UCLA Senior Management Growth in Comparison to Faculty and Students (1993-2014)
Figure 1
Data retrieved from: http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/
Figure 2
Data retrieved from: http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/
Figure 3
Data retrieved from: http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/ and http://www.aim.ucla.edu/tables/enrollment_history.aspx
Figure 4
Data retrieved from: http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/ and http://www.aim.ucla.edu/tables/enrollment_history.aspx
This graph set presents data on the growth of senior administrators in UCLA and compares them to the growth of tenure track faculty and students.
The first graph presents the long-term growth of senior administrators, tenure faculty, and non-tenure faculty and lecturers in UCLA from 1993 to 2014. The UC publishes this employment data two times per year for October and April employment numbers. The graph clearly shows that the full-time equivalent (FTE) of senior management positions grew disproportionately to tenure track faculty and non-tenure faculty in this period. In other words, the UC is hiring fewer people to teach us while hiring more people to conduct administrative affairs of the UC.
From 1993 to 2014:
Senior administration grew by 318%
Tenure track faculty grew by 13%
Non-tenure track faculty & lecturers grew by 116%
Since the most recent state budget crisis in 2008 (2008-2014):
Senior administration added 800 FTE positions
Tenure track faculty lost 100 FTE positions
Non-tenure track faculty & lecturers added 439 FTE positions
The second graph presents employment of each group as a percentage of the whole. Non-tenure track faculty remained about the same percentage (30%) throughout the period, but senior administration had increased from about 20% in 1993 to about 40% of the total in 2014 while tenure faculty decreased from 50% to 30% of the total in the same period.
The third and fourth graphs compare the number of students per full time equivalent (FTE) of tenure faculty, non-tenure faculty, and administration. Non-tenure faculty and senior administration grew at a faster rate than the student body between 1993-2014 while tenure faculty actually grew at a slightly slower rate than students in the same period.
Additionally, the student to employment ratio decreased tremendously for administrators while it remained the same for tenure faculty. In 1993, there were almost sixty students for every administrator, but in 2014 there were about eighteen students for every administrator. On the other hand, the number of students per tenure faculty remained about same at just over twenty students throughout the two decades.
There are two things to note from the information. First, it seems that more funds are being diverted from instructional positions in order to prioritize the administrative bureaucracy. The growth of management positions not only decrease faculty’s political ability to govern the UC, but it also means that the UC spends less financial resources on what public universities ought to do--educate the students of the local communities. Naturally, the question thus brought up is how much does the UC spend on administrative bloat. Though the UC does not disclose nor calculate this particular data, there have been some independent attempts to estimate it. UAW local 2865, a labor union representing UC student workers and teaching assistants, recently estimated in over two decades about $1 billion dollars have been wasted in upper-level UC administrative costs. UC Berkeley Professor Charles Schwartz, who has conducted extensive research on this subject, estimated that the total cost of UC administrative bloat had been $600 million per year. He has also estimated that UCLA in particular squanders about $54 million per year, the most out of all the UC’s. According to a 2013 official UC executive compensation report listing managers who make over $295,000 per year in total cash compensation, the forty UCLA managers listed collectively made about $19 million.
Second, the UC is hiring more lecturers--adjunct faculty-- at a much greater rate than tenure faculty, in effect replacing tenure faculty with adjuncts. The UC may rationalize this practice as a cost-saving measure, as lecturers are paid less than tenured positions, but the decision also has social consequences on faculty, students, and quality of education. Because adjunct faculty do not hold decision-making power in the UC, as opposed to tenure faculty who can participate in governing institutions like the Academic Senate, hiring more adjuncts and fewer tenured faculty means that faculty as a whole have fewer people participating in the governing process. This becomes problematic when taking into account that UC administrators are increasing rapidly in numbers. Additionally, students are less likely to have access to professors if most of their instructional workforce regularly face job insecurities and low pay, commonplace among adjunct faculty. The result is in effect a decrease in the quality of education.
The first graph presents the long-term growth of senior administrators, tenure faculty, and non-tenure faculty and lecturers in UCLA from 1993 to 2014. The UC publishes this employment data two times per year for October and April employment numbers. The graph clearly shows that the full-time equivalent (FTE) of senior management positions grew disproportionately to tenure track faculty and non-tenure faculty in this period. In other words, the UC is hiring fewer people to teach us while hiring more people to conduct administrative affairs of the UC.
From 1993 to 2014:
Senior administration grew by 318%
Tenure track faculty grew by 13%
Non-tenure track faculty & lecturers grew by 116%
Since the most recent state budget crisis in 2008 (2008-2014):
Senior administration added 800 FTE positions
Tenure track faculty lost 100 FTE positions
Non-tenure track faculty & lecturers added 439 FTE positions
The second graph presents employment of each group as a percentage of the whole. Non-tenure track faculty remained about the same percentage (30%) throughout the period, but senior administration had increased from about 20% in 1993 to about 40% of the total in 2014 while tenure faculty decreased from 50% to 30% of the total in the same period.
The third and fourth graphs compare the number of students per full time equivalent (FTE) of tenure faculty, non-tenure faculty, and administration. Non-tenure faculty and senior administration grew at a faster rate than the student body between 1993-2014 while tenure faculty actually grew at a slightly slower rate than students in the same period.
Additionally, the student to employment ratio decreased tremendously for administrators while it remained the same for tenure faculty. In 1993, there were almost sixty students for every administrator, but in 2014 there were about eighteen students for every administrator. On the other hand, the number of students per tenure faculty remained about same at just over twenty students throughout the two decades.
There are two things to note from the information. First, it seems that more funds are being diverted from instructional positions in order to prioritize the administrative bureaucracy. The growth of management positions not only decrease faculty’s political ability to govern the UC, but it also means that the UC spends less financial resources on what public universities ought to do--educate the students of the local communities. Naturally, the question thus brought up is how much does the UC spend on administrative bloat. Though the UC does not disclose nor calculate this particular data, there have been some independent attempts to estimate it. UAW local 2865, a labor union representing UC student workers and teaching assistants, recently estimated in over two decades about $1 billion dollars have been wasted in upper-level UC administrative costs. UC Berkeley Professor Charles Schwartz, who has conducted extensive research on this subject, estimated that the total cost of UC administrative bloat had been $600 million per year. He has also estimated that UCLA in particular squanders about $54 million per year, the most out of all the UC’s. According to a 2013 official UC executive compensation report listing managers who make over $295,000 per year in total cash compensation, the forty UCLA managers listed collectively made about $19 million.
Second, the UC is hiring more lecturers--adjunct faculty-- at a much greater rate than tenure faculty, in effect replacing tenure faculty with adjuncts. The UC may rationalize this practice as a cost-saving measure, as lecturers are paid less than tenured positions, but the decision also has social consequences on faculty, students, and quality of education. Because adjunct faculty do not hold decision-making power in the UC, as opposed to tenure faculty who can participate in governing institutions like the Academic Senate, hiring more adjuncts and fewer tenured faculty means that faculty as a whole have fewer people participating in the governing process. This becomes problematic when taking into account that UC administrators are increasing rapidly in numbers. Additionally, students are less likely to have access to professors if most of their instructional workforce regularly face job insecurities and low pay, commonplace among adjunct faculty. The result is in effect a decrease in the quality of education.
Composed by: Todd Lu, UCLA undergrad from Student collective against labor exploitation (SCALE)