> needed to handle ever increasing amounts of regulations

I’m cynical about this. “These damn regulations! It would be so much better for us… I mean for the public… if we could get rid of them.”

Too simplistic and too much incentive to blame regulations. No doubt it’s a burden, and some regulations are overzealous and misguided, but there’s probably more to it.

It’s a significant burden to the chemical factory when you make it illegal for them to dump their waste in the river (greed bad!). It’s also a burden to society because now we have to police their douchebaggery. Then there’s the (inevitable) chance that this policing is corrupted or becomes inefficient (regulations bad!). Probably a flawed analogy, but it’s what I think of whenever there’s an argument for or against regulation.

One of the great problems with this is that "Too many administrators", like "Too many regulations", is easy to say, but hard to implement. There's a reason each of those positions was created - often a fairly good one.

As an exercise, I sat down one day and listed the administrators that if I was suddenly president of my university should begin considering updating their resumes. Each one was a problem as a person, but the position was one I would want refilled - indeed, at least one of them was currently running a badly understaffed office.