John Hechinger has written an important critique of administrative salaries in higher education.
His article focuses on Purdue, an outstanding university known for its engineering programs.
The university has a long list of administrators who do supervision or marketing and are paid far more than full professors.
Makes you wonder if the university–and Purdue is typical, not unusual–has its priorities right.
One good thing about Purdue that comes out in the article is that, unlike so many other universities, it does not rely on adjunct faculty.
Mitch Daniels, about to leave the governorship, will assume the presidency of Purdue. As governor, he became known nationally for privatizing and outsourcing public education and undercutting teachers’ professionalism. We will see what his Purdue agenda may be.
As a show of good will, he could start his tenure in office by cutting his own salary in half (that figure is not mentioned in the article but is surely a higher figure than the highest-paid administrators).
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Yes.
Depends–Are you thinking of education or management? From the standpoint of the former, the answer is probably “no”. But given the various biases and culture of management, if you look at the school as an MBA would, then the answer is probably “yes”. The reason is that the latter looks at the mission of the school very differently from the former.
One of history’s great ironies is upon us: The forces of social destruction created by the rise of businesses administration and economics as academic disciplines is now being visited on those very same academic institutions. The most glaring example has been the at the University of Virginia, in which very wealthy alumni and other associated with business-oriented ideas about education tried to oust the school’s chancellor. I expect this will happen more frequently in the coming years as part of the same wave of privatizing and virtual education that we’ve been writing about.
In short, Frankenstein’s monster has come back to the castle!
Cultural lag being what it is, the theories of business administration and economics being visited on academic institutions and the educational system at large are somewhere around 100 years behind the best current thinking in those areas.
Well, as the husband of a teacher and a school board member, and having read a number of books and articles on the history of business administration and its imposition on public education, I feel pretty certain that we’re witnessing the bleeding edge and not some century-long lag.
In fact, as I’ve written elsewhere in this ‘blog, the original reformers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were exactly like the business reformers of today–They just “knew” that schools could be run like modern businesses, with teachers acting a labor, students as products, and administrators as managers. Strict management practices would overcome the educational “crisis” and produce good workers at a low cost. And it was a complete failure that has crippled our public schools for over a century.
Read Raymond Callahan’s excellent study “Education and the Cult of Efficiency”, and you’ll see how we’ve gone nowhere in over 100 years.
And if you realize that today’s business bromides seems eerily like those of the last two centuries, you may be interested to note that most management techniques, like most pedagogical fads, seem to come around in one guise or another every generation or so. In short, most business education and management practice seems to be one big circle jer- … well, you get the idea.
Re: David Lentini
That was more or less my point, if stated somewhat differently. To use your metaphor, we are talking about a shock doctrine re-animated patchwork of corpserate ideologies, not the brand of advanced ideas we were looking forward to actualizing at the turn of the millennium.
Here’s a link to the UVA story:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/what_the_uva_firing_was_really.php
One thing these “fiscally conservative, business-minded” people never do is cut the highest level of executives/administrators. I’m sure a lot of lower and mid-level Purdue administrators can expect to be packing their bags (and probably a lot of professors too, as soon as Daniels can figure out how to get around tenure), but you needn’t worry your purty little head about Daniels’ salary, nor the jobs or salaries of the other top-level administrators.
Of course not! Follow the circular logic: The leaders claim they deserve lavish compensation, since they’re the best; and they must be the best, because they receive lavish compensation.
In other words: Everyone wants the best leaders, and the best leaders deserve lavish compensation; so, compensation doesn’t reflect the best leaders, it defines them.
Ouch! My eyeballs are still spinning!
Concerning your last statement, that’s the reaction they hope happens as while your eyes are spinning they rob you with a six pen (apologies to WG).
Check UMass on this.
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bbj_research_alert/2012/10/umass-brass-take-8-percent-pay-cut.html?appSession=155228628862867
From the article:
“It’s frustrating,” said Stucker, a 21-year-old engineering major. “They’re making ridiculous money, and they’re not even teaching students.”
(Student speaking about administrative salaries)
Sound familiar?
In order to implement all the RTTT junk our district expanded the county office work force, hired numerous consultants, bought endless Pearson Products and cut teachers.
Sigh.