[HN Gopher] The rise of universities' diversity bureaucrats (2018) ___________________________________________________________________ The rise of universities' diversity bureaucrats (2018) Author : dgs_sgd Score : 47 points Date : 2023-02-05 21:14 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | lr4444lr wrote: | _Bureaucrats outnumber faculty 2:1 at public universities and | 2.5:1 at private colleges, double the ratio in the 1970s._ | | It has to be asked though, did student:teacher ratio stay | constant during this time? Because if it's risen (i.e. professors | about the same, but more students,) then a case could be made | that the bureaucrat increase corresponds to more students. Why | should bureaucrat count correlate to professor count? | ecshafer wrote: | I don't really see why schools should need most of their | bureaucrats personally. I know a few people who work in admin | at schools and it seems their jobs mostly revolve around | writing a few emails a day. A school need some groundskeepers | sure, a small IT department, a secretary for a department | probably, and a small general admissions / bursars / financial | aid department. I would warrant all other departments could be | cut as they are not within the primary scope of teaching. | kkylin wrote: | This depends a lot on the school. A research university is | going to have a lot of people that students never meet: | accountants and lawyers to ensure compliance with federal | regulation on grants, for example. The phrase "administrator" | also gets thrown around a lot in these discussions without | much attention to more nuanced differences, i.e., a VP or | vice provost is a very different thing than staff who are not | paid all that much. And some people classified as staff do | teach -- boundaries aren't always that sharp. | | This is not to say university bureaucracies are not bloated, | but the bloat is multi-faceted and often grows in different | directions for very different reasons. | mapierce2 wrote: | I think the point is that it's _not_ simply the case that | universities have lost sight of their purpose of teaching | people, but have broadened the scope of their mission beyond | teaching ... or broadened the definition of teaching? | Broadened their mission? Certainly made their mission less | focused /clear. And this leads to bureaucracy. See Harvard's | Mission Statement. | | https://college.harvard.edu/about/mission-vision-history | mindslight wrote: | * * * | edgyquant wrote: | Because the job of schools as a business is to teach. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | (With exceptions...) universities aren't businesses though. | Academic idealism does still exist. | mountainb wrote: | This is the kind of rigid formalism that obscures accurate | analysis of universities as economic entities responding | rationally to the infinite money spigot that the government | has inserted into them. Just because their formal tax | status says one thing does not mean that it's not better to | analyze them as businesses just like any other. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | Right, right - I just don't want people to forget that | there are fundamental differences - despite their | similarities. | kevviiinn wrote: | [dead] | rmason wrote: | If you wonder why the cost of college has exploded you just | have to look at the meteoric rise in administrators in the past | thirty years. The number of faculty has only risen slightly | while administrators hired because of new government | regulations has exploded. | | https://washingtonmonthly.com/2011/08/28/administrators-ate-... | whitemary wrote: | It's at least as much related to government subsidies and | financial programs that exist as band-aids over the | accreditation crises in the American labor market, a result | of elite overproduction. | | https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction | thaumasiotes wrote: | > If you wonder why the cost of college has exploded you just | have to look at the meteoric rise in administrators in the | past thirty years. | | A rise in administrators can't explain the rise in tuition. | If you spike your manufacturing costs for a product, it's | true that you won't be able to turn a profit without charging | a lot more for it. | | But it doesn't follow at all that you'll be able to turn a | profit by charging a lot more for your product. | | We see college tuition going up at the same time that college | enrollment goes _up_. That is not a result of increases in | the cost of providing college. Increases in the cost of | provision would increase tuition and _decrease_ enrollment. | twoifbyseat wrote: | > Diversity officials promote the hiring of ethnic minorities and | women | | I'm genuinely curious if ethnic minorities and women are | underrepresented among university faculty/staff. I would have | guessed "no", but this statement implies otherwise. | mapierce2 wrote: | It's unfortunately tough to have a discussion about this too. Any | criticism of justice/equity/diversity/inclusion (JEDI) | bureaucracy gets strawmanned very quickly, and the critic | labelled as simply a bad person. Example: the VP of the American | Mathematical Society wrote a short piece (op ed?) in 2019 | describing the requirement that new university faculty hires | write _diversity statements_ , and the scoring of that statement | according to a rubric, as a "political litmus test," and she got | roasted for it. Folks called for her resignation, and said the | AMS shouldn't have published it. I was attending a JEDI workshop | as a grad student to get a _diversity certificate_ at the time, | and the facilitator only reacted with disgust, and we never | honestly discussed it. | | https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf | dudul wrote: | There is nothing to discuss. For me the discussion stopped when | we replaced "equality" with "equity". It was the admission that | these people are not interested in solving a problem. They move | goal posts to make sure the problem persists because it gives | them jobs, power and influence. | | DE/I is just "legitimized bullying". It is alo telling that | these departments are gutting gutted during tech layoffs. They | are for show. | mapierce2 wrote: | It's more complicated than you describe. Like, these | bureaucrat's hearts are in the right place, they just lack | focus, and are ineffective and solving the problems that they | see. They see large-scale social problems of inequity, but | are trying to solve it with equity-focused policy at | universities, which most folks would already consider "the | top." | | They aren't _just_ for show, but the optics of a well-funded | diversity departments is irresistably good. | everdrive wrote: | DEI is all the rage right now. My company's last big survey had | some question which stated "I feel like I can be myself at work." | The score wasn't as nice as folks would have liked, and | apparently what HR took from that is "we're not doing DEI hard | enough." Which is a pretty unfortunate set of blinders to have | on. DEI is probably one of the more narrow reasons these days | that someone might not feel that they can be themselves at work. | version_five wrote: | I would say that the existence of those DEI programs is | probably one of the biggest reasons people can't be themselves | at work | GenerocUsername wrote: | Agree. As a white male, I have a very hard time being honest on | these questionnaires because I know full well that giving good | responses means they will lean in further to DEI, and giving | bad responses they will lean in further on DEI... | | In 2021 they had a slide on the town hall for 'Whiteness down | 13%' and the black host said 'we can do better'... | | Might as well pack up, clearly unwanted here. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-05 23:00 UTC)