Who says that any significant portion of these administrators are "running a large institution?" I'd be willing to be that the average professor manages more people than 99% of these administrators.

This isn't about running an institution, these administrators are employees through and through. They are simply employees sharing 1 meaningless task with several other team members and taking eons to complete anything.

Most administrators aren't in leadership positions, which is what the recommendation from bullshit jobs was about- not general administration positions.

In tech we have the saying "we take our best engineers and turn them into our worst managers"

Idk about you, but the worst managers I've had were _not_ engineers. They had no idea what the actual day-to-day of the projects looked like, would blindly promise deadlines, etc.

I'm not saying that the best engineers make the best managers, but I don't think someone can be the best manager (in tech) without being at least a good engineer.

Sure, but the best manages I've had have not been engineers. Engineers generally don't make the worst mistakes manages can make, but they often don't make the best choices all the time.

theres also the positive saying about engineering / product driven companies vs finance / marketing driven companies.

Hard to get all nuance in a comment, but meant that ultimate control of direction is from the people doing the work, not that they necessarily were involved in the minutia of management

Professors need not administrate themselves, but school administration should, above all else, serve the needs of educators and those being educated.

exactly this, thank you

Public universities here in Czechia have academic senate, body of representatives elected by academics and students (with 1:1 - 2:1 ratio), which elects university president / rector and votes on university bylaws.

That's pretty sweet :) Here in Florida the governor chooses the university's president (and wouldn't you know it, they're a sitting Republican senator https://news.yahoo.com/incoming-uf-president-ben-sasse-22310...)

I was maybe too pithy, the book unsurprisingly goes into more depth (and is a good read!) - but if administration has all the control, they will unsurprising favor administration problems. Professors could hire good management if that was useful while keeping the goal in line with education and research and not administration and finance

To add to the siblings, academic leadership != management.

An academic leader can easily be a bad manager. A manager cannot provide academic leadership.

If they "Let people who are qualified to manage do the managing" then they wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

I would like to introduce as evidence this email I just recieved:

Dear Carolina Community:

I am excited to announce that Michael Andreasen, senior vice president for university advancement at the University of Oregon, has been selected as Carolina’s next vice chancellor for development, beginning Jan. 23. A seasoned leader, Andreasen believes strongly in the mission of public universities, and I am confident he will continue to engage supporters and alumni and build on our recent fundraising success. He will succeed David Routh, who announced in April he would step down at the end of the year.

For the past nine years, Andreasen has overseen all aspects of advancement at UO, including development; state, community and federal affairs; advancement operations; stewardship and public events and alumni relations. During his tenure, he consistently increased annual fundraising totals and secured some of the largest donations to any public flagship university.

Among his accomplishments, Andreasen helped complete a $3 billion campaign at Oregon, raising $3.24 billion, including a final fiscal year fundraising performance of $867 million and maintained fundraising momentum through the transition of five university presidents. He worked in collaboration with campus leaders and a small team of faculty to secure two $500 million gifts to establish and build the Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact and helped garner a transformational $425 million gift to establish the Ballmer Institute for Children’s Behavioral Health.

Andreasen began his time at UO as the vice president for development, leading efforts to establish campaign priorities, setting a working goal of $1.2 billion and developing a communications plan for the public launch in collaboration with the president, executive leadership and school deans. Over 12 years, he has served as a member of the University of Oregon Foundation Board, the Alumni Association Board, the Portland Business Alliance Board and the Greater Portland Chamber of Commerce.

Prior to joining UO, Andreasen was at the University of Michigan for seven years – first as executive director and assistant dean for advancement for development and alumni relations and then as executive director and assistant dean for advancement at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business. His more than 32 years of fundraising experience includes roles in major gifts and campaign leadership at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the American Film Institute. He began his career as the director of the annual fund for the University of California, Irvine, where he also earned a Bachelor of Arts in political science.

I want to thank the search committee, chaired by Rachelle Feldman, vice provost for enrollment, and John Montgomery, executive director for The Rams Club, for the time and effort they have devoted to this search. I’m appreciative for their work in identifying multiple leading candidates for this important role.

Andreasen joins University Development at an exciting time as the Campaign for Carolina comes to a close, and we look to what’s next in Carolina’s future. I’m grateful to David Routh for serving as an incredible leader and ambassador for Carolina throughout his tenure. Please join me in thanking David and offering your congratulations to Mike as we welcome him to Carolina.

Sincerely,

Kevin M. Guskiewicz Chancellor

Tell me with a straight face that that's not a God of Grift among Gods of Grift

> Tell me with a straight face that that's not a God of Grift among Gods of Grift

What's the problem here? This person has an apparently excellent track record of raising money. This isn't grift! There would be a problem if donors got excessive benefits from their donations, and there appears to be a problem that the money is largely being spent on useless staffing, but at least the latter is not the vice chancellor of development's fault. The VC of development pulls their own weight.

The problem is not that the VPs don't make money (clearly they do, that's their point), it's that they are taking money and using it to make more money and the actual purpose of being an institution for research and education is lost.

Having this type of person on the team isn't bad but if they're calling all the shots then the whole mission of the (non profit) university is destroyed.

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that the university doesn't benefit from a development operation? That this person's listed accomplishments are not relevant to being hired for this role?

> people who are qualified to manage do the managing

It's very convenient that those who are "qualified to manage" consistently come from the same stratum of society