Tuesday, August 08, 2006

In which I ponder the budget.

Several years ago LSU moved to a business model budget. Under this model, each department has control over its own funds. We might choose, for example, to give everyone a big raise. Or, we might choose to hire new faculty. We might purchase equipment, or furniture.

As with all such schemes, the administration makes sure that they will get money from somewhere to sustain their bloated salaries. Each department pays a "tax" to the college, which is determined by enrollments and indirects as earned in "Year Zero" (the year before the new budget took effect). If the department fails to generate at least the enrollments and indirects earned in this year, the college will take the shortfall out of the departmental budget. We're not talking about that funny fake money that colleges usually shuffle around, but real dollars: my raises.

You can imagine what this has done to inter-departmental relationships. It was hard enough to get department chairs to sign off on interdisciplinary grant proposals before, and now it's almost impossible. Each chair wants the indirects to go exclusively to his/her department, or they quibble for weeks over who is getting the larger percentage. There is no incentive to establish research "centers," which have no budgets of their own and which funnel indirects away from the departments. We used to have really strong centers in Population Studies, Cognitive Science, etc., but they are now moribund.*

Each department is now in direct competition with every other for undergraduate enrollments. Sexy majors are being trotted out every year, like "Visual Communication" and "Forensic Sociology." In the social sciences, every department is trying to offer statistics courses in house, so we now have about 8 courses titled "Introduction to Statistics in [insert department name here]." Because all new course offerings must be approved by a college level committee, many of these redundant courses are being offered under old course numbers and titles: "Applications of Industrial/Organizational Psychology" is now "Introduction to Statistics in Psychology," but you wouldn't know that by looking in the student handbook. The Engineering College is fighting to (wait for it!) offer all core curriculum classes in house, including the writing core, History, and foreign languages.

The new budget has erased some of the lines between pots of money that used to be sacrosanct. New construction and building renovation were once paid for from a "capital improvements" budget, but no more. One department in my college is responsible for several million dollars of the construction costs associated with their new building. My department and several others have taken advantage of the new model by "firing" the custodial staff provided by Physical Facilities and hiring a private contractor to keep the bathrooms looking spiffy. I must say, the bathroom has never looked cleaner, and my office carpet has been vacuumed for the first time in several years.

But shiny, fresh-smelling toilets will only go so far. I see nothing but disaster on the horizon. The strongest departments in the college are struggling to maintain the numbers established in Year Zero, and are starting to lose faculty members as a result.* Since the new budget was established, we have not had one faculty meeting in which we discussed curricular issues from a teaching and training perspective; we have only discussed strategies for getting more butts in the lecture hall. Departments within the college are fighting with each other, rather than forging interdisciplinary programs. There is no hope at all for Humanities and Fine Arts.

Only two groups of people seem to be benefitting from this model: the deans and the marginal-at-best departments. The dean no longer has to make the hard decisions about which programs to support and which to cut. S/he no longer has to deliver bad news, but only sits back and watches the marketplace in action. The marginal departments, the ones with the lowest possible academic standards, are pulling in vast numbers of warm bodies and the tuition dollars associated with them.
The departments that formerly only provided degrees to the football players are now thriving.

The system can't possibly last much longer. Eventually LSU is going to drop so far in the national rankings that someone will realize that the business model must be scrapped. Someone in the administration must recognize that higher education can't be sold like burgers at McDonald's. Someone will have the guts to tell the trustees that a university is not supposed to make a lot of money, and that we should strive for academic excellence above all else. The provost who championed this system has left LSU to plunder some other university, and surely no one wants this to continue any longer than it has already.

Right? Right?

*My best friend's husband had a chaired position in Political Science, and he established the Population Studies Center. The dean then refused him any budget from the indirect costs generated by the Center's own funding. He left to take a faculty position at a real university, and took my friend with him. Yeah, I'm a little bitter.

15 comments:

Dean Dad said...

A responsible semi-opposing viewpoint:

Although much of what's happening there is obviously, cartoonishly stupid, and I won't even try to defend most of it, it does have one great big advantage. It forces faculty out of the standard moralistic-venting-the-administration-has-all-the-money-in-the-world-fantasizing that usually happens, and shifts the conversation to what I like to call Objective F---ing Reality.

OFR has many components, but one of them is a persistent and undeniable scarcity of resources. When deans and other admins are fully in charge of major resource allocation, faculty in any given department or program don't see who loses when they gain. Therefore, they're always pushing for something, whether it makes any sense or not, and taking 'no' as a symptom of personal corruption ("bloated administrative salaries") or general thick-headedness. In fact, saying 'yes' to one request pretty much always requires saying 'no' to several others. People in touch with OFR know this instinctively.

The single great advantage of the admittedly ham-handed scheme LSU has adopted is that it shifts the conversation from fantasy and indignant posturing to actual resources. This is a good thing.

The disadvantages I won't deny. A curricular race to the bottom is likely, interdisciplinary work will go bye-bye, departments that had an unusually good year in year zero will be punished forevermore, huge lecture classes will be privileged over smaller and more interactive formats in which students learn more, etc. No argument on any of those.

The real trick is to find ways to introduce a real recognition of OFR into collegewide conversation without provoking silly crises. The moral hazard of tenure, in which one party to the conversation is effectively immune to economic reality, makes that exceptionally difficult.

Ianqui said...

Oh good. I was going to suggest that you make sure Dean Dad sees this, but I see that he already did.

Miss Kitty said...

I'd like to see that Engineering Dept offer their own writing courses. As an English professor, this makes me both snort with laughter and cringe.

Wishing you lots of luck, AP. Hang in there. I don't know what the budget model is like here at Division II University, but I'm thinking it's different than this. Whew.

Angry Professor said...

Dean Dad, in my experience, good administrators have been able to pound OFR into admittedly thick faculty skulls without tossing all the funds back to the departments, locking their office doors and refusing to answer the phones. I have worked with some fantastic deans, people who were willing to rob Peter to pay Paul, who were honest and willing to explain to Peter why his budget had shrunk, and could get Peter to admit that it was a good thing for Paul. Of course Peter can be a serious asshole sometimes, which is why I never want to play a big role in administration, and why I am willing to pay my deans their big fat salaries.

I don't think it's a coincidence that since the new budget system was implemented, faculty and department chairs alike have been actively discouraged from contacting higher administration with their concerns. We've been told that all communications should follow a strict "chain of command." Now I have routinely communicated with my (various) university presidents about my concerns, and (until the present) have always been warmly received.

Anyway. I don't blame my deans. Even they hate this budget. (My observations lead me to the conclusion that few of them really understand it as well.) Rumor has it that my college's dean's office can't meet their salaries in the coming year. This is a nightmare cooked up by the former provost and rammed down everyone's throats.

Selectively killing off the best departments in the university and eliminating the humanities and fine arts is what a good budget model should not do - I'm sure we agree on that. And yes, our department had record high enrollments and indirects in Year Zero. We are doomed.

Professor Zero said...

In fact, saying 'yes' to one request pretty much always requires saying 'no' to several others. People in touch with OFR know this instinctively.

This being the case, I have always
noticed it is easier when administrators are open about which projects they have decided to support, and which not, rather than be secretive and manipulative about it. I have always found that treating people like adults does more to quell the fist-shakers, than does just saying 'Oh
but we are so broke, and you cannot imagine the pain I am in over it'.

CrankyProf said...

I've noticed a trend here at Small Catholic U: some really fantastic professors have turned to the Dark Side and joined the Admin, and once they lose touch with the classroom, they lose touch with reality. Or at least the ability to coherently explain and discuss their funding and budgetary choices.

The lines of communication are cut pretty effectively.

Of course, at SCU, almost everyone needs a dose of the OFR. Plus, it being SCU, we mostly wander around asking, "What is this 'raise' you speak of? We do not know this term."

Anonymous said...

Year Zero

I thought only the Khmer Rouge could set that?

Obviously the only way to survive under this model is to declare "'A's for everyone!" No reading, no homework, no exams. I bet you would have record enrolement!

The sooner departments get on this race to the bottom, the sooner the Admin will have to face up to this lunacy.

Anonymous said...

I just wish you'd get a raise every five years.

--AB

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear of your budget issues. I imagine the LA higher ed system is hurting. Does this business model allow departments to set their own tuition rates? Seems that this might allow strong departments, or at least well run departments, to maintain high quality faculty.

Anonymous said...

This may be a thread-jack, but I'm a fundraiser at a big private university and we have this sort of budgeting. Our donors must find it very confusing when we dance around the issue of why our unit doesn't partner with other schools more. They don't understand that my school competes with all the others for donors and gifts. If we partner with another unit, and a big gift comes in, they might get the credit, and the money. It's lunacy.

quadrupole said...

You know, in business we've learned how to cooperate with our competitors to mutual profit. Why can't university departments learn to do the same?

Anonymous said...

Great post and great comments.

One observation: I assume tuition fees are fixed by the administration at some uniform rate. So this is a faux 'marketplace.' Different Departments are unable to charge higher prices for better quality product. Good students are unable to send a market signal that they are willing to make up the difference for high quality (demanding) courses that are losing bodies. The individuals responsible for this scheme don't know basic market economics, or the elements of marketing pricing strategy. Imagine if Toyota had to charge the same fixed (low) price for a new Lexus as a lemon of a used car. What would happen to the quality of automobiles?

Anonymous said...

I understand that this would create a race to the bottom--the new "sexy majors"--but why does it help the departments that already had low standards? Aren't they facing more competition as other departments push into their niche?

Average Professor said...

PJ,

A market for higher education as you suggest presupposes that the buyer can recognize or assess quality at the time of purchase. A lot of students make course decisions by considering primarily, "what do the other students that I know say about this class or major - is it fun? Or is it too much work?" Then, a lot of students don't recognize the relative quality of the education they received until years after they original purchase date, and there are not really any objective measures of "quality of education."

That said, some schools do a differential tuition based not on quality but on the starting salaries of the graduates. At my university, engineering students are charged at a higher rate, ostensibly because they require pricier technology to educate - but in justifying it to the students, it was sold as, "Hey, you are going to earn a lot of money when you're done, so it's just a good investment in your future."

Anonymous said...

Complete disagreement with Dean Dad: who defines what OFR is? Today's OFR is quite different than last decade's, or last year's, or last semseter's. Thus, odd to me to defer to the OFR, if it's a moving target, and as if it's handed down from on high. To suggest that adhering to the OFR will provide you with the answer, then, doesn't make much sense, since it denies who crafts and is crafting OFR.