IT, like the library system, provides infrastructure in support of the university's core mission. I've never heard anybody say, "Damn, the network here just works too well... let's sack the IT folks so we can focus on our research like we used to!" Likewise, no professor or student is likely to say "Do we really need all these reference books?" about the library. The value and need for these complex services is almost universally acknowledged among professors and students.
When I think of administrative excesses I think about how we now have MBAs pulling down high six figures for nonsense like Assistant Vice Dean of Student Life. Each of these superfluous executives is supported by their own mini-fiefdom, with assistants and reports who cost a lot of money and make a lot of busywork for professors/students while performing their functions. Having these corporate-minded people who care little for the original mission and purpose of the university leads to perverse decision making as they work to fatten their own bottom lines, advance their agendas, or increase the size of their influence.
This is how universities have come around to the view that academic labor is a cost to be minimized, forcing a generation of young academics into exploitative and unsustainable adjuctships.
I think a big problem with the corporatization of the university is that administrative incentives are not aligned with it's traditional mission. In a business corporation, highly-paid executives are accountable to shareholders. If their work doesn't advance the core mission of the company (making money) then you can be sure there will be repercussions. Until the compensation of high-ranking university administrators is somehow tied to the university's performance on research and teaching, we'll continue to see growth of administration for administration's sake at the expense of other areas.
I rarely see any nuance given to the rants against admin staff. My response above yours here was to a former professor's supposedly serious past suggestion to dismiss all admin staff. It is not the first time I have heard this idea. All staff are so frequently painted with the same broad brush, with no effort to distinguish as you have done here.
These folks running the Campus network command rather good salaries by EDU standards, though less than their commercial peers. Is it ok a network engineer who maintains a world class 10Gb or faster research network serving 100,000+ nodes with a dizzying variety of uses be compensated more than junior professors?
My idea is not to dismiss anyone, but make sure that everyone is involved in teaching and research. The network people have a lot to give students and this should be made part of their job. When you have better things to spend your time on other than make work activities you avoid all of these pointless activities.
Well, you did write you would get rid of all administrative staff and replace with academics.
I cannot see how very many, if any, academics will be interested in 24x7 on call duties to maintain a campus network. Are a handful of faculty assigned this responsibility? Do they leave class to deal with a down router? Do they spend their sabbatical replacing end of life wireless access points? Do they run fiber to new buildings? Or does this responsibility rotate: this week, the history department looks after the network, and next week the English department handles it?
As much as I think you under-estimate the work required in this network example, if the proposal is to ask the network engineer to also teach in some capacity, then I also think you under-estimate what is required to be an effective teacher.
Running a production network and doing cutting edge research in even networking do not overlap. Expertise in one of these says nothing about one's proficiency in the other.
I don't at all disagree with the suggestion that there are some administrative staff who just add overhead. If we were able to reliably identify which these are, then sure, elimination of these positions and turn-over of what few real responsibilities they had to those who remain (perhaps academics) would be a fine way to ensure things stay lean.
But what you propose seems to imply most staff positions are fluff, and have responsibilities that could be picked up without radically changing the focus of faculty. I think such a claim is really divorced from a real understanding of what makes the infrastructure and resources at a top tier (or perhaps even any tier) University possible.
I should have been more precise in my language - my original post was just a short response to the article. In reality any change like I was proposing would require the current staff are retained and their job description changed. You are not going to be able to turn over the network to the English department and expect it to stay online for long :)
I actually don't underestimate what is required by the network engineers, but I do think it would be great if they were also teaching and doing research. If we moved to an all academic model then it would be possible to employee more network engineers and spread the load across more people. The skilled staff would be able to share their experience with the students. I actually value the contribution of the support staff very highly and want them involved in the core activities of the university. I have no time for the usual academic dismissal of administration as being full of worthless people, what I have an issue with is letting people work as full time admistrators.
Many administrative activities are fluff. What I would like to see is only the essential activities done and people spend their time on the important activities.
I'll be honest, it never even occured to me that IT support would be considered admin overhead. Of course, I was shocked to find out laborers considered me management, given I'm an engineer. To me, complaining about IT overhead is like complaining about maintenance, or housekeeping: this is vital infrastructure that should work seamlessly and hidden in the background. (I'm a behind-the-stage kind of person, though.)
But, given how I've seen some bureaucrats complain about the cost of housekeeping, I guess anything's fair game. And don't even get me started on the unavoidable cost of maintenance...
When I think of administrative excesses I think about how we now have MBAs pulling down high six figures for nonsense like Assistant Vice Dean of Student Life. Each of these superfluous executives is supported by their own mini-fiefdom, with assistants and reports who cost a lot of money and make a lot of busywork for professors/students while performing their functions. Having these corporate-minded people who care little for the original mission and purpose of the university leads to perverse decision making as they work to fatten their own bottom lines, advance their agendas, or increase the size of their influence.
This is how universities have come around to the view that academic labor is a cost to be minimized, forcing a generation of young academics into exploitative and unsustainable adjuctships.
I think a big problem with the corporatization of the university is that administrative incentives are not aligned with it's traditional mission. In a business corporation, highly-paid executives are accountable to shareholders. If their work doesn't advance the core mission of the company (making money) then you can be sure there will be repercussions. Until the compensation of high-ranking university administrators is somehow tied to the university's performance on research and teaching, we'll continue to see growth of administration for administration's sake at the expense of other areas.