Transcript Professor Chen Chao's presentation on staff-faculty ratio in public universities

The ratio of administrators and
administrative staff-to-faculty in public
universities and its implications
CHEN CHAO
Nankai University
2014.3.3
Background


What happened?
The jumping development of higher education
is a popular topic in the world, How to
measure and review the development? How to
balance the scale expansion and quality
improvement?
The administration sector had grew quickly
with the expansion of higher education.
What’s the implications of administration
grows or administrative expansion of higher
education institutes? especially from the
perspective of employ? Is the administration
grows means bureaucratization, how to
debureaucratizate the higher education
institutes?
Research purposes



Puts forward and erects a new measurable
indicator in higher education evaluation and
statistic；
Empirically analyzes the ratio of
administrators and administrative staff-tofaculty of Sino-American public universities;
To find out the implications of
administration grows or administrative
expansion for bureaucratization of higher
education institutes.
Vertical direction
Faculty to administrator
ratio (latitude)
landscape orientation
Student-to-faculty ratio (longitude)
Definition
 Student-to-faculty
institutes
Student/Faculty
ratio
ratio
year
Berkeley
17:1
fall ,2012
Tennessee
15:1
Fall,2013
Princeton
6:1
Fall,2013
MIT
8:1
Fall,2013
Pennsylvanian
6:1
Fall,2013
Johns Hopkins
13:1
Fall,2013
Duke
8:1
Fall,2013
Southeast
16:1
Oct.2013
remark
Undergraduate student
China
Definition
 The
ratio of administrators and
administrative staff-tofaculty/Administrators-faculty
Ratio/The ratio of administrators
to faculty
What is it?
How to measure and review it?
What its implications to universities?
How to control it?
Literature review
"the steady, inexorable increases
in administrative personnel and
services .... " (Duryea ,1973)
 "Universities have become topheavy with a wide assortment of
vice-presidents, provosts, deans,
directors, and miscellaneous
assistants to all of those..."
(Lewis ,1975)

Literature review

McGrath's study appears to have been the first
serious attempt to trace the development of
administrative offices. His dissertation entitled
"The Evolution of Administrative Offices in
Institutions of Higher Education in the United
States from 1860 to 1933" traced the
development of the administrative offices then
in existence at the major colleges and
universities in the United States and
concluded that the median number of
administrators in 32 selected institutions of
higher education ranged from 3 in 1890 to 30.5
in 1930.
Literature review

In a 1969 thesis, Witner reviewed
McGrath's study and a similar
unpublished study of liberal arts
colleges done by Partridge (1934).
Witner supplemented the McGrath and
Partridge studies by comparing
administrative growth during the 1860
to 1933 period with growth in student
enrollments and increases in faculty
size. He concluded that the growth of
administration in universities and
colleges had paralleled the general
growth of higher education.
Literature review

In 1955 with the help of a grant from the Kllogg
Foundation, Terrien and Mills undertook a study
of the California school districts which
supported the hypothesis that "the relationship
between the size of an administrative component
and the total size of its containing organization
is such that the larger the size of the
containing organization, the greater will be
the proportion given over to its administrative
component" . Most of the subsequent research
on administrative size, however, contradicts
this early study.
Literature review

In 1965, Boland examined 97 public
institutions of higher education and
concluded that the number of full-time
administrators per 100 faculty members
decreased with an increase in size.
The study suggested, however, that
the relationship may be curvilinear,
with administrative size first increasing
disproportionately and then decreasing
disproportionately with size.
Literature review

Perhaps the most significant study on
administrative size in higher education in the
literature reviewed was The Organization of
Academic Work, published by Peter M. Blau in
1973. This study, based on surveys of 115
institutions, determined that the ratio of
administrators to faculty members in the
average American academic institution was one
to four or 20:80. Blau was able to gather data
on the growth of faculty size to conclude
that "the growth in faculty appears to
correspond rather closely to that in students"
Literature review

In 1981, a study was undertaken to attempt data
collection on numbers of administrators followed by
analysis of the data. It was hoped that the
study would determine, at least in one small
segment of higher education, just how valid
criticisms regarding administrative growth are:
whether administrative growth has been excessive
when compared to the growth in the size of
faculties and numbers of students. An effort
was made to determine increases in numbers of
university administrators at four regional
universities in Kentucky during an ll-year period
(1967-68 to 1977-78) and to determine how these
increases related to other indicators of growth, such
as numbers of students enrolled, numbers of
graduates, and numbers of faculty members.
(Alice Brown,1981)
Statistic and calculation
Data source: from official websites
of flagship public universities in 50
states(27); 985 universities from
China in random(14).
 Software: SPSS15.0
 Formula: ratio=
numerator/denominator=administra
tors and administrative staff/faculty

Data presentation (US)
Flagship Public universities
administrators and administrative staff/faculty
1995-96
University of Alabama
2005-06
2012-13
2817/1012
－
3096/1148
－
4303/1731
3014/1042
University of Arizona
10274/2180
2663/585
12276/3022
University of Arkansas
－
－
3013/1203
Berkeley
17078/1618
18623/1953
19632/2177
University of Connecticut
3782/1107（2002-03）
4015/1200
3028/1377
University of Delaware
2638/964
2666/1077
2803/1128
University of Georgia
－
－
6995/2879
University of Hawaii
2719/2319
3691/2107（2002-03）
3662/2713（2011-2012）
University of Illinois
－
－
7801/2548
University of Iowa
－
－
4827/2996
-/ 1942
10068/2157（2010-11）
University of Alaska
University of Kentucky
University of Michigan
12724/4470（2002）
12818/4780
13494/6682
University of Minnesota
18985/3150（2003）
19113/3169
19376/3553
Data presentation (US, continued)
University of Missouri
－
－
6587/2121
University of Nebraska
5263/1915
5508/1995
6111/2156
Rutgers University
-/1906 (2002-03)
-/ 1962
5527/2136（2011-12）
SUNY
－
－
43600/19319
University of North Dakota
-/ 798 （2001-02）
1825/912
2043/821（2011-12）
Pennsylvania State University
－
－
6979/3173（2011-12）
University of Tennessee
10545/3230（2001-02）
10919/2964
7925/1951（2011-12）
University of Texas
12071/2484
14165/2734
14991/3081（2011-12）
1813/1304
2488/1516
University of Utah
University of Virginia
10939/3298
13185/3346
13932/2887（2011-12）
University of Wisconsin
12761/2236
13071/2210
14105/2173（2011-12）
The ratio of administrators and
administrative staff-to-faculty (US)
universities
1995-96
2005-06
2012-03
means
2.78
2.70
2.49
2.66
University of Alaska
.
.
2.89
.
University of Arizona
4.71
4.55
4.06
4.44
University of Arkansas
.
.
2.50
.
10.56
9.54
9.02
9.70
3.42（2002-03）
3.35
2.20
2.99
2.74
2.48
2.48
2.57
University of Georgia
.
.
2.43
.
University of Hawaii
1.17
1.75（2002-03）
1.35（2011-2012）
1.42
University of Illinois
.
.
3.06
.
University of Iowa
.
.
1.61
.
University of Kentucky
.
.
4.67（2010-11）
.
University of Michigan
2.85（2002-03）
2.68
2.02
2.52
University of Minnesota
6.03（2002-03）
6.03
5.45
5.84
University of Alabama
Berkeley
University of
Connecticut
University of Delaware
The ratio of administrators and administrative
staff-to-faculty (US, continued)
University of Missouri
.
.
3.11
.
University of Nebraska
2.75
2.76
2.83
2.78
Rutgers University
.
.
2.59（2011-12）
.
SUNY
.
.
2.26
.
University of North Dakota
.
2.00
2.49（2011-12）
.
Pennsylvania State University
.
.
2.20（2011-12）
.
3.26（2001-02）
3.68
4.06（2011-12）
3.67
University of Texas
4.86
5.18
4.87（2011-12）
4.97
University of Utah
.
1.39
1.64
1.52
University of Virginia
3.32
3.94
4.83（2011-12）
4.03
University of Wisconsin
5.71
5.91
6.49（2011-12）
6.04
means
4.17
3.86
3.34
University of Tennessee
3.79
Al
ab
a
Ar ma
iz
Be ona
Co rke
nn
ec ley
ti
De cut
la
wa
r
Ha e
Mi waii
ch
Mi iga
nn
es n
Ne ota
br
Te ask
nn
es a
se
e
Te
Vi xas
rg
Wi ini
sc
on a
si
n
Distribution (US, missed value
canceled)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1995-1996
2005-2006
2012-2013
Total trend (US)
average ratio
Trend of the average ratio of American
universities
6
4.17
4
3.86
3.34
1995-1996
2005-2006
year
2012-2013
2
0
0.25
Blau(1973)
Data presentation (China,2012/2013)
number
985 universities
faculty
administration
ratio
1
Nankai University
1988
1100
1.81：1
2
Tianjin University
3000
1414
2.12：1
3
Peking University
5226
7681
.68：1
4
Tsinghua University
3379
3653
.92：1
5
Beijing Normal University
2100
1200
1.75：1
6
Shanghai JiaoTong University
2873
4387
.65：1
7
Xi1an Jiao Tong University
2686
1770
1.52：1
8
Fudan University
2700
3100
.87：1
9
Southeast University
2402
3273
.73：1
10
Tongji University
3141
1727
1.82：1
11
Sichuan University
4292
7708
.56：1
12
Zhejiang University
3243
4925
.66：1
13
Jilin University
6568
11442
.57：1
14
Dalian University of Technology
2050
1588
1.29：1
Na
nk
Ti ai
an
ji
Pe n
Be
k
Sh ij Ts in
an in in g
gh g gh
ua
a
N
Xi i or
1a Ji ma
n ao l
Ji To
ao ng
To
ng
So Fud
ut an
he
as
To t
ng
Si ji
ch
Zh ua
Da
ej n
li
ia
an
ng
Te J
ch il
no in
lo
gy
Distribution (Chinese 985 universities)
ratio in 2012/13
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2.12
1.81
1.75
0.92
0.68
1.52
0.65
1.82
0.870.73
ratio in 2012/13
1.29
0.560.660.57
Findings




Big ratio means huge administration
expansion;
The average ratio of administrators and
administrative staff-to-faculty of US
universities is 3.79, and it is in a decrease
trend
The average ratio of administrators and
administrative staff-to-faculty of Chinese
universities is 1.09, and it will be
sustainable in a long period;
There is no such concept or indicator in
Chinese higher education evaluation.
Further discussion
Is administration grows means
administrative bureaucratization?
 Bigger or smaller? Which one is
better?
 How to control the ratio?

Reference




Blau,Peter.The Organization of Academic Work[M].
John Wiler & Sons. 1993.
Brown,A. HOW THE ADMINISTRATION GROWS: A
Longitudinal Study of Growth in Administration at
Four Universities[J]. Research in Higher Education.
Vol. 14, No. 4, 1981.
Ase Gornitzka、Svein Kyvik、Ingrild Marheim
Larsen，The bureaucratization of Universities[J],
Minerva, (1998)36:21-47.
Patricia J. Gumport, Academic restructuring
organization change and institutional imperatives[J]，
Higher Education, (2000)39: 67-91.
Thank you!