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.
In our place, they mainly create and enforce multiple levels of approval processes. Whether or not those processes are actually needed--well, before all these processes were put in place, it's not like the university was dying or anything.
At my institution, the Provost has a tremendous amount of power.
- Decides who gets what space (e.g., which departments will occupy new buildings).
- Appoints people to various college-wide committees.
- Denies tenure in all the marginal tenure cases where there was a split vote at a lower level.
- Has sole authority to close the university during extreme weather events.
- Creates a wide variety of new administrative positions.
- Seems to have final say on who gets hired for various lower level administrative positions (e.g., deans), although usually there's a hiring committee that makes recommendations.
- Unilaterally decides to restructure our university and rams it through the board of trustees despite widespread faculty opposition.
- Probably makes important decisions about who gets financial resources and new hires, but I don't know exactly how that works since some of those decisions are made by deans.
Our (my former) provost has been making decisions about which departments have cuts and which programs & departments are cut.
Could the uni pres not overrule the provost in these areas?
I can't speak to what university administrators do, but, speaking from many years of experience in administration in another field, I can say that a lot of people who don't have administrative experience have little idea of all the different kinds of stuff administration has to deal with so that the people on the operational end can do their work. You wouldn't believe all the different vendors and situations I've had to deal with just in the past week. And sometimes, try as they might, administration can't get things fixed the way the staff in operations need or want.
Quote from: kaysixteen on March 22, 2024, 08:33:34 PMCould the uni pres not overrule the provost in these areas?
Yes.
And perhaps does.
We do not see that from the ground, however.
Roles vary depending on the size of the institution and its specific organizational structure. At many places the provost oversees the general policies and operations of the institution in the ways other poster have described, yet is not the public face of the place nor a fundraiser nor often the chief setter of the vision. Those roles and kissing babies, etc., usually fall to the president.
At my school (which is a not-too-big regional state university), the president has overall control of the school, but this involves things that go way beyond academics (e.g., grounds, real estate, government relations, athletics, parking). The provost has day-to-day oversight of the academic side of things, including broad policies and narrow stuff. The deans' offices for each college have control over those colleges, although it seems the position is more classic middle-management.
A smaller school isn't likely to have a provost since the dean would be chief academic officer and there would be separate officers for athletics and such, but no need for another layer of administration between them and the President. However, since large Universities could have many professional schools and several undergraduate divisions, there needs to be some coordination of operations, which is at least led by a Provost, though they all have staffs to do the dirty work. But aside from being a general CAO or even CoO, they have some very specific powers as mentioned by other posters.
I work in the Finance office right now, where I make sure all our budgets balance, payroll gets paid, and all our local, state, federal and other reports are filed.
When I was Director of Workforce I was responsible for working with faculty to develop programs that met local employer needs, fit grant requirements as well as state curriculum standards. And did the reporting to keep that sweet cash flowing.
When I was Director of Extension (Dean of the Side Hustle) I developed and launched programs that qualified for programs such as Title IV-E where we trained foster caregivers. I worked with community partners to deliver classes that met local community needs. And we had fee-based classes.
I have interviewed to be an Academic Dean and while I haven't gotten the job, it's really about supporting faculty to do program development and innovation in such a way that meets student and institutional needs.
I like it better than faculty, because as faculty I was trying to teach students to navigate the system, whereas now that I am in administration have more impact on more students because I am shaping the system for the better.
I have the patience for some of the bureaucratic minutiae that comes with being a steward of taxpayer funds. Yes, we have to deny things if we are doing our job well, but we should be explaining what it would take to make an idea pass, not just rubber-stamping "yes" or "no."
Still, I do miss students. I don't miss grading, though.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ruralguy on March 24, 2024, 12:09:35 PMMy 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 also a lot of legal and practical requirements. Yes, sounds like a great class, but in order for us to offer it it needs to meet certain standards. Or transfer to a 4-year school. Or not overlap with an identical class in another program. Or fit more than one major's requirements - especially one that is quite low-enrolled.
Taking time to explain your reasons, making sure faculty understand why you are taking the approach you are taking, and making sure they have clear next steps is critical. Some admins get tired of arguing with faculty, or don't feel like faculty would understand, so they just say "no" or "budget cuts" or whatever.
QuoteMy 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.
These jobs can also be very high turnover as Boards can get very enmeshed in the details instead of speaking for community needs. So many administrators are either trying to thread the needle when Boards have Big Ideas. Some ideas are good, but require faculty buy-in which can be a challenge. Some ideas are bad, and when the administrators can't seem to make them happen, they blame the administration for not having control over the institution.
"On the ground" problems really are the job of mid-level Deans and staff. And between union rules, long-time folks who "have always done it this way" and the like, it's pretty hard to make even basic changes.
QuoteMy 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.
QuoteMy 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).
Interesting observation about some decision-makers focusing on the wrong metaphorical forest. I've heard it said that we should be less worried about failure than about succeeding at the wrong things. Seems like some institutional leaders and their institutions are doing just that. For example, when students are graduated, but graduate only because they have checked certain boxes, not because they have actually gained an education.
Quote from: lightning on March 24, 2024, 11:34:54 PMQuoteMy 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.
QuoteMy 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.
Quote from: ciao_yall on March 25, 2024, 07:41:31 AMHad 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 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.
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...
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 25, 2024, 08:03:28 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on March 25, 2024, 07:41:31 AMHad 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.
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 26, 2024, 01:44:17 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 25, 2024, 08:03:28 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on March 25, 2024, 07:41:31 AMHad 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.
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 26, 2024, 01:44:17 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 25, 2024, 08:03:28 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on March 25, 2024, 07:41:31 AMHad 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.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 22, 2024, 11:45:45 AMSo... 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.
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.
Quote from: simpleSimon on March 26, 2024, 05:28:31 PMIn 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.
Quote from: Kron3007 on March 26, 2024, 01:44:17 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on March 25, 2024, 08:03:28 AMQuote from: ciao_yall on March 25, 2024, 07:41:31 AMHad 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: BadWolf on April 04, 2024, 09:18:08 AMI 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.
Polly_mere used to post a lot about this part of her administrative duties. She explained a lot of this----I believe it is somewhere here on this iteration of the Fora.