Who Is Running Stanford?
My take on this is that it’s a result of stupid luxury.<p>There’s a lot of admin positions. I’m not sure what the right amount of admin is, but seems stanford has too many doing too little and too much. I didn’t go to Stanford, I went to way lower rated schools but it seemed to me that my interactions with admin were all unpleasant and funny in a Brazil-style way. And whole I would like them to be better, I never thought that more people would solve the problems.<p>Stanford admin staff has doubled in the past 40 years [0] and they have more admin staff than teachers. Students did not double during this period.<p>I think admin staff are more insidious than just driving up costs (although that’s important). I think it’s an issue of giving smart people good pay and bullshit work. Perhaps with good intention they want to be constructive but choose bikeshedding topics and really drill down to do something to stay busy. I can only imagine the amount of work that went into the decision to cut sports teams and which ones, dozens of committees and papers and consultants over something completely stupid that shouldn’t even be worth a single agenda item.<p>I remember an analysis after 9&#x2F;11 that partially blamed the attacks on Middle East countries shift of cutting all the busy work for graduates so smart people got masters degrees and had nothing to do. [1] So the boredom ended up leading to more terrorism.<p>Obviously, high tuition and kangaroo court pogroms on privileged kids is better than blowing stuff up. But perhaps the solution is to not have make work positions and release people to create real things.<p>I think a possible solution is for alumni to stop donating and state reasons. But that might result in just hiring more admin staff to promote more donations. (I know a contact who works as one of 5 admin staff in a 4th tier subregional university that works on alumni promotions and is justified by a 1.2x return on salary based on the increased donations. So, for example, their cost is $500k per year and they produce a newsletters and a ton of spam and bring in $600k so it’s good right?)<p>I think a Stanford degree is still very valuable and I would spend more time reading a job application with a Stanford degree, but what’s the tipping point?<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanfordreview.org&#x2F;stanfords-administrative-bloat-is-out-of-control&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanfordreview.org&#x2F;stanfords-administrative-bloat-is...</a>
[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slate.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;2009&#x2F;12&#x2F;why-do-so-many-terrorists-have-engineering-degrees.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slate.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;2009&#x2F;12&#x2F;why-do-so-many-terroris...</a>
“ Gambetta and Hertog propose that a lack of appropriate jobs in their home countries may have radicalized some engineers in Arab countries. The graduates they studied came of age at a time when a degree from a competitive technical program was supposed to provide a guarantee of high-status employment. But the promises of modernization and development were often stymied by repression and corruption, and many young engineers in the 1980s were left jobless and frustrated. One exception was Saudi Arabia, where engineers had little trouble finding work in an ever-expanding economy. As it happens, Saudi Arabia is also the only Arab state where the study found that engineers are not disproportionately represented in the radical movement.”