tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post5541474624943563562..comments2024-03-26T02:17:40.309-07:00Comments on reclaim UC: The Invisibility of Corporatization: On Sullivan and the Board of VisitorsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-42859150106077394022012-06-22T16:43:25.295-07:002012-06-22T16:43:25.295-07:00" is pretty much the definition of corporatiz..." is pretty much the definition of corporatization/privatization."<br /><br />No, it's not.silbeyhttp://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-51783569402083236722012-06-22T16:19:25.701-07:002012-06-22T16:19:25.701-07:00@silbey: "incorporating useful business pract...@silbey: "incorporating useful business practices to further the academic mission of the university" is pretty much the definition of corporatization/privatization.dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-20093163884886404962012-06-22T16:00:33.032-07:002012-06-22T16:00:33.032-07:00I certainly agree that the line is blurry, but the...I certainly agree that the line is blurry, but there's a fundamental difference between incorporating useful business practices to further the academic mission of the university and remaking the university because it does not adhere to business ideology. In one case, the business practices support "obscure" majors like German and classics. In the other, it gets rid of them.silbeyhttp://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-50662963290233506472012-06-22T14:34:59.093-07:002012-06-22T14:34:59.093-07:00@silbey: I guess this is where we differ. To me, t...@silbey: I guess this is where we differ. To me, the line between "using business methods in the service of the university and letting business ideology drive the university" is much more blurry than you suggest. After all, the administrators, regents, and visitors who advocate for, adopt, and deploy corporate mechanisms certainly believe they're doing it in the service of the university. For example, the UC administration argued that, in the wake of the 2008 collapse, a 32% tuition hike was necessary. In any case, there's a tension between your argument and the standard line about Sullivan that I outline and critique in the post, in which she comes to stand, implicitly or explicitly, for the <em>opposite</em> of corporatization, to occupy a position external to the incursion of "business methods." We both acknowledge that Sullivan was pushing corporate practices ("RCM") -- indeed, much like the BoV ("strategic dynamism") -- and therefore does not stand outside this corporatizing, privatizing movement. The difference, it seems, is that you think she was doing it responsibly, while I'm much more skeptical about the possibility of privatizing "well."dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-33375704321527420472012-06-22T14:13:14.005-07:002012-06-22T14:13:14.005-07:00Anonymous 2:48: You can run a modern university wi...Anonymous 2:48: You can run a modern university with a much, much smaller admin, that does not get paid in multiples of faculty compensation (leaving room for decent professors wages instead of forcing the growth scholars' proletarianization, AKA adjucts). That's the Scandinavian model.<br /><br />To redistribute resources to pay decent labor's wages instead of the high-inequality high managerial/admin premiums v. adjunct poverty wages (with tenure profs in the middle as a facilitative buffer), you need to have higher public education *publicly funded,* at close to 100%, not increasingly privatized as the Anglo-American system has done.Iuncta Iuvanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00252999686614794701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-26849575986132714212012-06-22T14:04:38.274-07:002012-06-22T14:04:38.274-07:00Thanks for the comments. There's a difference...Thanks for the comments. There's a difference between using business methods in the service of the university and letting business ideology drive the university. The former is what Sullivan was doing; the latter is what the BOV is doing.silbeyhttp://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-66072851654450064492012-06-22T02:12:01.774-07:002012-06-22T02:12:01.774-07:00It's not so much business models as resource a...It's not so much business models as resource allocation. Resources are finite and have to be allocated and that requires decisions. The issue is at what level are they to be made.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-38171500371360474462012-06-21T12:46:38.948-07:002012-06-21T12:46:38.948-07:00@Anonymous #2:
Nice to hear from an insider. Obvi...@Anonymous #2:<br /><br />Nice to hear from an insider. Obviously I agree with your critique of the Board of Visitors and their infatuation with David Brooks. At this point, pretty much everyone agrees they fucked up. The problem arises when people start suggesting making arguments about how the BoV's actions mark the incursion of business concepts and "mumblespeak" into the university world. By extension, they suggest that Sullivan had not only a different language but a radically separate worldview, uncontaminated with corporate concepts. That's simply false. You can't acknowledge that she was implementing RCM (however "concerned" she was about interdisciplinary work) and then turn around and call it "nonsense" that she was employing business thinking.dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-96289176203657462012-06-21T09:40:49.426-07:002012-06-21T09:40:49.426-07:00Excellent and helpful post that goes a long way to...Excellent and helpful post that goes a long way to explaining what is likely happening at UVA, with the very odd alliance of law school deans and PoMo english professors. See ongoing discussion of this post at Crooked Timber.<br /><br />Of course, understandably it leaves open a larger question: what is a genuinely progressive alternative model?Stephen Diamondhttp://www.stephen-diamond.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-35022454086458962082012-06-20T16:03:27.570-07:002012-06-20T16:03:27.570-07:00Yes and no. Sullivan was implementing RCM, but thr...Yes and no. Sullivan was implementing RCM, but through a very careful process involving faculty at all levels. I know -- I was in those meetings, as an asst professor. She and the Provost were very concerned to protect interdisciplinary collaboration, and to protect areas -- Russian literature was mentioned -- that might never become a profit center. (Analysis elsewhere has revealed that humanities often subsidize the sciences and medical schools -- as has happened at UVA. Deans of Arts and Sciences have argued this for years, and RCM might actually help them reveal this.)<br /><br />The BOV was aping mindless columns from David Brooks and airport business books, in secret, and then hoping to impose that on an entire university.<br /><br />Certainly administration is bloated at UVA as elsewhere, and salaries are too high. Donors have too much power. This happens when you have less than 10% state support. But to say that Sullivan and the Board each wanted to impose business thinking is nonsense. Pres Sullivan's parting words to the Board were that you can't run a great university like a corporation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-243675294290376991.post-13136227706977852792012-06-20T14:48:34.956-07:002012-06-20T14:48:34.956-07:00This is a really interesting analysis. I wonder wh...This is a really interesting analysis. I wonder what a university the size of UVa (or any other flagship public school) would look like without any administration. Is there a precedent for this? Or would this be totally new ground? I'd love to read something about what such a school might be like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com