As an academic at Victoria, I’m dismayed at the news. Colleagues who have worked long hours fostering students and expanding our knowledge are now in scope for ‘review.’ The university, and in many cases the country, will lose valuable knowledge and skills as highly qualified scientists and scholars are given notice.
What exactly has led to this is already the subject of debate. Some factors (low unemployment, high Wellington rents) were surely beyond the control of university management. Others just as surely weren’t – including some questionable spending priorities, from fancy new buildings to expensive re-brandings.
A short piece like this obviously isn’t the place to settle that debate. But it might be the place to supply some data on one issue that isn’t getting that much attention.
This is the size of our universities’ administrative bureaucracies. In a forthcoming report for the Initiative (co-authored with Michael Johnston) we reveal that the majority of staff at New Zealand universities are non-academics.
Indeed, New Zealand universities have the highest percentage of non-academics as a proportion of their workforce (59%) of any of the countries we looked at. One other country (Australia) also employed more non-academics than academics, but by a smaller margin.
Academics earn higher salaries, on average, than administrators, so New Zealand universities spend less on non-academic pay than they do on academic salaries. Still, at roughly 40% of total salary expenditure, spending on non-academic staffing represents a significant outlay.
With more blue-collar employees like cleaners increasingly outsourced by universities, much of this is spent on managerial staff. A sizeable amount goes to senior administrators, including vice-chancellors, though the average vice-chancellor salary in New Zealand (some $556,000 in 2021) is substantially lower than in Australia and the US.
These senior administrators are now going to have to make some very tough decisions. And debate will no doubt continue on how these universities got into the dire situation they now find themselves in.
But it’s in everyone’s interest to have as accurate a picture as possible of what our universities spend their money on, including administration.
James Kierstead is Senior Lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington.This article was first published HERE
A short piece like this obviously isn’t the place to settle that debate. But it might be the place to supply some data on one issue that isn’t getting that much attention.
This is the size of our universities’ administrative bureaucracies. In a forthcoming report for the Initiative (co-authored with Michael Johnston) we reveal that the majority of staff at New Zealand universities are non-academics.
Indeed, New Zealand universities have the highest percentage of non-academics as a proportion of their workforce (59%) of any of the countries we looked at. One other country (Australia) also employed more non-academics than academics, but by a smaller margin.
Academics earn higher salaries, on average, than administrators, so New Zealand universities spend less on non-academic pay than they do on academic salaries. Still, at roughly 40% of total salary expenditure, spending on non-academic staffing represents a significant outlay.
With more blue-collar employees like cleaners increasingly outsourced by universities, much of this is spent on managerial staff. A sizeable amount goes to senior administrators, including vice-chancellors, though the average vice-chancellor salary in New Zealand (some $556,000 in 2021) is substantially lower than in Australia and the US.
These senior administrators are now going to have to make some very tough decisions. And debate will no doubt continue on how these universities got into the dire situation they now find themselves in.
But it’s in everyone’s interest to have as accurate a picture as possible of what our universities spend their money on, including administration.
James Kierstead is Senior Lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington.This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
Abolish the woke majors/depts operating under the umbrellas of the social sciences and humanities and this situation would do a very rapid turn-around. You never know, universities might even regain their respectability as places of free and open discussion and debate of social issues. Or am I dreaming now?
the woke chicken comes home to roost
what do you think happens when you push child lead education, then fill their empty heads with neomarxism, racism, sexual dismorphia, climate phobia and stone age mysticism. And in doing this drive a wedge between them and family.
This cancer was started in the Universities and will end there when rolls fall and no one sees their relevance any more - neither the parent nor the kid. Ferrel life is much more fun - a phone, YouTube, TikTok and a rockstar lifestyle is all you need before it all ends in 2050.
Given my conviction that universities should return to their original function (except for the getting-younger-sons-out-of-the-house-for-a-couple-of-years function) and simply teach young people how to think freely across every subject so they may teach themselves, I can't see a big problem of universities cutting their "services" dramatically.
Removing most of the "studies" such as Business, Women's, Maori and many more to colleges specialising in these subjects or technical institutes (basic Law, basic Engineering, much Science etc., even the earlier study of medicine) would free up universities for this pursuit.
This measure would, of course, reduce the hangers-on "admin" staff accordingly - including removing many Vice-Chancellors.
Go Victoria, Go Dunedin.
Phil Blackwell
Barend's suggestion has a great potential.
I have read one "published " paper - which is pure propaganda and invective.
Very damaging for the university 's name.
Too many Universities not catering for those who need mentoring and fostering to be tomorrows "influencers" (hate the word) is the problem. Somewhere along the line society was conned in to thinking one needed to go to University to be "someone". Now we are short of people with trade and manual skills. Standards were lowered to accommodate this view. I left a sinecure in academia 23 years ago to return to the private sector because I was sick of being told if I couldn't find the marks to pass the bums on seats needed to fund the institution, I must have been a poor teacher.
Post a Comment