[fastaguy88]

It might be insane, if you believe that "staff" are all doing administrative duties. But, as was pointed out, "staff" are often anyone who is not a tenure track faculty. So librarians, research technicians, environmental health and safety, IT support, etc etc.

A more useful comparison would divide staff into "supported by tuition" (should be related to student count) and "supported by external grants and clinical income".

This idea that costs have increased because of administrative staff expansion is a popular one, but one that ignores what R1 universities spend money on, and where that money comes from. (Ironically, I suspect that the university may be spending more money on research, because of limits on indirect costs.)

[nobodyandproud]

I think, however, the total count is extremely important.

Every University’s purported mission is to educate students and advance our collective knowledge together with its students.

That’s it.

If the university makes more money from treating patients than teaching its students, then its mission can’t help but shift.

Likewise if the bulk of the staff are not focused on teaching and educating, then its mission can’t help but shift.

This is a problem.

[fastaguy88]

> Every University’s purported mission is to educate students and advance our > collective knowledge together with its students.

> That’s it.

Not if the university has a medical school. Virtually all R1 universities with medical schools have a hospital, and a large clinical practice. Most of medical school is an apprenticeship where you treat patients. Medical schools need patients, which means a lot of additional staff.

Likewise, in most fields it is no longer possible to advance knowledge just by going to the library or writing on a white board. Knowledge is advanced through experimentation, and experimental equipment and reagents cost money, and need staff to use and maintain them.

No university (and certainly no medical school), makes enough money in tuition and fees to pay for the education provided, and I seriously doubt that many universities have supported themselves solely through tuition since the beginning of the universities in the middle ages.

You are certainly correct that university deans and presidents have seen their mission shift with the increasing cost of education, and indeed faculty are writing many more grants than they did 75 years ago. So time commitments have shifted. But there is an implication that it could have been some other way -- that the money is there (or could have been there) if some other path were chosen. It is hard for me to imagine where the money might have come from.

[op00to]

Is it? I disagree. The university I went to has a mission to “conduct research, provide education, and engage with the community to improve the lives of people and the environment”. MIT’s is to “educate students and advance knowledge in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship”.

It’s not a problem. You just have a narrow view of what you think our higher ed institutions should be.