This is how you obfuscate, ladies and gentlemen: "There's a good reason for that, says Rex Ramsier, vice provost at the University of Akron, where Gallagher is teaching one class. "Institutions have to be very mindful that if we simply tried to staff every course with full-time faculty that have full benefits, the cost of higher education at any institution would go up 30 to 40 percent potentially," he says. "The public's not going to accept that."

Notice the conflation of instructional labor costs and total costs (including admin salaries, fixed costs (building construction and upkeep, etc), which go to the bottom line of the school, and "cost" to "the public."

There's another equivocation there, between the public qua set of individual consumers (in which case we're talking about "price" to them — tuition and fees) and public qua set of individual taxpayers. 

Why is this important? A public uni could recoup its increased labor costs by two means. 



One, on the cost side by a) cutting non-instructional labor costs, i.e., admin salaries or b) reducing fixed costs (deferring construction of new buildings, for instance). 

Two, it could also work on its revenue side by getting more tax support (I know, I know, but still) which would mitigate the need for increased tuition and fees, i.e, cost to the public qua consumer, that is, "price."

IANAA (I am not an accountant). And I've heard claims that total admin salaries are such a small percentage of instructional labor costs that there's not a lot of money to be recouped there. But I would be happy to get confirmation one way or the other.

Ed Kazarian comments on this last point (see here for some backup to this point):

I think it depends on how you parse 'admin' there, especially if you also recognize that more FT faculty = more people to share service responsibilities and thus less overall need for professional admins, and also probably less need for specialized, dedicated adivisors (who don't serve studnts nearly as well as faculty advisors in many respects), and possibly other things. So you really have to think in terms of admin + at least some student services.

Posted in , ,

3 responses to “Annals of obfuscation, volume 4501”

  1. Anne Jacobson Avatar
    Anne Jacobson

    I’m trying to find a like button. Links from FB engender confusion.

    Like

  2. David Wallace Avatar
    David Wallace

    I’m struggling to see what he ought to have said to avoid “obfuscating”. The nearest I can come up with is
    “Institutions have to be very mindful that if we simply tried to staff every course with full-time faculty that have full benefits, the cost of higher education at any institution would go up 30 to 40 percent potentially, net of any savings we could make in administration and capital expenditure; since we don’t think we have significant admin bloat and we think our capital expenditure program is necessary*, that cost would be passed on to the public either through higher levels of government support (which we in any case think is unlikely given the current political and economic climate) or through tuition rises.”
    But I would have thought all of that was pretty obviously implied by his comment. (If I ask our accountant to cost some proposed change, I expect them to tell me how much it will cost, not how much it will cost net of a whole bunch of other changes I might decide to make.) So “obfuscation” seems a bit unfair.
    * I assume that John suspects that Akron could indeed trim admin and cut capital expenditure and that Ramsier is wrong here. But even if he’s wrong, he can be sincere.

    Like

  3. Dan Avatar
    Dan

    I wrote Rex a “fan” letter and asked him to explain himself. Since admin size has more than doubled in 20 years and admin salaries have gone up substantially in constant dollars, I too suggested that EDU overhead was too high. Further, I asked him whethert he thought such a disparity between in compensation was sustainable. To me, the horrid inequalities of EDU salaries and the rising educational debt suggests that we are in a pattern that cannot hold and that, as usual, we are borrowing on an accumulated good beyond what can be maintained.

    Like

Leave a reply to Anne Jacobson Cancel reply