April 28, 2009

If institutions are so fat, why do so many of them appear to be starving?

Apr. 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM | By Dan Obregon | Comment Count

“Support-Staff Jobs Double in 20 Years, Outpacing Enrollment.”

With that eye-catching headline on April 24th, The Chronicle of Higher Education kicked off its latest installment of an occasional series exploring college costs. What follows is a comprehensive look at the findings of a study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, as well as “The Chron’s” own research. This development is generally portrayed as a problematic one; and Richard K. Vetter, director of the center that conducted the study, asserts that “It’s time for higher education to go on a diet.”

I found this to be an informative and fascinating read that touched on all of the bases of what is clearly an important topic. But one thing nagged at me throughout as missing from the discussion:

If institutions are so fat, then why do so many of them appear to be starving?

According to the article, this growth in managerial and support personnel has been driven by institutions’ need to cope with growing regulations, increasing student expectations, new technologies on campuses, and fall-out from the lofty aspirations of many schools’ to become top-tier research institutions. The negative ramifications include: general fiscal jeopardy, academic operations representing a smaller piece of colleges’ financial pie, a potential (but not directly drawn) link to rising tuition, and the conclusion that “the scale of expansion reflects unproductive spending by academe.”

I certainly don’t doubt or question the findings of these experts. However, the study seems to conjure up images of grossly overstaffed and underworked administrators, which contrasts sharply with what I’ve observed on most campuses. I’d estimate that I have talked with about 5-10 institutions per week on average for the last 10 years. That represents at least a few thousand schools. Nevertheless, I can probably count on two hands the number of institutions that appeared to have a large surplus of resources.

Rather, what I have observed consistently during that time are institutions where people are (1) asked to wear multiple hats, (2) constrained to doing more today with fewer resources than they had yesterday, and (3) frequently forced to sacrifice long-term strategy in favor of near-term urgency. In my opinion, this isn’t just lazy bellyaching – people and resources seem to truly be stretched thin at most schools.

Which made me begin to wonder: what should a “higher ed diet” really entail? Should it employ an across-the-board reduction in the number of managerial and administrative personnel? This seems a bit like a “crash-diet” approach; and my guess is that it might introduce more problems than it solves (as often do the “starvation regimes” that such an approach resembles). Rather, as with diets themselves, individually tailored approaches would naturally work better for different institutions.

Undoubtedly, some institutions could fare better through savvy deployment of technology in order to increase capacity, drive efficiencies, and automate manual processes. As suggested in the article, still others could save costs by reducing the broad array of student services they currently offer.

It is no secret that students are seeking low-cost educational alternatives, so a no-frills approach wouldn’t necessarily presage a loss of students or interest from prospects. Still others could consider auditing their programs offered with an eye toward culling those that are not core competencies.