From 1989 to 1999, student enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions rose 9%, and from 1999 to 2009 enrollment rose 38%, from 14.8 million to 20.4 million (IES, 2011). Given these trends, there has been an obvious need for increased student support services and administration across most institutions, both public and private, to accommodate the needs of a growing student population. However, to what extent should the growth of these services outpace spending on instructional activities, and given the incremental increases in tuition, is the individual student gaining less value for his educational buck?
Based on a study by the Delta Cost Project (DCP) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) (Wellman et al., 2009), the percentage of overall institutional spending on student services and administrative support/maintenance has increased at a faster rate than instructional spending from 1995 to 2006, thus decreasing the overall share of instructional spending. In fact, from 1993 to 2007, the number of full-time administrators per 100 students grew by 39%, but the number of instructional employees grew only 18% (Greene, Kisida, & Mills, 2010). Again, since enrollment has increased so much, this statistic is justifiable. However, over this time period the increase in tuition prices outpaced that of education and general spending per student , which suggests that institutions are not only spending less per student on instructional activities as compared to administrative services and student support, but they are also making students pay a larger amount toward the per student spending (Wellman et al., 2009). Thus, ostensibly for less instruction, they pay a greater amount. Of course, one could argue that capital spending on technology may have helped to reduce the per student dollars needed to give comparable instruction, but one could also argue that with increased enrollment institutions would achieve economies in both administration and student services. That is, administrative staff, for instance, should be able to work closer to their potential as they serve more and more students. For example, one bursar’s office employee may have handled 10 students per hour in 1995, although he could have handled 25. Perhaps he was just doing crossword puzzles in his unused time. So, instead of hiring two more staffers to meet the demands of 25 students, the institution can pay the one staffer based on cost of living increases over the years and save money on training and retaining two additional staffers.
One of the big problems with this “administrative bloat” (Greene, Kisida, & Mills, 2010, p. 1) is that traditionally students have paid only a small portion of these increasing administrative costs. Federal and state subsidies, in addition to private donations, have largely insulated students from these costs. However, as government subsidy decreases, students will bear more of the financial burden. Therefore, higher education institutions need to focus more on cutting the costs of administration and student services by increasing efficiencies.
Greene, J.P., Kisida, B., & Mills, J. (2010). Administrative bloat at American universities: The real reason for high costs in higher education (Report No. 239). Phoenix, AZ: Goldwater Institute. Retrieved from http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4941
Institute of Education Statistics (IES) website. (2011). “Fast facts: Information on postsecondary enrollment rates. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
Wellman, J.V., Desrochers, D.M., Lenihan, C.M., Kirshstein, R.J., Hurlburt, S., & Honegger, S. (2009). Trends in college spending: Where does the money come from? Where does it go? Washington, D.C.: Delta Cost Project. Retrieved from http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/trends_in_spending-report.pdf
