By Professor Doom
Admin: “Plans for the new
building are now available in the Administration Building. Please feel free to
review them and make suggestions!”
--it doesn’t matter if
most of the rooms in the existing buildings are empty most of the time, there
are always plans for new buildings.
Every
university I’ve set foot on has had huge buildings that were mostly unused. One
campus had, literally, enough spare buildings to be a high school (because it
was, in fact, a high school). I “rented” a room there once for use as a
classroom. The place was spotless. There were chalkboards that, clearly, had
never been used (trust me, getting rid of every single particle of chalk dust
just isn’t going to happen, and these boards had not a speck anywhere near
them). Before the class met, I toured the building to see room after room that
was immaculate in a way that only a classroom that’s never been used can be
immaculate.
Announcement: “Our
Explorations in Mathematics class has moved to the new auditorium. Maximum
enrollment has been increased from 400 to 600.”
One
might think that the ever increasing class sizes are due to all the new
students that have come onto campus in the last few decades, but no…there’s plenty
of room. The issue is it’s so much cheaper to just have faculty teach larger
classes. Yes, buildings cost millions, but that’s a different budget.
There’s plenty of room on most campuses. Yes, there are some campuses
(especially community colleges that have experienced amazing growth) that have
issues with providing classroom space, but even then it’s only during peak
hours.
That
campus with the spare high school? It still had trailers being used year after
year for “temporary” use as classrooms.
Admin: “If you need
furniture, please fill out a requisition form. We have plenty of old furniture
available for use.”
One
quirk of campuses is that the older they are, the more the classrooms get
cluttered with furniture. Some older campuses have rooms that are veritable obstacle
courses with extra podiums and desks crammed in them. Older institutions can
have, literally, warehouses filled with old, moldering, furniture. Faculty can
order whatever they want, and it’ll be delivered…although often the reek coming
off such furniture makes it tough to use.
Why
don’t the institutions get rid of the furniture? Well, it’s a budget thing.
See, nobody actually owns that furniture, so nobody can take responsibility for
selling it. You can’t sell it. It’s branded by the university, so you can’t
take it home even if you were inclined to thievery. If you can’t use it in the
classroom, then it either sits in the room forever (I’ve seen portable
chalkboards with decades-old classwork, shoved onto the sides of rooms), or off
to the warehouse.
On
one campus the warehouse, by policy, only held furniture. The policy never
accounted for computers, and there was no way to update policy. You couldn’t
shuffle old/broken computer crap off to the warehouse (no matter how broken,
you weren’t allowed to throw computer parts away). I saw with my own eyes
several rooms, former classrooms, just filled with old monitors; presumably the
towers and floppy disk drives were elsewhere. That was years ago, but for all I
know they are still sitting there, patiently awaiting the apocalypse.
The
bizarre treatment of furniture and computer parts is due to the budget rules of
campuses in higher education; those strange rules also account for why
administrators on these campuses all seem to have edifice complexes, intent on
building structure after structure even when the institution isn’t even close
to using all the buildings it has, and there’s no possible way the institution
will use the new building all that much, either.
The
issue is everywhere, but a blog post details just how demented the situation is
in North Dakota. The title says it all:
Now,
North Dakota is hardly a state renowned for its massive population growth. The
article does a good job explaining why campuses are experiencing insane
building growth: corruption. The potential here, obviously being realized, is
immense. Trustees, presidents, and many of the higher administrators are in a
great position to get a kickback and profit in many other ways by selecting
which contractors get to build what buildings and where.
The
money for this doesn’t really come out of tuition; for public universities,
legislators usually have to work to have a bond offering…again, the potential
for corruption there is pretty straightforward. From the article:
“…Senator Lonnie Laffen
(R-Grand Forks), whose company JLG Achitects receives millions of dollars worth
of building contracts from the university system, [took]- the presidents of the
state’s two largest universities on a pheasant hunting trip in his company’s
private airplane. The universities defended the trip by claiming that the
presidents don’t have anything to do with picking which contractors get
building contracts, but it’s worth remembering that the university presidents
appoint the committees who make the decisions….”
Presidents don’t make the decisions? Seriously? What do they get those
massive salaries for? Anyway, the article is correct: the president
cherry-picks the committee that makes the decisions. He can personally destroy
anyone on the committee that doesn’t make the decision he wants. Yeah, he makes
the decision.
The
committee is a smokescreen at best. I’ve been on a few such committees, our
“decisions” are simply ignored if they don’t agree with admin, in addition to
retaliation that comes later. What’s funny about this is when admin’s decision
is criticized, they claim it was “the committee’s decision,” so we got flack
for the “bad decision” that was the exact opposite of what we said to do.
The
blog article does a great of job of showing how, obviously, all the new
buildings are completely unnecessary:
First
off, enrollment has been dropping the last few years…what business expands in
the face of a shrinking customer base?
Out of state student enrollment is increasing,
but that’s no justification in light of the overall decrease. In fact, it’s
rather insulting, since North Dakota taxpayers pay for the bonds for the
buildings, but administrators get the fat loot from the out of state tuition.
Online
student enrollment is up, further exacerbating the overall dropping of student
enrollment (and you sure don’t need buildings for online students).
Finally, Students are taking less credit hours per student. There are
less students, spending less time on campus.
Seriously, there’s no way a competent administrator can look at the
numbers and think that these institutions need many more new buildings. The
article sums up the situation nicely:
Every institution I’ve set foot on has new
buildings going up, with administrators doing cartwheels over the “success” of
putting up what will eventually be a mostly empty building. When I teach, my
classroom is packed full…while the rooms adjacent are completely empty of
students. Nevertheless, my institution always seems to have a new record of
students, every year, and I’m often taking detours from new construction on
campus.
Back to North Dakota. North Dakota hardly
has a reputation for corruption, at least no worse than many other states…and
yet their institutions of higher education are spending hundreds of millions on
new buildings. Perhaps it’s a bit worse there than in other states, but my own
eyes tell me it’s not by much.
“$960,000”
--in just the classes I teach, the students are charged this
much tuition over the course of a year. Even if students don’t actually pay
that tuition, the money comes from somewhere. I’m very lucky to be paid more
than average, but I don’t get even 5% of that figure. Where oh where could all
that money go?
The next time you hear someone saying that
higher education needs more money, or you see your local government floating
yet another bond to pay for new construction, realize that it’s all a lie.
There’s just no way the buildings are necessary, and no way the money couldn’t
be found another way.
At the institution where I used to teach, I found out what happened to the older furniture.
ReplyDeleteShortly after I started there, our department offices were relocated into an adjacaent building. Two lecture rooms were renovated, one of which became our new facilities. We were promised "new" furniture which, as it turned out, was second-hand stuff that the institution had put into storage.
What made it "new" was that somebody quickly slapped a thin coat of paint onto it, so thin that I could scratch through it with my thumbnail. My desk had drawers that didn't close properly and the top was something like arborite and was lifting at one corner. The only thing actually new were the chairs, probably because there weren't enough left over in the warehouse.
So who got a new desk? You guessed it: the department head and the secretary.