Oh, The Horror…of Amalie!
Posted on September 3rd, 2010 in Uncategorized |
I have taken a break from having fun with the dreadful prose of Globe sportswriter Amalie Benjamin, because I’m nice that way.
But…as I head towards Boston to see the Sox play the Sox this weekend…Benjamin’s writing is having that fingernails-on-a-blackboard effect on me. I must share.
For example, Benjamin’s story today about how the Red Sox managed to beat the worst team in baseball.
It was a game that could have spiraled out of control and away from the Red Sox. As Daisuke Matsuzaka lost what had made him good for the first five innings, the Sox could have imploded along the way.
Except they didn’t, getting the 6-4 win, thanks to Scott Atchison.
So let me get this straight: The Red Sox could have lost the game…except…they didn’t!
Good for the Red Sox!
Good for Amalie!
Except….
…there continues to be less and less hope for this team as the days go by and the standings don’t change. The Sox aren’t willing to give up quite yet.
There continues to be less and less hope?
Let’s try this: “The Red Sox haven’t given up, but they are losing hope.”
Reading Benjamin is like watching a long baseline rally at the US Open; the head turns left, turns right, turns left, turns right…until finally you just want it to end.
22 Responses
9/3/2010 1:19 pm
For what it’s worth, the Orioles are not the worst team in baseball. That would be the Pirates.
9/3/2010 1:53 pm
By half a game! Wait till tomorrow.
9/4/2010 12:53 pm
…in The Economist magazine as the most bloated bureaucracy among universities
http://www.economist.com/node/16941775
9/4/2010 10:30 pm
“Between 1993 and 2007 spending on university bureaucrats at America’s 198 leading universities rose much faster than spending on teaching faculty. …. For example, Harvard increased its administrative spending per student by 300%.” That’s a great statistic and I’d love to see the data source. It could be true, but I haven’t any idea where those numbers have been disclosed.
9/5/2010 7:57 am
This was one of the topic of discussion at the last council of deans. Clayton Spencer has been looking into the issue of the future of the university. Incremental changes will not be enough to face the serious financial deficit. A lot of things may have to go… maybe even some of the accepted features of leading research universities will have to go.
The Economist article reports that 20 of the faculty in the history department are on leave this year, and that leaves every three years have become the norm for some professors.
9/5/2010 8:36 am
As the university prepares for a new campaign addressing the issues mentioned by Harry and others is imperative. In a recessionary economy it’s unlikely that those who are in the frontlines of serious adjustments to their corporations will be generous to a sector that is perceived to be inefficient, self-complacent and, perhaps, increasingly irrelevant to address the major challenges facing the economy and society.
9/5/2010 8:59 am
The Economist article draws parallels between the higher education crisis and the crisis of the car industry… during that crisis leaders like Lee Iaccoca, who faced the crisis with creativity and courage…
will we see a new generation of university leaders emerge out of this crisis? perhaps this is what the market will reward, as donors look for effective leadership as an indicator of where to invest.
Some of Iaccoca’s wisdom might be helpful to those leaders who are confused about how to lead in these critical times:
“So what do we do? Anything. Something. So long as we just don’t sit there. If we screw it up, start over. Try something else. If we wait until we’ve satisfied all the uncertainties, it may be too late.”
“I have found that being honest is the best technique I can use. Right up front, tell people what you’re trying to accomplish and what you’re willing to sacrifice to accomplish it.”
9/5/2010 10:18 am
This from the Boston Globe Today
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/books/review/Shea-t.html
In this climate, the next campaign will be a challenge for Harvard… and for other elite colleges.
9/5/2010 11:10 am
Some very good thoughts about necessary changes, but unfortunately it’s not going to happen.
As mentioned a few years ago, (a certain group of) universities are in an arms race. More, more, more. We want to be the best, whatever that means. We want more all star professors and to attract them, we have to offer more, more, more; more than anyone else. We want to be number 1 in the US News rankings, even though we pretend that the rankings don’t matter.
In order to do that, in addition to “dream team” professors, we have to compete for the “best” students, so we offer more, more, more (in terms of financial aid) so that they don’t go to schools which offer merit scholarships or great state universities which cost less or heaven forbid, another non state, non merit scholarship school which offers more financial aid. We build bigger and better and more buildings. Everything has to be bigger and “the best” so that we can attract “the best.”
Assume there are 10 schools (probably a few more) that want that. Which one is going to blink first? Princeton? Yale? Harvard? Any of the others?
None of the schools think they can afford to blink first because the alums won’t allow it. The alums won’t allow it because that would mean a loss of face with their colleagues on The Street and in The Valley. They won’t allow it because everyone has to keep up (or at least try to) with everyone else; can’t slip in those ratings.
Of course, this happens elsewhere in other ways. Look at Boone Pickens’ (and many others) gift to his alma mater for sports.
It would be great if one president had the guts to say “this is insane.” Unfortunately, not one has the guts to do so and the arms race continues and will continue, with a few years of slowdown here and there when things get a little tough in the economy. However, these are temporary blips in an otherwise long term trend of more, more, more. Just look at the last 20 or 50 years. Does this university, to pick an example, do that much better a job in educating students today, than it did when Harry graduated in the late sixties?
It’ll be a bit more difficult to raise money from the alumni, but not that difficult because all a school has to say to Mr. or Ms. Megabucks is that xyz school is doing such and such and that in order to compete, we need your help. The alumni all fold when it is presented that way. I’ve seen it first hand. It goes to their feeling that “my” university is the best or among the best and has to remain that way. Bragging rites. Sad.
9/5/2010 11:28 am
Sam,
Sensible realism about the political economy of the situation but you may be underestimating the intelligence of Mr. or Ms. Megabucks. They read the news, including perhaps the Economist. They also know that the serious challenge is the ongoing decline of overall american competitiveness, and yes this includes the ongoing decline of US universities, relative to for example european universities which are undergoing the most radical transformation in their history, or relative to australian universities, or relative to chinese universities.
So, anyone bailing out the sector is only contributing to this ongoing decline of the american university and of Harvard.
It is becoming clear to those who could bail universities out that fundamental reform is necessary, and that effective leadership is an indispensible part of the equation.
I don’t know whether it is becoming clear in all of the top 10, but if only 3 of them begin to seriously reform, they will be the survivors in an ongoing process where not all the dinosaurs will be around in some years.
9/5/2010 11:47 am
A simple plan for reform:
1. More emphasis to teaching. Each professor must teach at least 4 courses a year and, on average, serve at least 80 students, with 10 of those being undergraduates –and this includes ALL professors.
2. Quality of teaching begins to count in hiring and promotion decisions.
3. Professors expected to do their share in committees and governance. This can allow up to 5%-15% reduction in administrative positions.
4. All positions with annual earnings in excess of 100K reviewed. Where possible replace with new hires, earning 50-70K. These changes, phased over a 5 year period, could save up to 40% of the current wage bill.
9/5/2010 12:39 pm
I am not underestimating the intelligence of Mr. or Ms. Magabucks, for, after all, they went to these schools so they have to be very intelligent, right?
I think bragging rites trump intelligence in this case. That has certainly been the case for the last 20 years.
One other thing I didn’t mention. Mr. and Ms. Megabucks have children. Far easier to get their children in if you give bucks when called upon, even (or particularly so) if you’re not an alum. There are a disproportionate number of Megabucks kids admitted than probability would suggest.
I’ve seen the race by the Megabucks parents in New York. I’ve seen it with my alma mater (one of those schools in the arms race). The parents will pay whatever it takes in order to try to get a leg up on admission. I’m not saying their kids are not qualified, but when there are ten qualified applicants for a slot, again , more often than probability would suggest, those Megabucks kids get in.
Changing times: Your thoughts are good. With all due respect, however, I think you’re wrong in even presenting #4. Take Harvard for example. A small number of faculty attend faculty meetings. If you want to see 100% attendance, just have the subject of tenure put on the docket.
9/5/2010 12:59 pm
changing times, fixing the problem is not a matter of coming up with good ideas, those have been around for years, but of finding a way to put them in place. It will be very difficult for change to come from within any institution, because there will be severe penalties for those who advocate that change.
Take as an analogy the case of corruption in Sumo Wresting. This was one of the most revered institutions in Japan, associated with deep roots of Shintoism. When some suggested that some fo these games might be rigged this shocked society. Eventually there was a preponderance of evidence regarding the facts that proved that the games were rigged (see http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DugganLevitt2002.pdf)
But clear evidence was not enough to change the game. In fact those who tried to expose this within Japanese society were severely punished, some murdered (http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/scandals-expose-sumos-shady-underbelly)
The stakes involved in the current inefficiencies exposed by the Economist are much greater, and they involve high stakes in prestige, power and money. Under the current structure of incentives it is unlikely that anyone will be able to induce change into the current system from within.
Change in university management and functioning may take place from ‘outside’ as smaller institutions –not the big Sumo Wrestlers– begin to introduce the changes everyone knows are essential. In time they may end up producing a far better quality education. But it will take a long time until the now very high demand for a place at the ivies shifts to those institutions, as parents or students look for ‘value for money’.
It may happen… but it will take long and will not be easy.
9/5/2010 1:19 pm
Sociologists have been moving to find ways to include teaching in the tenure evaluation process, modeling teaching evaluation on the peer review system of publications. It is a step in the right direction to count teaching in hiring and promotion, reported in Inside Higher Ed,, but it’s far from an ideal system. It shows that even should one decide that teaching is an important evaluation criterion, measuring excellence in teaching is very hard to do.
9/5/2010 4:02 pm
anon 12.59, there’s an alternative to the process you suggest for how reform will take place. You describe a process of ‘natural selection’ where those institutions that develop more adaptive forms of governance, incentives and performance eventually replace those that fail to adap –the ‘dinosaurs’. You are probably rights that this process will be slow. Evolutionary adaptations among living organisms take place over thousands of years, human organizations may take a little less, but probably more than one generation.
But there’s an alternative that would allow some of the ‘dinosaurs’ to leapfrog. Universities all have leaders, and leaders are replaceable –in fact they are normally replaced every 5-15 years for any given institution. Presidential search committees and the specialized firms that assist them could very quickly define as criteria those most relevant to help institutions adapt, and then poach presidents from other institutions who have demonstrated an ability to meet those criteria. It may be that this would require broadening the search parameters beyond ‘peer institutions’ to look into institutions where it may have been more likely that presidents faced incentives to innovate. Through this process, adaptation could take place in a matter of years, not decades or centuries.
For example, suppose the trustees of Ivy University determine that serious trimming of staff is essential. Suppose they conclude that the President of Ivy University does not have the skills or temperament to bring that kind of change about. They could look for a new President who had done this, and candidates could emerge either from other universities or from other industries. If Sam Spektor is right and none of the ‘top ten’ are likely to have Presidents who have engaged in serious staff reductions, they could look for candidates in the ‘next ten’ or the ‘following ten’, until they find a candidate who has been in a position to do just that.
9/5/2010 4:32 pm
Anon 4:02
One of the key feeder schools in the last 25 years has been The University of Iowa.
Could this university possibly accept something like that? Why do I think it is doubtful?
9/5/2010 7:04 pm
Adapt or Perish.
9/5/2010 9:51 pm
Back to the 300% growth in per student capita administrative expenses in 14 years, does anyone have an idea how to get that number? Is that in constant dollars? Is it aggregated across all the professional schools as well as FAS, and is something in the medical area distorting the numbers? Has the trend reversed since the crash? New positions continue to be created in some areas — e.g. here and here — even as bibliographers get laid off, as RT would hasten to remind us. I have nothing against either of these individuals or the importance of the jobs they have been appointed to do, but the creation of these new slots at the same time as others are eliminated inevitably makes a statement about institutional priorities.
Part of what is happening is a feedback loop in which the creation of an administrative position to address a problem relieves the faculty of a sense that they are responsible for that problem. Once issues get bureaucratized, they move off the radar screen of both the leadership and the faculty, and the bureaucracy becomes entrenched and even more necessary if the problem persists.
I remember sitting in a meeting of the Academic Deans when Jeremy Knowles told the group about the new sabbatical policy. My jaw visibly dropped because I knew how hard it was for my program to keep its courses covered as it was. The argument went, as Sam suggests, that our offers to new faculty were no longer competitive. I never saw the math that made this policy seem like a bright idea, but it was evident at the time that the new leave policy in one fell swoop undid all that good that would come from the planned expansion of the Faculty that Knowles was also announcing — and which, of course, will now never fully be implemented.
9/6/2010 7:48 am
Sam, you suggest that one of the factors that will extend the current crisis is the fact that the rich are willing to give Harvard large sums of money in exchange for admissions for their children. Do you know whether the number of those admits increased in recent years? (which would support your thesis). But, even if this number has increased over a short period, why would people over time want to buy a degree of declining value? If the only reason is prestige it is just as easy to buy a title of nobility http://www.regaltitles.com/
What makes you think there will be any real social advantages attached to a degree that does not maintain its value?
9/6/2010 9:28 am
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/teachertenure
9/6/2010 10:12 am
Buying prestige…have no idea if the number of those admits has increased.
You said ” But, even if this number has increased over a short period, why would people over time want to buy a degree of declining value?”
Declining value? Surely you jest :). Let’s just look at Harvard.
Harvard has branded itself so that it is one of the best known brands in the world and is in a class by itself, branding wise, when looking at the academic world. For example, where I live for part of the year, Italy, Harvard is THE BRAND that everyone of a certain socio-economic background knows. Yale to them means locks and Princeton, if they’ve ever heard of it, is a town somewhere. But Harvard, rightly or wrongly, is Harvard. And the fact that it is in Boston (they think of Cambridge as part of Boston) helps immensely because their superficial of Boston is that it is America’s most European city.
My bet is that the university will not only try to protect that brand but try to enhance it, and every other university in the group will try to maintain its brand (e.g. Penn with its Wharton undergraduate brand). In order to do so, it will spend a lot of money, perhaps (probably!) very foolishly, but will spend it nonetheless, so that the brand continues to remain very strong during the next fifty years.
It is not necessarily being “the best”, whatever that means (and I don’t think it means much). It means recognition of the brand. Alums take pride in that, for bragging rights to their friends, family, and colleagues on The Street and The Valley. A relatively small amount of money, to the Megabucks crowd (and the non Megabucks crowd as well), means very little.
Perceived prestige, even if it is really meaningless, means a great deal to them.
Furthermore, those that don’t have it, want it. The stories, that I’ve heard, that came out of the mouths of a certain socio-economic group in New York re getting their kid into Harvard (or the other schools, but particularly Harvard), are simply unbelievable… as well as very sad. But that’s the way it is.
That’s why I think this group of schools, with this university leading the pack, will continue the arms race… full force. Again, it is very similar to SEC or Big Ten football teams. Michigan alumni can be counted on to do most anything (i.e. give anything) to try to beat Ohio State consistently. Harvard will do anything to field “dream teams.”
Sabbaticals every two years anyone!
9/6/2010 7:29 pm
What you describe Sam is very sad, and a sure symptom of decadence of the groups you describe… sort of like the bachannals during the Roman Empire….. Hopefully there will be other crowds left to pull this Empire forward.