What do admincritters do?

[ciao_yall]

My beef with faculty (which is all I've been for 25 years) is that we tend not to see the forest for the trees. In the main, we aren't institutionally minded. I am not speaking of fiscal matters (that's another issue of mine: some faculty think there basically shouldn't be fiscal matters. Somehow we should exist via magic?) . I mean most faculty don't have a broad view of why a certain curriculum just won't work with current teaching load and staffing numbers (and physical classroom size!). Also, few faculty care about the non-teaching staff at all.

There are many of us at my university who do see the broad forest. I used to spend a lot of time on university level committees and projects that had a broader enterprise-wide and systematic outlook. I stopped being involved and retreated into my silo because I found out that my university's upper level administration doesn't really want faculty to take a place on the high perch because it ultimately leads to transparency and accountability, especially when faculty start trying to figure out how money is spent. I work from my silo, now. I don't bother with seeing anything from the viewpoint of the larger institution, because when I wanted to do exactly that, they told me to stay in my lane.

My beef with administration, is that the higher up you go, the more they seem to be looking at the forest for sure, but probably the wrong damn forest!  Its probably the mid-level deans and staff that are doing most of the "making life better for students."  Not that the high level deans, presidents and provosts can't. I'm sure some do. But it seems that some are so engrossed in "vision" that they are actually blinded to actual on the ground problems, or what would make an ideal experience for current students or ones we're likely to get.

It seems that the higher up you go in admin, the more chances there are of bozos running loose. "Bozo" is used here like how Steve Jobs referred to bad managers at Apple (professional managers who can't actually do anything except manage).

Had this conversation with a colleague the other day about the recent cycle of narcissistic Presidents my current institution has had at the top. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to decide to become a college President. The question is whether the person is good at controlling these impulses.

Or, as the saying goes, the higher a monkey climbs, the better you can see its behind.

[marshwiggle]

Had this conversation with a colleague the other day about the recent cycle of narcissistic Presidents my current institution has had at the top. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to decide to become a college President. The question is whether the person is good at controlling these impulses.

Or, as the saying goes, the higher a monkey climbs, the better you can see its behind.

This is even more the case when it comes to leading a country. What makes a person think "The best person to lead the entire nation is ME."? By definition, it requires a person who has a pretty elevated self-conception.

[Ruralguy]

I would imagine it selects for narcissists, but I don't think malignant narcissism is something you'll find in all candidates for president. I don't think all are really thinking that the best person is them so much as their career has taken them to this place, so they are answering the call. It does take self confidence, but I could see how that would come across as smug or arrogant.

[Kron3007]

From what I see lately, they travel around as a delegation visiting pretty cool places.  Kind of makes me want to climb the ladder!  Too bad I hate all of the bureaucratic administrative tasks I have been exposed to thus far...

[Kron3007]

Had this conversation with a colleague the other day about the recent cycle of narcissistic Presidents my current institution has had at the top. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to decide to become a college President. The question is whether the person is good at controlling these impulses.

Or, as the saying goes, the higher a monkey climbs, the better you can see its behind.

This is even more the case when it comes to leading a country. What makes a person think "The best person to lead the entire nation is ME."? By definition, it requires a person who has a pretty elevated self-conception.

I always theorized this is somewhat true even at the faculty level.  Maybe narcissistic is not exactly right, but I feel there is a disproportionate level of crazy among faculty.  I have always wondered if the system is selecting for it, or inducing it.

When talking about upper administration, you are now selecting for specific traits among this odd slice of humanity.

[Wahoo Redux]

Had this conversation with a colleague the other day about the recent cycle of narcissistic Presidents my current institution has had at the top. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to decide to become a college President. The question is whether the person is good at controlling these impulses.

Or, as the saying goes, the higher a monkey climbs, the better you can see its behind.

This is even more the case when it comes to leading a country. What makes a person think "The best person to lead the entire nation is ME."? By definition, it requires a person who has a pretty elevated self-conception.

I always theorized this is somewhat true even at the faculty level.  Maybe narcissistic is not exactly right, but I feel there is a disproportionate level of crazy among faculty.  I have always wondered if the system is selecting for it, or inducing it.

When talking about upper administration, you are now selecting for specific traits among this odd slice of humanity.

I would agree but I used to work as a corporate monkey.

There is plenty of just this kind of crazy out there too, just less intellectualized, more incentivized.

Whatever we see in academia is pretty much human nature in very particular circumstances.

[dismalist]

Had this conversation with a colleague the other day about the recent cycle of narcissistic Presidents my current institution has had at the top. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to decide to become a college President. The question is whether the person is good at controlling these impulses.

Or, as the saying goes, the higher a monkey climbs, the better you can see its behind.

This is even more the case when it comes to leading a country. What makes a person think "The best person to lead the entire nation is ME."? By definition, it requires a person who has a pretty elevated self-conception.

I always theorized this is somewhat true even at the faculty level.  Maybe narcissistic is not exactly right, but I feel there is a disproportionate level of crazy among faculty.  I have always wondered if the system is selecting for it, or inducing it.

When talking about upper administration, you are now selecting for specific traits among this odd slice of humanity.

And remember Henry Kissinger's dictum: Academic politics is so vicious because there's so little at stake.

[simpleSimon]

So... I have no idea what the upper administrative echelons do, either nominally or in practice. Like... Wtf is a provost for?

• President/Chancellor: ...fundraiser-in-chief? PR? Hands out diplomas...
• Provost:
• Dean: approves stuff--hires, courses, overloads, etc. Do they ever deny stuff? Anything else?

I assume I've missed a pile, but I don't even know what. The registrar, I guess, but at least I have some idea of what they do.

If you take a moment to think about who the president reports to you have a window into what s/he does.  In addition to ceremonial duties presidents spend a lot of time creating and making presentations to their boards.  The board requires regular reports on things like admissions & enrollment; academics assessment, and accreditation; athletics; fundraising and advancement; revenue streams, the budget, and related fiscal matters; community partnerships and external contracts, faculty hiring, persistence, and research productivity; legal/risk management; operations and information technology; real estate, strategic planning etc.  If the institution has professional schools such as medical school, law school, business school, pharmacy, dentistry or all of the above, you can quickly see how this portfolio balloons.

The majority of faculty have little cause to think about this, but most universities have a substantial real estate portfolio for example.  In addition to the main campus site, many schools own property offsite such as one or more regional campuses.  Some of these are in leased spaces while others are owned by the institution.  Still other property may simply be land that is, for now, undeveloped.  The financial status of the real estate portfolio has to be constantly monitored and reported on.  Schools are always looking for buying opportunities (growth) so the board always wants to hear about the status of those plans, when they will be realized, and at what cost.  Obviously, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars or more.

In a school of any size someone somewhere is doing something wrong (falsified research, drugs, affairs with students, financial mismanagement, athletes who cannot read, etc.)  How many of these potential crises are being effectively managed and which ones are likely to go public?  Crisis management is essential and keeping boards in the dark is one way for a president to get on their bad side.

Most board meetings are closed, but if you ever have an opportunity to attend an open one it can be quite illuminating—especially if you are in the administrative pipeline or aspire to be.

[Ruralguy]

Its a cute comment, but politics tend to be quite viscous when the stakes are *high* as well.
That probably wasn't as much the case when this quip first crossed Kissinger's mind.

[pgher]

In a school of any size someone somewhere is doing something wrong (falsified research, drugs, affairs with students, financial mismanagement, athletes who cannot read, etc.)  How many of these potential crises are being effectively managed and which ones are likely to go public?  Crisis management is essential and keeping boards in the dark is one way for a president to get on their bad side.

Ugh. I am currently department chair and dealing with this sort of thing. In a perfect world, crises are dealt with at the lowest possible level. Conflict between two people in the same department should be handled by the chair. But sometimes, the tools available to the chair are insufficient for the problem, or are unsatisfactory for one or both parties. Then it escalates, and lands on the desk of the dean, provost, or chancellor.

[marshwiggle]

Had this conversation with a colleague the other day about the recent cycle of narcissistic Presidents my current institution has had at the top. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to decide to become a college President. The question is whether the person is good at controlling these impulses.

Or, as the saying goes, the higher a monkey climbs, the better you can see its behind.

This is even more the case when it comes to leading a country. What makes a person think "The best person to lead the entire nation is ME."? By definition, it requires a person who has a pretty elevated self-conception.

I always theorized this is somewhat true even at the faculty level.  Maybe narcissistic is not exactly right, but I feel there is a disproportionate level of crazy among faculty.  I have always wondered if the system is selecting for it, or inducing it.

Well, when you're selecting people for the job who are, by definition, more obsessed with some (possibly tiny and obscure) area of knowledge than the vast majority of people around them, it's no surprise that *they often have priorities that most people would consider "unusual".


*My dad was blue collar; built his own house, worked on his own car, ran heavy machinery, etc. I have absolutely none of those skills. (I wish I did.) If he'd been sent in a time machine 200 years into the past, he probably would have done fine. If I were, I'd have been essentially useless.

[BadWolf]

I am a mid-level admin critter.

My primary job it to keep the institution compliant with all the Federal, State, and accreditor regulations regarding higher education. Both from an academic/programmatic standpoint, and a fiscal standpoint.  It's a hellish job that gets worse every year with the state legislators demanding reporting on vague metrics they don't understand and are difficult to quantitatively measure; and Federal regulations designed to penalize for-profits but are having a horrible reporting burden impact on non-profits (the Financial Value Transparency (FVT) and Gainful Employment (GE) rules).

Before I left industry to go into higher ed, I laughed at a political candidate who was promoting the elimination of the Department of Ed. Now, almost 20 years later, she would get my vote every dang time.

Believe me, faculty do not want to do my job.

[Ruralguy]

Bad Wolf-

You don't need to do any arm-twisting with me. I know I wouldn't want your job. I'm sure you it well, and I get why people need t be doing it, but there are some tasks...I'll charitably say someone was well-meaning, but its turned out to be a huge frustrating bureaucracy.

[sinenomine]

Like BadWolf, I'm a mid-level admincritter. I came up through faculty and still have my faculty appointment, teaching and publishing. The bulk of my work, however, is supporting the provost and academic affairs while keeping the logistics of the institution going, monitoring programs and helping develop new ones or refine existing ones, and liaising between faculty and senior administration. Every day is different, and I've learned to expect the unexpected.

[secundem_artem]

We're in the financial weeds.  So right now, ours are deciding who lives and who dies.  It's going about as well as you'd expect when people are fighting for their lives.