• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

“The joke is we would like to swap students with Arizona,” says Jim Gerber, a professor of economics at San Diego State University. “All our students will go to Arizona and pay out-of-state tuition, and all their students will come here and pay out-of-state.”

Gerber’s dig at the SDSU administration is part of a wider critique of the direction the university has been taking. That direction may be summed up in a statement the school’s president, Elliot Hirshman, made to the U-T San Diego last August. “I think it is clear,” Hirshman said, “we are on a trajectory that has been set for the last quarter-century to continue our development as a leading public research university.”

Grumbling about how loud that drumbeat has become is alive and well among faculty on campus to a significant, yet unknown, extent. “There’s never been a poll of the faculty on the issue that I know of,” Gerber says.

In December 2011, Gerber and SDSU colleague Doreen Mattingly, of the women’s studies department, chanced separately to hear a National Public Radio interview with Benjamin Ginsberg, author of a recent book called The Fall of the Faculty. Afterward, Mattingly contacted Ginsberg at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, where he teaches political science, and invited him to San Diego. Ginsberg visited SDSU several months later and met with a group of faculty. He also gave a lecture based on the book. The lecture, by all accounts, was sparsely attended. It did generate a small coterie of professors who were taken by Ginsberg’s critique of contemporary higher education. To give an idea of their interest in Ginsberg’s book, consider its subtitle: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters.

Jim Gerber

In the book, Ginsberg writes: “From the faculty’s perspective, teaching and research are the main purposes of the university. The institution exists to promote these ends. From the perspective of many university administrators, however, teaching and research are merely instrumental endeavors. They are undertaken in order to draw customers (aka students) and research funds to the university.” All the while, Ginsberg writes, the ranks of administrators grow disproportionately to faculty, administrative pay goes up and up, and, to pay for the vast bureaucracy, university presidents engage in extensive “image polishing” and fundraising.


I have come to Jim Gerber’s office on the fourth floor of the Adams Humanities building, near the south edge of campus, to inquire how far the Ginsberg critique applies at SDSU. Outside Gerber’s window can be glimpsed a corner of beams and girders; these support the new Aztec Student Center, now under construction.

SDSU’s unique characteristics make for a loose fit with The Fall of the Faculty. Most of the universities Ginsberg studied are on the East Coast or in the Midwest. He told me by email that he did not study the California State University system.

Starting in 1960, with its “Master Plan for Higher Education,” the California legislature has viewed the state university system as sandwiched between the community colleges and the University of California. Community colleges would offer the first two years of college education and focus largely on vocational education. University of California would pursue research, which the legislature would support both financially and in the administrative structure set up for the system’s various universities. The California State Universities were charged with being teaching institutions par excellence; they would produce the bulk of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and provide teacher and professional education. Faculty would contribute research and scholarship commensurate with its teaching role. Later, the CSU was allowed to offer PhD degrees in a variety of subjects, but only as joint programs with partner universities, often one of the UCs, but sometimes a private school.

Benjamin Ginsberg


Much of the critique of higher education that Ginsberg delivers in The Fall of the Faculty is that universities today behave more like private businesses. New for-profit colleges have taken this shift to its logical conclusion. Traditional schools, both public and private, don’t have outside investors who seek a return on investment. Instead, they have excessive numbers of administrators inside the institution who command increasingly higher pay and benefits.

SDSU president Hirshman told his university senate in December that efficiency was something the school “already was achieving.” But the school’s financial initiatives go beyond that. Currently, they include a major fundraising effort called “Campaign for SDSU.” As of this writing, the campaign has raised $380 million. Other “revenue streams” come from auxiliary organizations, such as the university’s Research Foundation, and from Aztec Shops, which runs the campus bookstore and food services.

Then there is that out-of-state tuition. A university budget presentation from April 2012 projected an increase in nonresident tuition from $12,947,055 in 2007/08 to $15,009,200 in 2012/13, for an increase of $2,062,145.

It’s hard to blame public universities for pursuing entrepreneurial strategies when they face shrinking support from state legislatures. That is certainly the case at SDSU, which has lost $118 million in support from the California legislature since 2008.

But one wonders whether SDSU has done enough to cut into what Ginsberg calls “administrative blight.” Recently, governor Jerry Brown demanded that both the CSU and UC systems cut down on administrative costs. According to the Los Angeles Times in January, the governor cited a “study by a faculty group” indicating that in the two systems, “senior administrators had increased by 125 percent since 1997, while the number of students increased 33 percent.” The Sacramento Bee’s 2011 list of the salaries of California state employees brings the point closer to home. At SDSU, 35 administrators earned over $150,000 per year, and 11 earned over $200,000. Today, there are 263 administrators in all.

According to a series of budget and enrollment fact sheets, the university lost only 97 staff (that figure includes administrators) from 2004/05 to the present, while the loss of faculty (including adjuncts) in the same time period was 465. Today, full-time faculty number about 700.

Elliot Hirshman

Gerber is critical of the business model of running the university. “There’s this notion we get from administration all the time, how we need to be more efficient — we get it from the public, too — that we need to operate more according to business principles. Not to say we shouldn’t be concerned about waste, but we don’t have a clear bottom line in the same way that a business does.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

Mario Garrett March 28, 2013 @ 3:39 a.m.

Nothing will change. Despite having some excellent teaching professors, published researchers and students with high GPA, SDSU remains stuck in a quagmire of autocratic administrative practices. With more budget cuts predicted, it is just as predictable that these administrative practices will become more evident. Last year’s settlement with the whistleblower David Ohton for $2.7million (Union Tribune, 2/2/2011) in which “…(Sally) Roush covered up the allegations” is the latest legal settlement where SDSU administrators’ concealment cost Californians money. By settling out of court and not having to admit any wrongdoing, the system protects the very same people that we need to examine. It is business as usual. There remains at SDSU a culture of abuse, mismanagement, ineptitude and/or complacency. University administrators can flaunt federal law (Whistleblower Protection Act) with impunity since they have liability insurance to cover them and their chosen friends. Settlements mean nothing to SDSU that has insurance against such continuing practices.

A Kafkaesque travesty of punishing the whistleblowers, while at the same time rewarding other faculty who break university policy (and the law) plagues SDSU repeatedly. History reveals a university littered by such moral failures. In 2009, former Athletic Director Jeff Schemmel, after “improper use of state funds,” resigned and was rewarded by a $136,000 settlement. That same year an employee Courtney Bale was awarded $150,000 for sex discrimination charges that she brought against SDSU. In 2008, swim coach Deena Deardruff Schmidt settled for $1.45 million--again for sex discrimination. In 2005, Athletic Department equipment manager Steve Bartel settled (for $60,000)--a suit with seven allegations, including defamation, discrimination and emotional distress.

Most of the time administrators wear down out-of-favor faculty members. Professor Jim Burns, the mechanical engineering professor, experienced three years of harassment, retaliation and obstructionism perpetrated by administrators. He reports that he told SDSU’s Provost Nancy Marlin “You can't say you weren't informed.”

The sad part of this tragedy is not that these issues happen; it is that they happen everyday and that there is no one to stop them.

By settling out of court, the administrative failings remain hidden. There is no public outcry because there is no pointing finger. The CSU has bought a get-out-of-jail-free card. By having state-funded insurance that protect administrators and their friends from prosecution, they can act with impunity. However, whenever these administrative failings happen, we, as an institution, lose a little bit more integrity. With an ever-increasing administrative layer that are accountable to no one the priorities of an educational establishment changes.


Mario Garrett is a professor of gerontology at San Diego State University.

4

Visduh March 29, 2013 @ 10:39 a.m.

It is absolutely amazing that the only comment posted so far is one from a SDSU professor. With the tens (actually hundreds) of thousands of SDSU grads and those who had connections to SDSU in the county, only he has made a comment.

While I get the point that Ginsberg is making, that these universities now seem to exist for the benefit of administrators, and very well-rewarded ones at that, the article seems to be two articles in one. The first one is about the educational mission of the CSU's and how undergraduates are getting short shrift. The second one is about the research activity, and there's little tie between the pieces, except that administrators are screwing both missions. So, based on the headline, I'd have appreciated seeing more about the shortfall by SDSU and other CDU's in the area of undergrad education, and perhaps the second part in another article.

SDSU has been inexplicably popular with in-state students for a long time. (My association goes back over 40 years.) And to a greater or lesser degree, when all those eager undergrads arrive on campus they have had to deal with a lack of space in the classes they need. That results in something I call "the San Diego State disease", wherein it is a rare undergrad who completes a bachelors degree in four years. (Let's remember that we call those a "four-year degree.") Recently SDSU claimed improvement in the metric of students earning degrees when it pushed up the number who complete their requirements in SIX years to something over half. So, six years to earn a BA/BS is the norm there. The reasons are many, and this phenomenon cannot be solely blamed on a shortage of classes. There's a laid-back, beach-style culture there that says, "What's the hurry?" And under-prepared students often really struggle to get through the curriculum.

In the 70's and 80's, the campus was overrun with those who wanted to major in business administration. That college was maxed out for many years, and may still be, for all I know. The university did nothing to restrict the numbers of such majors, and at the same time did not allow that area to grow to a point of meeting the demand. The always-arrogant Tom Day, longtime SDSU president, was quoted as saying that if the students arrived and could not get to study things they wanted to study, well then, they would study things that did have space in the classes! (One area that fell into disfavor was the foreign languages, especially after the requirement to study one as part of the bachelors degree was dropped.) This sort of thing happens almost everywhere to some degree, but SDSU has been getting away with it for decades, and now with state support steadily waning, is undoubtedly getting worse.

I think many of us would like to learn more about what is really happening at SDSU, and how all this research and participation in joint doctoral programs is negatively affecting the very things the CSU is supposed to be doing.

1

Mario Garrett March 30, 2013 @ 6:32 p.m.

San Diego State University is running on a flawed system of public funding and private profits. In August 2010, an article in the Los Angeles Times by Carla Rivera exposed “…evidence that [CSU] officials are improperly depositing public funds into the accounts of nonprofit campus foundations and have failed to correct the problem despite warnings from auditors.” Is this simply a hiccup or a testament of how “state” universities do business? SDSU has multiple layers of funding. In the 2011-12 SDSU budget of $768 million, only 17 percent is coming from state appropriations (while tuition fees comprise 24 percent.) Although state appropriations comprise an increasingly diminishing proportion of the total budget, these funds are the heart of higher education — because state funds exclusively pay for faculty.

When faculty bring money in for research or activities, that money is funneled through foundations as private funds — and for which the university takes a proportion, in some case more than 50 percent, as indirect costs (known as facilities and administration costs or F&A). These faculty--and administrators--are given time off to conduct their research or fundraising, using state funds. They are excused from teaching so that they can work full time--with public funds--to bringing in private profits to the university. With this public funding and private-profit model, it is clear that having more administrators and research faculty improves the university’s chances of getting more private money.

When state appropriations shrink it behooves administration to offset the loss of funding by attracting private contributions, increasing tuition costs and making classes cheaper. By maintaining a strong administrative core the university ensures a continuing supply of private funds. In order to maintain a large administrative core, SDSU had to cut teaching faculty which resulted in increasing class size, diminished enrollment, limiting offerings and increasing workload for teaching faculty. The numbers of tenured professors within the CSU system have been on the decline since 1987, while part-time faculty (cheaper) are becoming an increasingly larger part of the CSU system. Part-timers rose nationally from 36 percent of the faculty in 1990 to 46 percent in 2003, but by 2008 half of all teaching at the CSU is done by part-timers (49 percent). While the CSU replaced tenured professors with part-time teachers, tenured administrators mushroomed. Ralph D. Westfall crunched the numbers and while full-time faculty in the whole CSU system rose 3.5% between 1975 and 2008, administrators rose 221% If this trend continues, Westfall notes, there could be two administrators per full-time faculty in another generation. What Carla Rivera exposed was not just a hiccup but a culture of doing business within San Diego State University.

1

kstaff March 29, 2013 @ 12:55 p.m.

The article really says it all, which might be why so few comments. It partially explains the proliferation of superflous administrative positions with resulting periodic "budget crises," and--believe me--administrators will administer empty classrooms before they'll eliminate one of their own positions.

The problem really is that every institution wants "status," and of course the money that comes with it. The original education plan for California, with its clear delineation between the roles of community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system, has been twisted beyond recognition.

1

Visduh March 29, 2013 @ 4:36 p.m.

Some of that master plan just didn't sell with the students. Back in the 60's the community colleges lamented that whereas they were intended to have about 2/3 of their offerings in the purely vocational areas, before the ink was dry on the plan, 3/4 of the course attendance was in academic subjects that would transfer to four year colleges. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the then "state colleges" were supposed to provide bachelors degrees, some masters degrees, and to train teachers. Teaching was paramount there. Their fulfillment of that mission has been weakening steadily for decades. SDSU, for example, now has fewer than half the teachers-in-training that it had circa 1970, and operations like National University have come along to fill the gap. That is doubly galling because SDSU started out as a normal school, a teachers college, and did a great job of it for the first fifty to seventy years of its existence. Now that is an afterthought. Oh, there is so much more that can be examined and said about this whole pattern of status seeking.

1

Joe Deegan April 1, 2013 @ 6:32 p.m.

Visduh's contention that the story is actually two stories would be true if the perspectives of the two main characters did not oppose each other over the role and value of research on campus. Besides Sussman's complaint about one conflict with administration, he makes a rather strong case for the way research is pursued for the most part at SDSU. And his position is that research adds to the strength of the university, including the way "hands-on" participation in research benefits undergraduates. Gerber does not devalue research per se, only the concentration of it in the joint Ph.D. programs. This, and the way SDSU promotes being a research university rather than the teaching university the Master Plan called up the CSUs to be, is the backbone of his critique. When you toss in the issue of limited access for qualified local students, the situation begins to look even more unbalanced.
Where I definitely agree with Visduh is in his call for more attention to how all the emphasis on the Ph.D. programs is taking resources away from undergrads. Besides the sheer strain of extra work for faculty involved in both graduate and undergraduate education. there is bound to be more to learn about the drawbacks. Then again, Sussman and other faculty might be able to point our how having Ph.D. students on campus benefit undergrads.

0

Visduh April 1, 2013 @ 7:18 p.m.

My thought was that the story went far beyond the headline, and that there was so much to be said about the degradation of undergraduate education that it didn't need to share space with the research activities. Actually, I've been saying the same things you express. In fact, I'll put it in simple terms: to the degree that research is emphasized on a university campus, the less effort/attention/resources are placed on undergraduate education. And I've said many times that if you looked at a list of priorities on a typical UC campus, out of the top twenty items, undergraduate education would be twentieth. That's pretty radical, I suppose, and I'm an old man with not a radical bone in my body.

Thanks for getting the real conflict out in the open. The CSU's were designed as teaching universities, but other than "Cow" Poly campuses, none of them seem willing to really glorify their teaching role. They are all filled with the usual "publish or perish" doctorates, and administrators who use that for their own schemes.

We are both on the "same page."

0

Joe Deegan April 1, 2013 @ 7:42 p.m.

Interesting. I had a conversation with Steve Erie the other day, the director of the Urban Studies program at UCSD. Erie tells me that UCSD's chancellor is making noises about moving in the direction of more attention to undergraduate education, and that the Urban Studies program might play a role in that move by helping generate more university involvement in local communities. If that goes very far, as Erie expressed it, then both SDSU and UCSD would be changing the directions that the Master Plan originally gave them.

0

Visduh April 1, 2013 @ 8:05 p.m.

For many years now, UCLA has been "making noises" about reaching out to the 'hoods of LA that are not affluent. But upon a close look, most of it is just noise, not action. An elite-dominated campus such as that one, in its insulated Westwood location, can pretend it cares about the huge reaches of non-affluent LA, and maybe some people there really care. But does that campus want to knock itself out to admit less-qualified local attendees when it can have its pick of out-of-state top of their class applicants (especially when they pay more)? In fact if you want to see the epitome of what Ginsberg/Gerber/Garrett are describing, look no farther than UCLA. It, along with sister campus Berkeley, has carried the concept of a public research university to its (il)logical conclusion, and now grossly under-serves its undergrads while glorifying its research faculty in a shameless manner. And SDSU wants to be another one of those operations? Yes it does. Weep.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close