What do admincritters do?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[lightning]

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.

[Liquidambar]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

Our (my former) provost has been making decisions about which departments have cuts and which programs & departments are cut. 

[kaysixteen]

Could the uni pres not overrule the provost in these areas?

[apl68]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

Could the uni pres not overrule the provost in these areas?

Yes.

And perhaps does.

We do not see that from the ground, however.

[aside]

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.

[jerseyjay]

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.
 

[Ruralguy]

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

[Ruralguy]

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.

[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 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.

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.

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.

[lightning]

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).

[apl68]

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.