Quantifying administrative efficiency: proposed figures of merit for university comparisons and ranking.
Saved in:
| Title: | Quantifying administrative efficiency: proposed figures of merit for university comparisons and ranking. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Pearce, Joshua M. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Studies in Higher Education. Apr2026, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p802-813. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Administrative efficiency, University rankings, Administrative fees, University & college administration, Educational finance, Tuition |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| Abstract: | Administrative costs at universities have been steadily increasing in U.S. schools. These overheads are not currently directly captured in university ranking systems. In this study two approaches to administrative efficiency are proposed to overcome this oversight by measuring the ratio of administrators to faculty members and the ratio of students to administrators. Both values can be acquired from free publicly available databases and calculated easily to determine which universities are preferentially investing more in administration rather than directly into the education of their students. In this study, these approaches are compared, and open source software is provided for others to automate this basic calculation. The software was tested on data from 436 schools in the data set from the U.S. News and World Report on National Universities. The results show that only a few universities have less administrators and staff than faculty members. Remarkably, many universities have more administrators than students, and it appears clear that tuition increases are largely due to administrative bloat. The use of both methods in university ranking calculations would provide incentives to increase administrative efficiency and make university education more accessible to less-affluent students thereby encouraging meritocracy and concomitant economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Administrative costs at universities have been steadily increasing in U.S. schools. These overheads are not currently directly captured in university ranking systems. In this study two approaches to administrative efficiency are proposed to overcome this oversight by measuring the ratio of administrators to faculty members and the ratio of students to administrators. Both values can be acquired from free publicly available databases and calculated easily to determine which universities are preferentially investing more in administration rather than directly into the education of their students. In this study, these approaches are compared, and open source software is provided for others to automate this basic calculation. The software was tested on data from 436 schools in the data set from the U.S. News and World Report on National Universities. The results show that only a few universities have less administrators and staff than faculty members. Remarkably, many universities have more administrators than students, and it appears clear that tuition increases are largely due to administrative bloat. The use of both methods in university ranking calculations would provide incentives to increase administrative efficiency and make university education more accessible to less-affluent students thereby encouraging meritocracy and concomitant economic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03075079 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/03075079.2025.2493966 |
