ON CAMPUS
campusreview.com.au
administration existed. In fact, the university
seemed to run successfully under the
oversight of a vice-chancellor, a registrar
and a bursar – all with small well-organised
and functioning departments. Only rarely
did they intrude on departmental affairs. I
just concluded that academics managed
the university and that administrative staff
were there simply to offer background
assistance when academics needed advice
on leave, travel and enrolment procedures.
How different things are now. Today, we
are confronted by a veritable army of
administrators who intrude – for want of a
better term – on every aspect of our daily
life. Many answer only to a higher authority
and some have absolutely no idea what
universities are about.
At the very top, we now have a vicechancellor surrounded by a legion
of deputy vice-chancellors, pro vicechancellors, vice-principals, finance
directors, chief operating officers, directors
of strategic planning, directors of human
resources and executive deans, many on
high salaries supplemented by annual
bonuses. As well, most departments,
schools and faculties have their own array
of administrative staff. Indeed, in most
universities, the number of administrative
staff exceeds the number of academic staff.
We are now confronted by a centralised
and hierarchical management system with
a wide range of formalised management
procedures and requirements, as well
as a group of managers whose primary
allegiance is to the university senior
leadership team. Despite all this, many
academics do have the good fortune
to work with skilled, sympathetic and
understanding departmental administrators.
But why has this administrative revolution
taken place? Can academics not be
trusted to run an efficient department,
or is it because the technological and
administrative revolution necessitate people
who devote themselves to keeping the
ship afloat? To be sure, universities are now
much more complex entities than was
once the case. People argue that they need
to be run like businesses in the corporate
world and that academics need to be better
overseen and managed.
There is little doubt that universities are
now large and complex institutions. Gone
are the days of 2000 or so students. Now
we are confronted by cohorts of 40,000
or 50,000. Many resemble small colonies
with local governors supported by a cadre
of official administrators and answering
only to an appointed elite. In consequence,
the range of administrative activities has
increased. The downside of this is that
most academics are now confronted by a
host of managerial demands for accounts,
spending, travel, leave, working off campus,
research productivity, grant applications,
career assessments, course design,
promotion and the like.
All academics must now have an official
appointed supervisor and are required to
submit a detailed annual performance
review, undergo an annual formal interview
and lodge endless annual reports. To some,
this is overly bureaucratic and divisive. It also
diverts academics from what universities
should be about – research, teaching,
postgraduate supervision and outreach.
And what about student organisations?
Once they were seen as a critical part of the
university scene, responsible for the running
of all student facilities from cafeterias to
meeting rooms. In my Auckland days,
the student executive was responsible
for looking after all student facilities,
produced a regular student newspaper
and magazine, and planned and ran work
camps, sports tournaments, capping
Week, the graduation ball and the formal
graduation march down Auckland’s main
street. Today, while some bits of this remain
in students’ hands, much has disappeared
and the central administration has taken
over the organisation and management
of most student facilities. In many ways,
this has deprived students of ownership
and involvement in university life. Like
academics, students have been subjected to
the machinations of a new business model.
So what does the future hold? Are
academics likely to become mere cogs
in a bureaucratic managerial system? Will
a proportion of undergraduate teaching
remain the domain of casual staff? Will
the number of top-level administrators
continue to grow? Are students destined to
watch from the sidelines as administrators
run what was once their responsibility? So
many questions remain to be answered.
Perhaps a step in the right direction
would be for those from the higher
echelons of the university to build trust and
respect by establishing a more personal
relationship with academic staff; even, dare
I say, visiting them in their rooms. ■
Peter Curson is an emeritus professor
at Macquarie University’s faculty
of medicine and health sciences
and is