In a must-read expose this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal examined the level of administrative bloat at the University of Minnesota. By the Journal's reckoning, based on U.S Department of Education data, our state University is the most bloated large research university in the nation.
To be fair, the Journal detailed efforts of the current University President, Eric Kaler, and his immediate predecessor, Robert Bruininks, to reduce the bureaucracy at the state's flagship institution of higher education. The biggest hurdle to reform was the lack of good data on administrative costs. As one version of the old saw goes, you can't manage what you don't measure.
As a recovering bureaucrat myself (state and federal), I bring a unique perspective to this debate. In a section of my perpetually forthcoming book, I review the forces that lead large bureaucracies to grow ever larger over time. Good luck to Dr. Kaler in his efforts to tame the administrative beast, he should be praised for the effort.
The numbers assembled by the Journal are sobering: since 2001, the number of U-M administrators has grown at twice the rate of growth of the student body, with more than a 1,000 bureaucrats added in a decade. In that same time period, in-state tuition more than doubled.
It's not just the sheer numbers of bureaucrats, it is also the high compensation levels. During my stint in the Tim Pawlenty administration, the Governor earned $120,000 per year, and his state government staff all earned amounts below that level. At the state U-M, the Journal reports that 353 administrators earn more than $200,000 per year, with 17 earning more than $300,000.
And the perks. I only recall meeting former U president Dr. Bruininks on one occasion, an event held at the U's Crookston campus. We were seated next to each other and in the course of our conversation, it came up that I had just driven the five hours to campus, while Dr. Bruininks had taken the University's airplane. Forgive me if my sympathy for the U's overhead costs is less than generous.
What I did find surprising was this quote in the Journal,
"Minnesota's [state] government last year contributed $570 million to university operations, which was about the same as in the 2003-04 school year despite inflation and roughly 10% increased enrollment."
During my recent adventures in electoral politics, I heard at every public forum about the (pick an adjective: brutal, cruel, draconian, unfair, etc.) Republican budget cuts of the past few years. Now you could argue that the state's contribution to the U has not kept pace with inflation. You could argue that the taxpayer is not providing resources that reflect the increase in student count. But you cannot argue that there have been actual cuts.
Instead, the state has maintained its level of support while allowing for a doubling of tuition imposed on its citizens. In exchange, the U has put these resources into...increasing the number of diversity directors from four to ten?
Going forward, it is clear that the new Democrat-led legislature and the Democrat governor will not be applying any oversight to the University. On the contrary, expect budget increases for the U with little new oversight from the state's Office of Higher Education.
Instead, it will be up to Dr. Kaler, his leadership team, and the Board of Regents to apply the needed discipline, based on their own sense of long-term self interest. As the Journal points out, the U competes in a market for students and resources. Higher education as an industry is in need of a rethink. As the U ranks as one of Minnesota's most important institutions, we hope Dr. Kaler and his team succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment