreditation bodies who moved to implement the idea even before the Department of Education could begin to act on it.
Accountability measures allow administrators to require the faculty to teach to the test, rather than devise the curriculum according to its own judgment. In this way, college professors can be reduced to the same subordinate status to which elementary and secondary school teachers have already been relegated. The Spellings mandate was not imposed on colleges, but even as a proposal it was seized by administrators as an opportunity to advance their own interests. After all, professors have long used their control of testing to exert authority over the conduct of stu- dents.
Why should it be surprising that administrators would seek control of testing as a way of exerting authority over the faculty? A third explanation often suggested for administrative growth in higher education has to do with the conduct of the faculty. Many faculty members, it is often said, regard administrative activities as obnoxious chores and are content to allow these to be under- taken by others.
- Animating with Flash 8: Creative Animation Techniques!
- About Miriam Sagan.
- Article excerpt.
- Anakin in Action!;
- Related books and articles!
- The blog of Academe magazine.
- CrossRoads vol 16 issue1;
Relatedly, some have suggested that professors also contribute to administrative bloat by pressing schools to cre- ate positions for their spouses and partners. There is no doubt that some members of the faculty have been complicit in the expansion of college and university bureaucracies. Almost every professor would prefer to spend time in the labora- tory, library, or classroom than to attend committee meetings and, indeed, virtually every school employs some staffers and adminis- trators who owe their positions to the efforts of faculty spouses.
But, while there is some truth to the assertion that the faculty has contributed to its own downfall, this is certainly not the whole story.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Often enough, professors who are willing to undertake administrative tasks lose interest when they! And, as to faculty demands for spousal positions in the bureaucracy, this was more common in previous generations when usually male PhDs were typically married to non-PhD spouses. More com- mon in the university today is the dual-PhD couple seeking two faculty positions. If growth-driven demand, governmental mandates, and faculty preferences are not suf! Students of bureaucracy have frequently observed that adminis- trators have a strong incentive to maximize the power and pres- tige of whatever of!
More recent data, though not strictly comparable, follow a similar pattern. Administrative spending, though increased by a whopping percent. Instructional spending, by contrast, increased only percent, 20 points less than the over- all rate of spending increase. Much of this increase in spending has come at the expense of the instructional budget possibly as administrators have revised university priorities or taken over functions previously controlled by members of the faculty. Most academics are familiar with the creativity often shown by administrators in inventing new tasks for themselves and the diligence they can demonstrate when endeavoring to capture established functions.
In some instances, to be sure, the tasks that administrators invent may be useful ones. As they pursue their own interests, they may also advance the more general interest. To the extent, for example, that administrators create new of! Often enough, though, administra- tors advance their interests by inventing activities that cost money or take up staff time without doing much to further the universi- tys educational or research goals. Another group of deans constituted themselves as the War Zones Task Force.
This group recruited staffers, held many meet- ings, and prepared a number of reports whose upshot seemed to be that students should be discouraged from traveling to war zones unless, of course, their homes were in war zones.