(09-26-2023, 03:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote: (09-25-2023, 09:25 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I was at an "unofficial" class reunion event less than 2 weeks ago and there were several "open mic" sessions where we put our names into a hat and were encouraged to speak our minds for 3-4 minutes. The first speaker was a respected attorney, who had been a successful prosecutor in his work years, and he immediately tore into the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding Stanford's actions on a number of fronts -- the MTL fiasco, the axing (and restoration) of 11 sports, the whole process leading up to Katie Meyer's suicide, the Pac12/ACC cloud, etc etc.
Running a university is not like running a business, nor should it be, in that its core mission is not to produce a positive return on investment for shareholders. That is not to say that certain aspects of running the university cannot be more efficient, and some of that efficiency can take lessons from businesses, but let's face it, even most businesses are not run all that efficiently, and it turns out that a lot of the most lucrative businesses aren't doing it by being more efficient than others but rather by setting up an deep moat and extracting economic rents.
Academia can best be thought of as a confederation of small businesses, each run by a tenured faculty member. Those faculty members are generally at the apex of their field and accept lesser salaries in exchange for lifetime employment. Since a large share sustain themselves on grants, the university possesses neither carrots (money) nor sticks (threat of severance) that they can use to induce faculty members to do what the university wants; add to that the fact that many faculty members have an ego that comes from being at the top of their field, that they have a large degree of self governance (aka the faculty senate) and it is no wonder that the University President has limited ability to "run" the university like a business.
Finally, unlike a business, where it is easy to identify the primary stakeholders (shareholders), a University has multiple stakeholders with many different priorities (most of whom, and please don't take this the wrong way, don't prioritize athletics). There are students, of course, but also faculty, alums, donors, the government, and patients. Patients, you ask? Stanford might be described as a healthcare system with a university side gig. Last year, 61% of operating revenues came from healthcare services, compared to only 5% that came from student income, 12% that came from the endowment, and another 12% that came from grants, mostly from the US government; 58% of operating expenses went to Stanford Healthcare and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (they are reported separately), compared to 42% which went to the University. Athletics, by the way, is a rounding error lumped together with housing and dining services, the alumni association, and "other activities" under "Auxiliary activities", which, combined, makes up about 4% of the University's operating expenses. "Stanford's budget during the 2021-2022 academic year was $7.2 billion, while athletics expenses totaled just over $157 million that year — about 2% of the university's budget." (link).
I hate to break it to you guys, but while athletics might have a very strong emotional appeal to the self-selected members of this board, it is mentioned exactly once in the most recent annual financial report (under the definition of "auxiliary services"). If the University were a business, athletics would be someone's legacy passion program that at most has a few vocal champions but contributes little to the bottom line, is at best a weak strategic fit, and is ripe for elimination at the next strategic reorganization. It is only because Stanford is not run like a business that the Athletics department lives on.
BC
Very well said, BC.
Universities actually predate any modern businesses. The basic organizational structure dates to medieval times (Bologna, Oxford, Paris all about 1090-1150.) The modern corporation dates only to 1602 with the Dutch East India company and the invention of the stock market.
Weber brilliantly analyzed organizational theory and structure. While corporations are hierarchical and monocratic, universities are collegial. Collegial power is shared widely among professional experts, while monocratic power moves from the top down. Universities have changed a great deal in the last century and become much more corporate/monocratic than they once were, but at their heart there is still a collegial culture. What this means is that most key decisions are made collectively. The Trustees on the one hand, or the Academic Senate on the other, are far more powerful than any collective bodies in a modern for-profit corporation--even than a Board of Directors.
Those who wish universities were run "more like a business" usually mean they are frustrated with the slow, incremental, collectively approved changes that universities make in an era when fast change seems necessary. They have been saying that for more than 400 years now. And they are not entirely wrong to say that. Universities are by design inherently conservative in structure, even if they are progressive in focus. But that can also be an advantage when it comes to prioritizing their core academic mission over all else.
What does all this have to do with athletics? Whatever our own personal entertainment values might be, and whatever our own wishes might be, Stanford will never rank athletics as equal to its core academic mission. Athletics will lose every time there is an overt conflict. The key to making athletics successful at Stanford is to create a program that has few/no conflicts with the core mission. In the past, this has not been implausible. Stanford has taken pride in "Nerd Nation" and "the best of both worlds" and "the 40 year decision." Athletics flourished here when it was packaged as something that actually supported the academic mission.
That model has largely been exploded in an era of mercenary athletes perpetually on the move for fame and fortune. But I do not think all is necessarily lost. You can say that the old ideals of academics first, amateur status, honor and loyalty are naive in the new environment. But even if 99% of universities agree and abandon those old fashioned ideals, there might be room for one elite university to be successful by upholding them. In fact, it could become a recruiting tool if we are the ONLY university that values those things and still prioritizes athletic success. That might be sold to recruits. It is not that different than the story we sold in 2007-2012 or so under different circumstances. It DOES need the right sales force.
