<p>This entire article is great. Here's the CU part:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does overstaffing happen only at enormous public universities? Columbia, an Ivy League school, has 71 people in its athletics department. That's not coaches, that's just the A.D. office -- which includes 16 people listed as "senior administration" and a "director of enrichment services," whatever that means.</p>
<p>Coaches? The Columbia football coaching staff has 14 people, including a chaired coach -- the Patricia and Shepard Alexander Head Coach of Football. Not the football coach, the Head Coach of Football. Columbia -- not the Pittsburgh Steelers, Columbia University -- has a guy who specializes in coaching strong-side linebackers.</p>
<p>Big staffs certainly don't guarantee success. Columbia, with its top-heavy football staff, is 11-29 in its past four seasons. . . . Most likely these schools could have compiled the same records with half as many people on the football staff, or the athletic department staff.</p>
<hr>
<p>If the English Department at Columbia had the same combination, as the football program, of overstaffing and failure to send students on to career success, there would be a scandal.
<p>Not sure I see the point of this article being on here. I’m sure Columbia has reason to staff their department as they do. It’s not like the university is strapped for cash or is depriving their students because of athletics. At least they are giving people jobs through the department. And who knows? Columbia might have an awesome season to justify it all.</p>
<p>Columbia,… not known for being an athletic powerhouse in the country (not even in Ivy League), has too many people “working” for its Athletics Department. At least it’s not one of the public schools who cry for the lack of funding…</p>
<p>It’s abundantly clear that you either didn’t read the article or have serious reading comprehension issues. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Leaving the football issue aside, I think the real problem is that Columbia’s entire administration is bloated and inefficient. One of Columbia’s major flaws is its bureaucratic, red-tape filled administration. For example, there seem to be 12,000 useless “deans” floating around the campus, yet the advising system isn’t particularly great (it was terrible in my day, but people say it’s slightly better these days).</p>
<p>Because Columbia’s entire administration is bloated (both on the scholastic and athletic sides), tuition dollars and alumni donation dollars are going to pay the salaries (and excellent benefits) for all these useless employees. This money could be better spent.</p>
<p>I should note that this isn’t a Columbia-only problem. I’m sure these public schools that Easterbrook discusses have bloated academic administrations, too.</p>
<p>I understood the article. You didn’t answer my question however. There are always ways that schools could better spend the money they have. However, considering that Columbia has ample funding and do not leave their students wanting, I do not see the POINT of bashing their department, especially over something as trivial as the football department which is Ivy, Division I.</p>
<p>I come from the state that houses Duke, UNC, and NC State! I’ve seen firsthand what a “bloated” football system looks like and how detrimental it can be to the surrounding schools, the students themselves, and governing systems. That is where my statement of point comes from. Is he bashing because spend and they haven’t had a lot of wins? (If that’s the case, what does he suppose is the solution? Maybe the football players themselves aren’t good?) </p>
<p>And if the entire administration is bloated as you say, what could they improve on in your opinion? Talking to people who are current students and people who have graduated there, I have not heard anything negative about the workings of administration there. I could have heard biased opinions but if their only flaw is giving someone a job who might not need one, there are worse crimes.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that I understand the problem. People from here couldn’t go to UNC because they didn’t have the financial aid, but UNC is continually spending hundreds of thousands on some football kid that probably won’t graduate. However, that’s not a big issue at Columbia so I don’t understand the point of bashing their department for being large, though I am open to seeing it as you do.</p>
<p>Columbia doesn’t leave its students wanting as some bad state school would. It can just raise tuition whenever it needs to pay for its bloated expenditures – and people will pay because it’s Columbia (and alums will donate to provide fin aid for kids who can’t pay).</p>
<p>Columbia does leave its students wanting a good football team. The point of the article is that athletic departments flush money down the toilet on useless staff, and none of this spending has anything to do with on-the-field success. Heck, Columbia might be able to field a better football team by putting these salaries back into the football program to use for other things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think his solution is that these schools will do no worse on the football field if they eliminate some of these useless athletic dept positions. He criticizes the bloated athletic depts at both winning (Ohio St) and losing (Columbia) football schools, and has the same problems with each category. Read what he says about Vanderbilt. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The students/alums on this board talk about it all the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Columbia’s business isn’t to provide jobs for people to do nothing (or very little). Its business is to educate its students etc etc. If too much of your tuition is being used to pay the salaries of useless administrators (instead of for lab equipment, professor salaries, etc.), Columbia is being irresponsible with your money.</p>
<p>And many Columbia kids have parents who are not poor enough to get free tuition and struggle to pay Columbia’s very expensive tuition. It’s not fair to them to drive the cost up any more than necessary.</p>