Faculty, however, are already required to cover the direct costs of their research, including salaries, equipment, supplies, materials, and so forth, from their grant funds. Hence, they regard the high levels of overhead charged by universities as a form of double taxation… , Donors, for example, should be sure to direct their donations to particular programs, since. Unrestricted dollars… will almost certainly flow into the coffers of the deanlets and improve the quality of food served during administrative retreats more than the quality of the education offered by the school.
Again, no documentation; only the assertion of one grumpy professor about the spending habits of over 2, colleges and universities. As I wrote above, I am inclined to agree with the overall proposition that there are too many professional administrators and too few faculty doing administrative work temporarily in higher education. But this book does virtually nothing to document or demonstrate that proposition, and its wild overreach should make readers very wary of the veracity of all its claims. Re professors viewing indirect as taxation, I think that is a reasonable summary of the naive response of any first-time grant writer to having to budget for indirect.
The push back is to ask what the indirect pays for. And there is filling out forms and monitoring compliance with a variety of federal regulations. Re the apparent paradox of the liberal agenda, it sounds pretty ironic, if your treatment of the work is fair. It is telling that his own failed effort to concoct a JH in DC program is uncritically presented as if it is an example of administrative hubris. In reality, Ginsberg was doing exactly what all deanlets and deanlings do—they concoct a scheme to create a new administrative unit, then they tout its merits and try to garner additional resources to enable them to be permanent administrators with extra summer salary and a decreased teaching load….
I have an outline of a book prospectus examining how marginal scholars have an incentive to invest in the local rewards of administration, while more serious scholars invest their energies in research. The marginals go to meetings, volunteer for committees, seek administrative positions, and scheme to make those ladders for administrative mobility. The serious scholars invest in international reputations, and try to avoid local college politics and gratuitous administrative involvements….
Looking around my own institution, I see several high administrators including our chancellor and at least two top-notch sociologists, Arne Kalleberg and Barbara Entwisle who are also internationally recognized scholars. No one model fits all cases, obviously. However, in general, those motivated to pursue novel administrative opportunities as opposed to those who have to take their turn at administration, as I have as DGS and department chair , are investing in local rewards.
Many do so with considerable gusto, and seek to carve out resources to advance their administrative careers. Exceptions to this are many, as Andrew points in our own field. Universities can have need for such things I wish SIU had centralized teaching evaluations and tracking of student grades and such by course—which we had at Vanderbilt , but I fail to see how most faculty members should be spending their time on such efforts. Some enlightening ideas about strategic plans, tenure, institutional assessment, and endowments were the best parts for me and if y While I completely agree with the fundamental argument of this book and have seen it in action at a university where I work, his tone is pretty pompous and rude; it's almost like the first angry draft was accepted for publication without adjustments, and while I personally identified with his anger, it seemed overdone and inappropriate here, especially for a scholar.
Some enlightening ideas about strategic plans, tenure, institutional assessment, and endowments were the best parts for me and if you're looking for a rant about the downfall of higher learning in this country, then look no further. Jan 30, Joe rated it did not like it. There are many things wrong with American higher education. This book gets at none of them. A cranky conspiracy theory that claims that a shadow army of "deanlets" has stolen the university from its faculty. Jun 15, Gary rated it it was amazing.
Very interesting book about administrative bloat and how faculty at the college level are being undermined. Aug 02, Pilar rated it it was ok. Too in love with his thesis to really get anywhere. I believe that university administrations have become larger and more complex beyond any reasonable justification and that this is one of the reasons higher education is in real trouble. However, this book argues that point in a way that would be easy for a critic to dismiss: The author attributes a greater degree of corruption to administrators than I think i I believe that university administrations have become larger and more complex beyond any reasonable justification and that this is one of the reasons higher education is in real trouble.
The author attributes a greater degree of corruption to administrators than I think is fair. Sure, some people are nakedly self-serving; but more commonly, people respond to the incentives that they're given. It's the very structure of university administrations that's the problem, and the solution is to rebuild the university from the ground up, not to put pressure on administrators to behave themselves. Nov 15, John rated it it was ok Shelves: What a disturbing book. I fear the former is driving much of the tuition increase and that the latte What a disturbing book.
I fear the former is driving much of the tuition increase and that the latter is an expensive-but-legitimate use of some of those funds.
- Hands On Health: Take Your Vibrant, Whole Health Back Into Your Healing Hands!
- The Fall of the Faculty.
- See a Problem?.
- Also Available As:.
- The Iron Stallions?
- Until Our Song Is Fully Sung: Selected Poetry, Lyrics, and Prose Poetry.
Mar 24, Leif Kurth rated it liked it. Aside from Professor Ginsberg's seeming distaste for much of the programming revolving around diversity, he makes many good points, particularly as this subject relates to the ever-increasing costs in higher edu. The growth of administration, and the relative decrease in the number of professors who have any sort of job security is bad for students, bad for the larger college community, and ultimately really bad for those who believe in the pursuit of life-long learning.
An excellent book explaining the growing and negative administrative roles in higher education. I understood it as a desperate plea of help to return our education system to our faculty what it once was , rather than a method of gaining wealth and popularity. Excellent read for any academic of higher ed. Aug 06, Miss Karen Jean Martinson rated it really liked it. The good news is that much of the egregious administrative oversteps that I see happening at Chicago State University are happening at other universities, too.
The bad news is that much of the egregious administrative oversteps that I see happening at Chicago State University are happening at other universities, too. Ginsberg's book documents the rise of the professional administrative class at institutions of higher learning which clearly has already happened in k education as well and cog The good news is that much of the egregious administrative oversteps that I see happening at Chicago State University are happening at other universities, too.
Ginsberg's book documents the rise of the professional administrative class at institutions of higher learning which clearly has already happened in k education as well and cogently articulates just why this is a problem. It isn't just that the faculty are being marginalized, viewed with contempt, and treated as the unskilled assembly-line workers who make both the product and the consumer: It's that faculty hold a vastly different understanding of what the goal of the university is than do administrators.
It should be noted that USAmerican universities became the gold standard under the faculty's commitment to teaching and research. However, with the all-administrative university, what matters is much more market based, and a neoliberal capitalist ethos pervades what is "good": But these "values" might not actually lead to the sort of deep, critically-engaged education that I think universities should offer.
Access Check
By this logic, an automated online course on Microsoft Office is better than a rigorous seminar on philosophy. While I will admit that both might have value, I would argue, vehemently, that only the latter is the stuff of a rigorous university education. I have to say that I am suspicious to put it nicely of his arguments around Diversity, and how leftist Feminist, LGBTQ, Ethnic Studies groups become subservient to administrations, who trade their should-be outrage in return for financial support and favored status.
It seems a bit easy and a bit retrograde, and I find it especially troubling to blame the groups themselves, rather than marking the co-optation of their values and language. For example, there is great debate on the CSU campus regarding the new "cyber-bullying" prohibition instituted by the administration, ostensibly to curb damaging bullying activities see Dr. Watson's Sun Times Op-Ed for the stance of the administration. Of course, nobody supports actual bullying. However, faculty are VERY concerned because this prohibition may be a veiled attempt to shut down the Faculty Blog, which is very outspoken against the current leadership.
Could the blog's revelation that Interim Provost Henderson's dissertation was heavily plagiarized be considered bullying? Ginsberg gives several suggestions, such as using the media, getting faculty members appointed to the board, refusing to fall lockstep into every initiative, and other means of taking back power from the administrators. Hopefully it isn't too late.
Nov 13, Anton Rasmussen rated it liked it Shelves: Benjamin Ginsberg seems to be overly jaded about the state of Higher Education in the U. In seven chapters Professor Ginsberg makes a case for why faculty, parents, students, and the public should worry about the diminishing state of University and College faculties around the nation. Professor Ginsberg provides figures and statistics sho Benjamin Ginsberg seems to be overly jaded about the state of Higher Education in the U.
Professor Ginsberg provides figures and statistics showing how largely bureaucratic and quickly growing in its bureaucracy college and university administration has become--in particular over the past few decades, and how powerless the faculty has been to stop it. Though, of consequence to the layperson wanting the whole story, Professor Ginsberg has failed to show how and where the faculty have tried to stop the growth of administrations' size and power.
ginsberg, the fall of the faculty – scatterplot
In addition to describing the catastrophic "bloat" one will find when examining university administrations--e. There's no mistaking an element of political bias in Professor Ginsberg's work here; but, I believe that objectivity was not his chief aim All in all, this book serves as a one-sided account of a bitter man and gives very little hope for the future. Probably the greatest take away from this book exists in the end-of-book notes, much of which are pulled from the Chronicle of Higher Education, and that serve as both reference notes and as a self-contained resource for someone looking to go deeper into Professor Ginsberg's ideas.
Personally, I am not disappointed that I purchased this book for that very reason i. Oct 18, Omnibus rated it liked it. Ginsberg presents the administrative structuring of American colleges and universities. While many of his points are well-received, his orientation is top-down, with change driven exclusively by professors. Students are quite bluntly referred to as 'children. Ginsberg barely considers the potential effect of tuition-free higher-education on the nefarious prol Ginsberg presents the administrative structuring of American colleges and universities.
Ginsberg barely considers the potential effect of tuition-free higher-education on the nefarious proliferation of business-style motivations within university bureaucracy. Nor does he appear interested in quite large unionisation efforts including at Columbia among graduate student workers, something very germane to his discussion of the pernicious rise of adjunct faculty posts.
Such activism amongst students represents the importance of including their critique within broader dialogues against the neoliberal university. I'm one to look down upon nonsense 'activism' among college liberals, like some of the examples Ginsberg mentions, but spending thirty pages on the subject tells me Ginsberg is using a book about excessive bureaucratisation of the academy to, in part, settle a bone with some campus liberals. Yes, such people are rather aggravating, concerned principally with broadcasting their anti- politics to their Facebook followers than in considering counter-ideological questions or class.
Nonetheless, Ginsberg's inclusion of this unrelated criticism speaks to the orientation already mentioned. Moreover, the notion that student liberals are running the universities is rather wrong; Ginsberg has clearly never visited the computer science or economics departments or faculties of business or engineering. Loudness does not connote power. In fact, the opposite is occasionally true. Mar 18, McKenzie rated it really liked it. Ginsberg's central argument is that administrators at universities use every possible scheme they can to wrest power from the faculty, and that the losers of this struggle are the faculty, the students, and the nation at large.
While some aspects of this argument are very compelling and true the loss of tenure, the commercialization of research , other components of Ginsberg's narrative seem too far-fetched administrators tie "diversity" and "multiculturalism" into any projects they are afraid Ginsberg's central argument is that administrators at universities use every possible scheme they can to wrest power from the faculty, and that the losers of this struggle are the faculty, the students, and the nation at large.
While some aspects of this argument are very compelling and true the loss of tenure, the commercialization of research , other components of Ginsberg's narrative seem too far-fetched administrators tie "diversity" and "multiculturalism" into any projects they are afraid might fail, because faculty will not want to appear to be against those progressive movements to be plausible. Ginsberg's utter hatred of all administrators leads him to paint with a very broad brush, and he repeatedly uses the worst possible examples of poor administrative behavior to characterize all higher education administrators.
This would be akin to saying all corporations are as evil as Enron, because they are all filled with greedy and immoral people; there are some people who abuse their power in corporations, but not every single person does, and even for those who do, they are not all doing so on the same scale as Enron's leadership did. While I think Ginsberg took his attacks against administrators too far in certain circumstances, I still think this book is a useful read for anyone going into higher education administration, or anyone who wants to know what one possible cause of the current financial crisis in higher ed could be, because I do agree that the emphasis for funding should be on teaching and research, instead of on excessive salaries for administrators.
I personally hope to use this book as a guide and reminder for myself of what not to do in my future career. Oct 20, Steven rated it liked it. There's a lot to not love about this book. Ginsberg alludes to public institutions and community colleges, but he seems to be mostly discussing large, elite private institutions.
ginsberg, the fall of the faculty
He makes an argument that African and Women's Studies departments exist as a way for administrators to curry favor with different constituencies. Despite these failings, his larger point, about the rise of administrators in academic institutions, is interesting, and rings true. His chapter on academic freedom is fascinating, well-researched, and well-argued. I wish he had started the book with it and used it as a point of departure to make his argument. He brings up interesting points about the overproduction of PhDs and about the classism and racism of vocational-based curriculums.
It's an interesting read that would be much better if Ginsberg was more empathetic and understanding about the role of administrators. The higher education landscape has changed tremendously in the past 20 years, and while he does admit that, he maintains it's not the problem of the faculty.
,445,291,400,400,arial,12,4,0,0,5_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
But by ignoring this changing landscape, faculty have ceded much of their institutional power and authority. Ginsberg wants it both ways, but I don't see how that's possible. Aug 31, Marie desJardins rated it did not like it Shelves: It is really unfortunate that Ginsberg is so apoplectic as to be completely irrational. There are a lot of interesting cases in this book, but you can't trust Ginsberg to analyze or draw conclusions from any of them, because he's simply cherry-picking to fuel his blind anger at university administration.
At times, the diatribe is downright offensive, as when Ginsberg insinuates th It is really unfortunate that Ginsberg is so apoplectic as to be completely irrational. At times, the diatribe is downright offensive, as when Ginsberg insinuates that any diversity initiatives, concern for the student experience, or pedagogical innovation must be driven purely by selfish power-grabbing by administrative stooges. He mocks anything that he personally thinks is a waste of energy e. His obnoxious choice of terminology "deanlets" to refer to any administrative position that he deems unnecessary further blurs his message.
Ginsberg has done an enormous amount of research, and presents a great deal of data -- but there is often no logical connection between the data and his sweeping conclusions, which are really just his opinions, but are stated as fact. I found it frustrating and unfortunate that I couldn't really get much out of the book because it was impossible to separate reality from Ginsberg's warped view of reality. Jan 28, Tom rated it really liked it. This author pulls no punches.
He was very direct with the reasons tuitions are increasing so much and why the ranks of tenured professors are decreasing. My main concern was with why tuitions are increasing. And because I know a few college professors I can say that it is not because of their salaries. The growth and cost of bloated administrations, the excessive salaries of presidents and football coaches, the costs of athletic programs; all contribute to the rise of tuition.
I can't say I'm sy This author pulls no punches. Ginsberg refers to them as "deanlets," but at my institution they are often called "ass. Yet as bracing and darkly pleasurable as this call is, it is hard to imagine professors joining the resistance with so few weapons at their disposal. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Academic Skip to main content. Choose your country or region Close. Ebook This title is available as an ebook. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. The Fall of the Faculty Benjamin Ginsberg Powerful and stinging critique of one of the most powerful trends in academia: The Fall of the Faculty Benjamin Ginsberg.
Post navigation
The American Lie Benjamin Ginsberg. Rock and Michael Toman. American Higher Education in Crisis? Smoking Typewriters John McMillian. Betting on the Africans Philip E. Living in the Crosshairs David S.