This is sort of true but also at the same time I rely on a lot of staff to make my job a lot easier. Yes we could cut down on those administrators but it would mean that professors have to do more, taking away from research agendas. Universities have been optimized to make doing researcher easier and I appreciate that. I'd have to pay a lot more attention to my students' personal lives if we didn't have a dean of student affairs and the whole apparatus that is involved with that. There's a whole office of advising that does a better job than I ever could, and I am freed up to focus on other things that I'm good at.

As another example, we have a bunch of internal grants. It's basically free money that you can apply for to do whatever you want with it, to the tune of 10s of thousands. We need to pay administrators to handle that whole process. It's a lot of money to handle and it's not a cheap process to administer these grants. We could cut them and it would shrink the budget, but it would also stop the flow of early-stage ideas from forming that later turn into huge grants. If I have an idea that might cost like $10k, I can whip up a proposal and get funding for that lickity split, without having to go to the NSF or some other external agency. Then when the idea is more mature I can go and get external funding. If you cut the administrators just looking at a budget, you're really cutting research without realizing it.

I mean, running a University is basically like running a city. You have all the same concerns: infrastructure, food, security, a citizenry, political struggles, etc. You need a government (administrators) to do that kind of work that keeps this huge system running. Yes bureaucracies are expensive and inefficient, and sure there are of course things that could be cut, but by and large the University I work at gets the job done. Day in and day out for 10s of thousands of students. That machine doesn't just happen, it's administrators keeping it running.