The State of Higher Education

Ex-Board of Regents Member Michael Gartner has spouted off with a 'candid' assessment of the three state universities and what he believes are the problems that need to be fixed over the course of the next ten years or so. For the most part, he gets it right: the stuffy, snobby attitudes of entrenched academia need to be shaken up, professors need to teach more and Universities cut back on 'research centers' and the less popular majors. Gartner is right that Universities cannot be all things to all people, but misses the biggest factor of all:

Administrative bloat... the proliferation of administration throughout academia. Consider this- (via Instapundit)

“Based on data in the California State University Statistical Abstract, the number of full-time faculty in the whole CSU system rose from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, an increase of only 3.5 percent. In the same time period the total number of administrators rose 221 percent, from 3,800 to 12,183. In 1975, there were three full time faculty members per administrator, but now there are actually slightly more administrators than full-time faculty.”

This trend isn't just applicable to California- it's a nationwide thing and it's a problem that needs to be addressed far more than any of the things Gartner is spouting off about. If you cut administrative positions, especially useless ones- which most of them are, then that money can be better redirected towards lowering tuition costs.

A real approach would involve several basic steps. First, it would be nice to de-politicize the Board of Regents itself. With Our Glorious Leader pressuring not one but two members to resign so he can pack the Board with two of his cronies and Mr. Gartner's obvious biases towards Iowa especially a Board that's more apolitical and concerned with management that pushing agendas would be a good first step.

Second, I think it begins and ends with administrative bloat. There is plenty of fat to be cut at Universities and you might as well start at the top. One less administrator can save you probably about five custodial jobs when you get right down to it.

Third, you need to make efficiency a central tenet of the mission. College students aren't here to party, they're here to get a high quality degree in the most efficient way possible. Yet for three months in the summer, campus comes to a virtual standstill. Classes should be offered year round, Professors should be teaching year round and admissions should be on a rolling basis year round.

Fourth, this is where you get to degree consolidation. There is a trend in academia to promote ridiculous specialization that needs to be fought against. We don't want to turn college into a job training factory but we want critical thinkers and lifelong learners and it's incumbent upon every Department in every University to think of ways that their students can be more marketable in today's job market. Some of them do a piss-poor job of it.

But this also means that academic assets need to be left alone. Gartner shows a complete lack of vision when he wades into this now tiresome territory:

Thus, it's strategic and financial folly for the University of Iowa to own a $150 million painting (which hasn't been on campus for three years and probably won't be for another three) when that money could be redeployed into full-tuition scholarships for about 1,000 Iowa undergraduates each year till the end of time. Similarly, why do universities own golf courses?

While Mr. Gartner raises a good point about golf courses, I have to vehmently disagree (once again) with his stance on the Jackson Pollock painting. That painting give the Art Program some of it's national reputation even as printers like Virginia Meyers and Mauricio Lasansky give the print school a national reputation. If you're talking about strategic and financial folly, selling an asset that is a major selling point for the University's art program makes no sense whatsoever- and that's assuming you can get the full asking price for it, which in these economic times is hardly a given. And if someone is foolish enough to force it's sale, then Iowans everywhere would lose a priceless piece of this state's cultural heritage. Such an action would undoubtedly bring short term gains for some, but long term pains for others. And is Mr. Gartner willing to buy us all flights to Dubai so we can go see it there? (Because that is where it will undoubtedly end up.)

This kind of attitude makes me crazy. No one down in Iowa City is suggesting we sell off parts of Iowa State, yet members (well, ex-members anyway) of the Board of Regents persist in this foolishness, when there are plenty of savings that are more worthy of consideration. And if making college affordable is the goal, then it should be the goal for all students, not just Mr. Gartner's privileged few worthy enough to reap the benefits of his proposed idiocy. If it doesn't benefit everybody, it's not worth doing.

Fifth (and finally): it's time for folks in Des Moines to speak up about what we need and act accordingly. What jobs are critical to Iowa's future? What degrees to we need more of? What avenues of research and education should we be exploring? And the state should be willing to invest in our Universities to get the results that we need.

There are other ideas out there, of course- dig a little on the internet and you can find everything from Texas Governor Rick Perry's $10K College degree idea to the rather intriguing idea of separating funding for teaching and research- though what that might do isn't clear. Everything though, needs to begin and end with the layer of administrative lard at the top of the pile.