The administrative bloat critique of higher education has a deep and varied history over the last few decades. There is no doubt that there has been the perception that we have returned to an "in loco parentis" mentality as we seek to address the growing and varied needs of students outside of the classroom. Just as the research is clear that what happens outside the classroom (hunger, abuse, housing insecurity, etc.) impacts children in the K-12 environment, the same is of course true for college students. The belief that these students are legally "adults" and therefore fully capable of addressing these issues on their own has often resulted in pushback against the services and supports we offer students when they come to campus.
This increase in services means an increase in administrative positions charged with carrying out these responsibilities. As a result, the gap between spending on instruction and spending on administrative support has been steadily declining. In fact, as of 2021, private nonprofit four-year schools spend more on academic support, student services, and instructional support than they do on instruction itself. Despite this increase, the out-of-classroom challenges facing colleges and universities continues to rise.
There are, of course, many reasons for the increases in necessary support. Increases in first-generation, low-income, and older students has meant more students who may not have already possessed the cultural and social capital to prepare them for college. This evolution of the demographic makeup of college campuses can't be divorced from the system oppression and privilege that has historically kept many out of higher ed and thus unable to climb any sort of ladder. The broader debate is reminiscent of the historical disagreements around the role of government. Is the government responsible for the well-being of its' citizens and thus obligated to provide basic supports to ensure that well-being, or should it simply get out of the way and let things play out (insert the problematizing of a fully free market economy here).
Regardless of where you fall on "pure teaching" vs. "full academic and social support" spectrum, the fact that administrative roles have increased cannot be denied. Despite this fact, student affairs administrators continue to struggle to keep up with increasingly outsized workloads. It would be easy to simply assume that need is outpacing hiring in a tight and highly competitive labor market. However, as colleges and universities have adopted more and more corporate-esque practices and structures, another explanation emerges. The frozen middle has created the same effectiveness roadblocks in higher education that have exists in the business world for decades.
The "frozen middle" is a term used to describe middle managers who are perceived as blocking progress due to a lack of motivation, lack of ability, or a fear of taking risks. However, I would also say that a lack of autonomy to act in the best interests of students also factors in. A lack of psychological safety no doubt plays a part in the pinch points we are seeing in serving students as well. Very often, "that's the way we've always done it" gets in the way of new ideas that would benefit students and save on time and money. The higher education landscape, the student population, and the broader societal landscape are much different than they were 20 years ago, so the same programs and policies won't always meet students' needs. Higher ed administrators need the ability, trust, and flexibility to be able to address evolving student concerns with sometimes novel ideas. They may not always work, but the safety to try needs to be in place.
Eliminating the fear of taking risks completely is, of course, not possible. However, as higher ed has become more beholden to outside stakeholders (donors, politicians, private organizations), the fear of unwanted attention has prevented folx from doing what they know to be right. We need to trust that folx have students' best interests in mind, provide them with the support and insulation to do the work, and continue to offer them the professional development they need to grow as leaders. Not only will this focus begin to thaw the frozen middle in higher education, but it will ensure less burnout, more retention, and ultimately our ability to hold onto those individuals committed to serving our students. In the process, I am willing to bet we will begin to realize we don't necessarily need "more" people, and instead simply need to give folx the autonomy to do the work in the first place.
