[Mick]

As a proud slug, I both take pride in and offense to this characterization. More accurately, the offense taken is in its tone.

Tirien Steinbach, so-called Diversity Dean at Stanford Law School (not diversity of thought), is an "Infiltrant" from East Bay.  
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/tirien-steinbach/
... Find a more "GOVT FIRST", left-wing C.V. if you can:
Undergrad from UC Santa Cruz (Socialist at a minimum), then UC Zerkeley Law School (1999) 

I grew up in Santa Cruz, and my dad had a store not too far from the UCSC campus. Many of our customers were students, staff or professors at UCSC. There were a fair number of socialists and certainly a large number of countercultural types, hippies, stoners, surfers, etc.

When I was a senior in HS, we had to volunteer time as part of a Sociology class. I was assigned to work at the UCSC day care center with a friend of mine. I didn't look forward to supervising the children of hippies/surfers/stoners, etc. I had the worst stereotypes in mind, but it turned out to be the exact opposite. Great kids, respectful, amazingly clean cut, and very smart and interested in getting smarter. Had a lot of fun, actually.

[Mick]

As a proud slug, I both take pride in and offense to this characterization. More accurately, the offense taken is in its tone.

Tirien Steinbach, so-called Diversity Dean at Stanford Law School (not diversity of thought), is an "Infiltrant" from East Bay.  
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/tirien-steinbach/
... Find a more "GOVT FIRST", left-wing C.V. if you can:
Undergrad from UC Santa Cruz (Socialist at a minimum), then UC Zerkeley Law School (1999) 

I grew up in Santa Cruz, and my dad had a store not too far from the UCSC campus. Many of our customers were students, staff or professors at UCSC. There were a fair number of socialists and certainly a large number of countercultural types, hippies, stoners, surfers, etc.

When I was a senior in HS, we had to volunteer time as part of a Sociology class. I was assigned to work at the UCSC day care center with a friend of mine. I didn't look forward to supervising the children of hippies/surfers/stoners, etc. I had the worst stereotypes in mind, but it turned out to be the exact opposite. Great kids, respectful, amazingly clean cut, and very smart and interested in getting smarter. Had a lot of fun, actually.

[82lsju]

"Drell, who serves as the University’s chief budget officer, presented next year’s $8.9 billion consolidated budget for operations, which includes the University’s operating revenues and expenses. The plan also includes a $1.9 billion general funds budget for academic operations and an $800 million capital budget as part of the multi-year capital plan.

“The consolidated budget was a mere $6.3 billion in 2017,” Drell said, “so this university truly continues to grow.”"
[url=https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/15/provost-announces-annual-budget/?utm_content=May-16-2023&fbclid=IwAR3QKxE9ccdljVCs3P1703yGioh4muREhccPdJ9lklLWOFYkcILOWx4zI_4][/url]

the annual growth in the budget has been ~6% per year from 2017-18 to 2023-24

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/15/pro...al-budget/

[82lsju]

"Drell, who serves as the University’s chief budget officer, presented next year’s $8.9 billion consolidated budget for operations, which includes the University’s operating revenues and expenses. The plan also includes a $1.9 billion general funds budget for academic operations and an $800 million capital budget as part of the multi-year capital plan.

“The consolidated budget was a mere $6.3 billion in 2017,” Drell said, “so this university truly continues to grow.”"
[url=https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/15/provost-announces-annual-budget/?utm_content=May-16-2023&fbclid=IwAR3QKxE9ccdljVCs3P1703yGioh4muREhccPdJ9lklLWOFYkcILOWx4zI_4][/url]

the annual growth in the budget has been ~6% per year from 2017-18 to 2023-24

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/05/15/pro...al-budget/

[Goose]

OK, back to the trees! Although many of you may know this already, I thought I would summarize what actually was done regarding the tree removal. Despite Stanford's attempts to characterize the tree removal as difficult, it was accomplished fairly rapidly. The reported initial plan was to spend about 5 days removing 4 trees. As I pointed out at the time, that would leave quite a few arguably dangerous large eucalyptus on the Santa Clara side of the creek. Stanford decided to "do the right thing" (more or less) and actually spent three weeks (blocking the right lane on Alpine Road) and removed a reported total of 10 trees. They hauled away most but not all of the trunks.

The grove of eucalyptus is greatly reduced, but strangely enough not eliminated. There are still some fairly large trees on the Santa Clara side of the creek. The only trees removed on the San Mateo side of the creek, as near as I can determine, were trees that were "in the way" of clearing the other side of the creek. Several very large eucalyptus that are very close to Alpine Road remain. The rationale may be that while they are close to Alpine they are (relatively) far from the creek and are therefore unlikely to be undermined and fall. Additionally, a rather large impromptu memorial to the man who was killed has grown up on the site where the trees were removed.

[Goose]

OK, back to the trees! Although many of you may know this already, I thought I would summarize what actually was done regarding the tree removal. Despite Stanford's attempts to characterize the tree removal as difficult, it was accomplished fairly rapidly. The reported initial plan was to spend about 5 days removing 4 trees. As I pointed out at the time, that would leave quite a few arguably dangerous large eucalyptus on the Santa Clara side of the creek. Stanford decided to "do the right thing" (more or less) and actually spent three weeks (blocking the right lane on Alpine Road) and removed a reported total of 10 trees. They hauled away most but not all of the trunks.

The grove of eucalyptus is greatly reduced, but strangely enough not eliminated. There are still some fairly large trees on the Santa Clara side of the creek. The only trees removed on the San Mateo side of the creek, as near as I can determine, were trees that were "in the way" of clearing the other side of the creek. Several very large eucalyptus that are very close to Alpine Road remain. The rationale may be that while they are close to Alpine they are (relatively) far from the creek and are therefore unlikely to be undermined and fall. Additionally, a rather large impromptu memorial to the man who was killed has grown up on the site where the trees were removed.

[winflop]

That Tirien Steinbach still remains an employee of Stanford is utterly and completely shameful, one of several poxes on this once-great University.

[winflop]

That Tirien Steinbach still remains an employee of Stanford is utterly and completely shameful, one of several poxes on this once-great University.

[akiddoc]

The administrators who have no sense of Stanford's core values are only concerned with protecting the Stanford brand rather than protecting the students.  I think we need to make this known to Howard Wolf...and he needs to take appropriate action.

 

AGREE, BECAUSE HOWIE IS AN ALUM ('78) -- He can't do much with ONE letter / email; he can do a more with 100 emails.
Especially from donors and Season Ticket holders.  
Attach Victor Davis Hanson's trenchent analysis of March 19, 2023. 
What Happened to Stanford ?
https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/19/what-...-stanford/

Tirien Steinbach, so-called Diversity Dean at Stanford Law School (not diversity of thought), is an "Infiltrant" from East Bay.  
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/tirien-steinbach/
... Find a more "GOVT FIRST", left-wing C.V. if you can:
Undergrad from UC Santa Cruz (Socialist at a minimum), then UC Zerkeley Law School (1999) 
Followed by East Bay Community Law Center
Served for two years as the Chief Program Officer at the ACLU of Northern California.
She has been recognized for her social justice legal work, receiving both Equal Justice Works and Berkeley Law Foundation fellowships

Has not EVER set foot in Business, let alone high tech.  Not even manufacturing hemp oil.  
She is to the Left of Sanders.  Stanford has allowed those hostile to its values of freedom and enterprise to just infiltrate and multiply.   
ADP

The ACLU and Clean Slate are far from government organizations.

[akiddoc]

The administrators who have no sense of Stanford's core values are only concerned with protecting the Stanford brand rather than protecting the students.  I think we need to make this known to Howard Wolf...and he needs to take appropriate action.

 

AGREE, BECAUSE HOWIE IS AN ALUM ('78) -- He can't do much with ONE letter / email; he can do a more with 100 emails.
Especially from donors and Season Ticket holders.  
Attach Victor Davis Hanson's trenchent analysis of March 19, 2023. 
What Happened to Stanford ?
https://amgreatness.com/2023/03/19/what-...-stanford/

Tirien Steinbach, so-called Diversity Dean at Stanford Law School (not diversity of thought), is an "Infiltrant" from East Bay.  
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/tirien-steinbach/
... Find a more "GOVT FIRST", left-wing C.V. if you can:
Undergrad from UC Santa Cruz (Socialist at a minimum), then UC Zerkeley Law School (1999) 
Followed by East Bay Community Law Center
Served for two years as the Chief Program Officer at the ACLU of Northern California.
She has been recognized for her social justice legal work, receiving both Equal Justice Works and Berkeley Law Foundation fellowships

Has not EVER set foot in Business, let alone high tech.  Not even manufacturing hemp oil.  
She is to the Left of Sanders.  Stanford has allowed those hostile to its values of freedom and enterprise to just infiltrate and multiply.   
ADP

The ACLU and Clean Slate are far from government organizations.

[CompSci87]

Can we please stop before we tread further into left vs. right politics?

[CompSci87]

Can we please stop before we tread further into left vs. right politics?

[JJJ]

Spiny was on the same zoom call that I was on last week, when the topic of admin growth was brought up. Howard shared with us this article, which sheds some light on the topic, JFYI.

It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to click through. Hope that's not against the rules.

Public discussion earlier this year on the growth of Stanford’s administrative staff was misleading and simplistic, as it failed to recognize the complexity and breadth of Stanford, which essentially operates as a municipality, Provost Persis Drell told the Faculty Senate during her annual budget report on Thursday.
When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said.
Drell explained that Stanford possesses several unique characteristics that require critical staff support: large land holdings; a rapidly growing medical enterprise; the Stanford Research Park, a business park focused on research and development; and substantial housing for faculty and students.
Staff growth has primarily come from the School of Medicine, which in the last five years has seen a 5.6% per year staff growth rate, greatly exceeding that of the rest of the university at 1.7% per year. This influx was driven by increasing clinical activities with the opening of the new hospital and expanding research programs. This has been accompanied by growth in the number of faculty, clinician educators, graduate students, and postdocs in the School of Medicine, which increased the need for administrative support.
It’s also important to understand how Stanford defines terms used in headcount growth since those definitions vary widely among research universities, Drell noted. For example, clinician educators, which have grown significantly in number, are categorized as “staff” at Stanford, while at other universities they are often counted as “faculty.” In addition, and in contrast to many other institutions, Stanford has chosen to focus more on hiring staff in many areas rather than using outside contractors whose employees would not count as Stanford staff.
Staff growth outside the School of Medicine has been volatile through the period of the pandemic, Drell said. Most staff numbers actually contracted during the pandemic years with attrition and layoffs. However, in some areas, such as Residential & Dining Enterprises, there has been significant recent growth to accommodate the fall 2022 arrival of an incoming first-year undergraduate class that was more than 20% larger than classes in prior years. In addition, with the opening of the Escondido Village Graduate Residences in 2020, about 2,000 more graduate students are living on campus. Staff growth reflects these trends, Drell said.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...f-numbers/

[JJJ]

Spiny was on the same zoom call that I was on last week, when the topic of admin growth was brought up. Howard shared with us this article, which sheds some light on the topic, JFYI.

It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to click through. Hope that's not against the rules.

Public discussion earlier this year on the growth of Stanford’s administrative staff was misleading and simplistic, as it failed to recognize the complexity and breadth of Stanford, which essentially operates as a municipality, Provost Persis Drell told the Faculty Senate during her annual budget report on Thursday.
When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said.
Drell explained that Stanford possesses several unique characteristics that require critical staff support: large land holdings; a rapidly growing medical enterprise; the Stanford Research Park, a business park focused on research and development; and substantial housing for faculty and students.
Staff growth has primarily come from the School of Medicine, which in the last five years has seen a 5.6% per year staff growth rate, greatly exceeding that of the rest of the university at 1.7% per year. This influx was driven by increasing clinical activities with the opening of the new hospital and expanding research programs. This has been accompanied by growth in the number of faculty, clinician educators, graduate students, and postdocs in the School of Medicine, which increased the need for administrative support.
It’s also important to understand how Stanford defines terms used in headcount growth since those definitions vary widely among research universities, Drell noted. For example, clinician educators, which have grown significantly in number, are categorized as “staff” at Stanford, while at other universities they are often counted as “faculty.” In addition, and in contrast to many other institutions, Stanford has chosen to focus more on hiring staff in many areas rather than using outside contractors whose employees would not count as Stanford staff.
Staff growth outside the School of Medicine has been volatile through the period of the pandemic, Drell said. Most staff numbers actually contracted during the pandemic years with attrition and layoffs. However, in some areas, such as Residential & Dining Enterprises, there has been significant recent growth to accommodate the fall 2022 arrival of an incoming first-year undergraduate class that was more than 20% larger than classes in prior years. In addition, with the opening of the Escondido Village Graduate Residences in 2020, about 2,000 more graduate students are living on campus. Staff growth reflects these trends, Drell said.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...f-numbers/

[qwerty49]

Spiny was on the same zoom call that I was on last week, when the topic of admin growth was brought up. Howard shared with us this article, which sheds some light on the topic, JFYI.

It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to click through. Hope that's not against the rules.

Public discussion earlier this year on the growth of Stanford’s administrative staff was misleading and simplistic, as it failed to recognize the complexity and breadth of Stanford, which essentially operates as a municipality, Provost Persis Drell told the Faculty Senate during her annual budget report on Thursday.
When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said.
Drell explained that Stanford possesses several unique characteristics that require critical staff support: large land holdings; a rapidly growing medical enterprise; the Stanford Research Park, a business park focused on research and development; and substantial housing for faculty and students.
Staff growth has primarily come from the School of Medicine, which in the last five years has seen a 5.6% per year staff growth rate, greatly exceeding that of the rest of the university at 1.7% per year. This influx was driven by increasing clinical activities with the opening of the new hospital and expanding research programs. This has been accompanied by growth in the number of faculty, clinician educators, graduate students, and postdocs in the School of Medicine, which increased the need for administrative support.
It’s also important to understand how Stanford defines terms used in headcount growth since those definitions vary widely among research universities, Drell noted. For example, clinician educators, which have grown significantly in number, are categorized as “staff” at Stanford, while at other universities they are often counted as “faculty.” In addition, and in contrast to many other institutions, Stanford has chosen to focus more on hiring staff in many areas rather than using outside contractors whose employees would not count as Stanford staff.
Staff growth outside the School of Medicine has been volatile through the period of the pandemic, Drell said. Most staff numbers actually contracted during the pandemic years with attrition and layoffs. However, in some areas, such as Residential & Dining Enterprises, there has been significant recent growth to accommodate the fall 2022 arrival of an incoming first-year undergraduate class that was more than 20% larger than classes in prior years. In addition, with the opening of the Escondido Village Graduate Residences in 2020, about 2,000 more graduate students are living on campus. Staff growth reflects these trends, Drell said.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...f-numbers/

Re hiring staff vs using outside contractors:  I wonder how much due diligence went into the comparative cost of staff (and all their benefits) vs outside contractors.  Having worked as an independent outside contractor most of my life, I can tell you clients always told me that, all other things being equal, the cost math rarely came out in favor of hiring staff.

[qwerty49]

Spiny was on the same zoom call that I was on last week, when the topic of admin growth was brought up. Howard shared with us this article, which sheds some light on the topic, JFYI.

It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to click through. Hope that's not against the rules.

Public discussion earlier this year on the growth of Stanford’s administrative staff was misleading and simplistic, as it failed to recognize the complexity and breadth of Stanford, which essentially operates as a municipality, Provost Persis Drell told the Faculty Senate during her annual budget report on Thursday.
When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said.
Drell explained that Stanford possesses several unique characteristics that require critical staff support: large land holdings; a rapidly growing medical enterprise; the Stanford Research Park, a business park focused on research and development; and substantial housing for faculty and students.
Staff growth has primarily come from the School of Medicine, which in the last five years has seen a 5.6% per year staff growth rate, greatly exceeding that of the rest of the university at 1.7% per year. This influx was driven by increasing clinical activities with the opening of the new hospital and expanding research programs. This has been accompanied by growth in the number of faculty, clinician educators, graduate students, and postdocs in the School of Medicine, which increased the need for administrative support.
It’s also important to understand how Stanford defines terms used in headcount growth since those definitions vary widely among research universities, Drell noted. For example, clinician educators, which have grown significantly in number, are categorized as “staff” at Stanford, while at other universities they are often counted as “faculty.” In addition, and in contrast to many other institutions, Stanford has chosen to focus more on hiring staff in many areas rather than using outside contractors whose employees would not count as Stanford staff.
Staff growth outside the School of Medicine has been volatile through the period of the pandemic, Drell said. Most staff numbers actually contracted during the pandemic years with attrition and layoffs. However, in some areas, such as Residential & Dining Enterprises, there has been significant recent growth to accommodate the fall 2022 arrival of an incoming first-year undergraduate class that was more than 20% larger than classes in prior years. In addition, with the opening of the Escondido Village Graduate Residences in 2020, about 2,000 more graduate students are living on campus. Staff growth reflects these trends, Drell said.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...f-numbers/

Re hiring staff vs using outside contractors:  I wonder how much due diligence went into the comparative cost of staff (and all their benefits) vs outside contractors.  Having worked as an independent outside contractor most of my life, I can tell you clients always told me that, all other things being equal, the cost math rarely came out in favor of hiring staff.

[Mick]

Spiny was on the same zoom call that I was on last week, when the topic of admin growth was brought up. Howard shared with us this article, which sheds some light on the topic, JFYI.

It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to click through. Hope that's not against the rules.

Public discussion earlier this year on the growth of Stanford’s administrative staff was misleading and simplistic, as it failed to recognize the complexity and breadth of Stanford, which essentially operates as a municipality, Provost Persis Drell told the Faculty Senate during her annual budget report on Thursday.
When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said.
Drell explained that Stanford possesses several unique characteristics that require critical staff support: large land holdings; a rapidly growing medical enterprise; the Stanford Research Park, a business park focused on research and development; and substantial housing for faculty and students.
Staff growth has primarily come from the School of Medicine, which in the last five years has seen a 5.6% per year staff growth rate, greatly exceeding that of the rest of the university at 1.7% per year. This influx was driven by increasing clinical activities with the opening of the new hospital and expanding research programs. This has been accompanied by growth in the number of faculty, clinician educators, graduate students, and postdocs in the School of Medicine, which increased the need for administrative support.
It’s also important to understand how Stanford defines terms used in headcount growth since those definitions vary widely among research universities, Drell noted. For example, clinician educators, which have grown significantly in number, are categorized as “staff” at Stanford, while at other universities they are often counted as “faculty.” In addition, and in contrast to many other institutions, Stanford has chosen to focus more on hiring staff in many areas rather than using outside contractors whose employees would not count as Stanford staff.
Staff growth outside the School of Medicine has been volatile through the period of the pandemic, Drell said. Most staff numbers actually contracted during the pandemic years with attrition and layoffs. However, in some areas, such as Residential & Dining Enterprises, there has been significant recent growth to accommodate the fall 2022 arrival of an incoming first-year undergraduate class that was more than 20% larger than classes in prior years. In addition, with the opening of the Escondido Village Graduate Residences in 2020, about 2,000 more graduate students are living on campus. Staff growth reflects these trends, Drell said.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...f-numbers/

Re hiring staff vs using outside contractors:  I wonder how much due diligence went into the comparative cost of staff (and all their benefits) vs outside contractors.  Having worked as an independent outside contractor most of my life, I can tell you clients always told me that, all other things being equal, the cost math rarely came out in favor of hiring staff.

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

[Mick]

Spiny was on the same zoom call that I was on last week, when the topic of admin growth was brought up. Howard shared with us this article, which sheds some light on the topic, JFYI.

It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing here so you don't have to click through. Hope that's not against the rules.

Public discussion earlier this year on the growth of Stanford’s administrative staff was misleading and simplistic, as it failed to recognize the complexity and breadth of Stanford, which essentially operates as a municipality, Provost Persis Drell told the Faculty Senate during her annual budget report on Thursday.
When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said.
Drell explained that Stanford possesses several unique characteristics that require critical staff support: large land holdings; a rapidly growing medical enterprise; the Stanford Research Park, a business park focused on research and development; and substantial housing for faculty and students.
Staff growth has primarily come from the School of Medicine, which in the last five years has seen a 5.6% per year staff growth rate, greatly exceeding that of the rest of the university at 1.7% per year. This influx was driven by increasing clinical activities with the opening of the new hospital and expanding research programs. This has been accompanied by growth in the number of faculty, clinician educators, graduate students, and postdocs in the School of Medicine, which increased the need for administrative support.
It’s also important to understand how Stanford defines terms used in headcount growth since those definitions vary widely among research universities, Drell noted. For example, clinician educators, which have grown significantly in number, are categorized as “staff” at Stanford, while at other universities they are often counted as “faculty.” In addition, and in contrast to many other institutions, Stanford has chosen to focus more on hiring staff in many areas rather than using outside contractors whose employees would not count as Stanford staff.
Staff growth outside the School of Medicine has been volatile through the period of the pandemic, Drell said. Most staff numbers actually contracted during the pandemic years with attrition and layoffs. However, in some areas, such as Residential & Dining Enterprises, there has been significant recent growth to accommodate the fall 2022 arrival of an incoming first-year undergraduate class that was more than 20% larger than classes in prior years. In addition, with the opening of the Escondido Village Graduate Residences in 2020, about 2,000 more graduate students are living on campus. Staff growth reflects these trends, Drell said.

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/05...f-numbers/

Re hiring staff vs using outside contractors:  I wonder how much due diligence went into the comparative cost of staff (and all their benefits) vs outside contractors.  Having worked as an independent outside contractor most of my life, I can tell you clients always told me that, all other things being equal, the cost math rarely came out in favor of hiring staff.

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

[Goose]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

[Goose]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

[qwerty49]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Kind of like the Civil Service, I guess. 

But hey, maybe the funding bureaucracy is beyond me, but it sure seems like if you replace some staff with contractors you don’t have to make decisions like cutting 11 sports.

[qwerty49]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Kind of like the Civil Service, I guess. 

But hey, maybe the funding bureaucracy is beyond me, but it sure seems like if you replace some staff with contractors you don’t have to make decisions like cutting 11 sports.

[qwerty49]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Kind of like the Civil Service, I guess. 

But hey, maybe the funding bureaucracy is beyond me, but it sure seems like if you replace some staff with contractors you don’t have to make decisions like cutting 11 sports.

[qwerty49]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Kind of like the Civil Service, I guess. 

But hey, maybe the funding bureaucracy is beyond me, but it sure seems like if you replace some staff with contractors you don’t have to make decisions like cutting 11 sports.

[Goose]

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Kind of like the Civil Service, I guess. 

But hey, maybe the funding bureaucracy is beyond me, but it sure seems like if you replace some staff with contractors you don’t have to make decisions like cutting 11 sports.

Stanford does have "temps", who are called in to do particular tasks and let go when those tasks are complete (in theory). However, Stanford also has a union, which ensures that the temps are union and get paid like anyone else. Temps are only allowed a certain number of hours per quarter. It that number is exceeded they have to become a "regular" employee or be replaced by another temp.

My experience is that contractors are often more expensive (in terms of "out the door" dollars) than "permanent" employees. They have three advantages. 1) You can get some expertise that you only need occasionally from people who would never work full time for your company. 2) Contractors don't need to be "laid off" when you no longer need/can't afford them. No severance or vacation to pay. 3) Most importantly contractors are treated as a "direct cost" and therefore do not get overhead applied to their charges to the project. It makes them appear much cheaper, even though you are actually paying them a higher salary than an equivalent regular employee.

These overhead charges are an allocation and are therefore not "real". It isn't just employee benefits, it is lots of other things as well. An accounting trick to be sure, but a very important one :-). When functioning as a consultant, I love it, because I can charge more and my clients are still perfectly happy!

[Goose]

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Kind of like the Civil Service, I guess. 

But hey, maybe the funding bureaucracy is beyond me, but it sure seems like if you replace some staff with contractors you don’t have to make decisions like cutting 11 sports.

Stanford does have "temps", who are called in to do particular tasks and let go when those tasks are complete (in theory). However, Stanford also has a union, which ensures that the temps are union and get paid like anyone else. Temps are only allowed a certain number of hours per quarter. It that number is exceeded they have to become a "regular" employee or be replaced by another temp.

My experience is that contractors are often more expensive (in terms of "out the door" dollars) than "permanent" employees. They have three advantages. 1) You can get some expertise that you only need occasionally from people who would never work full time for your company. 2) Contractors don't need to be "laid off" when you no longer need/can't afford them. No severance or vacation to pay. 3) Most importantly contractors are treated as a "direct cost" and therefore do not get overhead applied to their charges to the project. It makes them appear much cheaper, even though you are actually paying them a higher salary than an equivalent regular employee.

These overhead charges are an allocation and are therefore not "real". It isn't just employee benefits, it is lots of other things as well. An accounting trick to be sure, but a very important one :-). When functioning as a consultant, I love it, because I can charge more and my clients are still perfectly happy!

[Leftcoast]

How do folks here receive the Persis Drell defense (excerpt quoted below, full quote above) of the growing administration headcount under her watch?  

"When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said."

I'm skeptical.  Organizations, like empires, yearn to grow and always have "reasons" to add head-count.  Left alone they ALWAYS grow and hiring another administrator never gets the scrutiny given to hiring another academic.  Stanford's lean toward risk avoidance must be music to each department in search of a greater budget and larger staff.  In their view problems on campus are calling out for more control, more oversight, and more reporting.  They are a tool box of hammers competing to claim a loose nail and it's (partly) the provost's role to rein these tendencies in.  So, count me as skeptical.

Related - This week there is a an on-campus event where the campus is listening to alumni reps over concerns they are hearing within their alumni class cohort.  This is coming after a particularly bad PR period for the university.  I wonder what those meetings sound like?

"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy." --Dave Barry

"There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."  --Alexandre Ledru-Rollin

[Leftcoast]

How do folks here receive the Persis Drell defense (excerpt quoted below, full quote above) of the growing administration headcount under her watch?  

"When properly accounted for, staff growth has in fact been measured and fully in keeping with the growth in operations that supports the university’s key activities, Drell said."

I'm skeptical.  Organizations, like empires, yearn to grow and always have "reasons" to add head-count.  Left alone they ALWAYS grow and hiring another administrator never gets the scrutiny given to hiring another academic.  Stanford's lean toward risk avoidance must be music to each department in search of a greater budget and larger staff.  In their view problems on campus are calling out for more control, more oversight, and more reporting.  They are a tool box of hammers competing to claim a loose nail and it's (partly) the provost's role to rein these tendencies in.  So, count me as skeptical.

Related - This week there is a an on-campus event where the campus is listening to alumni reps over concerns they are hearing within their alumni class cohort.  This is coming after a particularly bad PR period for the university.  I wonder what those meetings sound like?

"When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy." --Dave Barry

"There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."  --Alexandre Ledru-Rollin

[old spanish trail]

As someone who wonders about the growth of admin in the athletic dept, I found the discussion re growth at Stanford Med interesting. And, when you take a look at the new med buildings, and personnel growth, and reputation to be preserved, it's understandable. Desirable? Dunno, though I do think the US needs as much medical expertise as it can get.

[old spanish trail]

As someone who wonders about the growth of admin in the athletic dept, I found the discussion re growth at Stanford Med interesting. And, when you take a look at the new med buildings, and personnel growth, and reputation to be preserved, it's understandable. Desirable? Dunno, though I do think the US needs as much medical expertise as it can get.

[chrisk]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Stanford did a substantial number of layoffs in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Although smoothed, the payout from the endowment decreased and loans were incurred to meet short-term cash requirements while illiquid investments were underwater.

[chrisk]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Stanford did a substantial number of layoffs in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Although smoothed, the payout from the endowment decreased and loans were incurred to meet short-term cash requirements while illiquid investments were underwater.

[82lsju]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Stanford did a substantial number of layoffs in the 2008-2009 financial crisis.  Although smoothed, the payout from the endowment decreased and loans were incurred to meet short-term cash requirements while illiquid investments were underwater.

looks like just under 500 layoffs in 2009

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/en...d/1857523/

and 208 layoffs in 2020

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...t-concerns

[82lsju]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Stanford did a substantial number of layoffs in the 2008-2009 financial crisis.  Although smoothed, the payout from the endowment decreased and loans were incurred to meet short-term cash requirements while illiquid investments were underwater.

looks like just under 500 layoffs in 2009

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/en...d/1857523/

and 208 layoffs in 2020

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020...t-concerns

[Goose]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Stanford did a substantial number of layoffs in the 2008-2009 financial crisis.  Although smoothed, the payout from the endowment decreased and loans were incurred to meet short-term cash requirements while illiquid investments were underwater.

Thus my comment about "generally". It took an epic meltdown to produce those layoffs. Even then, the 500 or so layoffs was a relative drop in the bucket compared to other institutions. I can't find the head count in 2008, but the 500 layoffs would be about 3% of the current staff. So maybe 6% back then? Nothing compared to what lots of industry was doing.

[Goose]

Ditto. My team at PwC was 90 total, 40 staff employees, 50 contractors. When times whent bad, we got rid of all the contractors. When times got worse, we cut 20% of the employees...but not until every single contractor was gone.

One big difference is that at Stanford, "times" generally don't go bad. The University isn't tied directly into the short-term economy. When the return on the endowment goes down (due to a general economic downturn) they don't shed staff, because their staff is not coupled to "profitability" or even "productivity". While a position on the Stanford staff isn't "tenured", it is close. Their are some positions that are tied to grants, and these positions are at risk if grant money dries up. Those are really the only "layoffs" that happen, and Stanford does a pretty good job of shuffling people around to avoid those.

Stanford did a substantial number of layoffs in the 2008-2009 financial crisis.  Although smoothed, the payout from the endowment decreased and loans were incurred to meet short-term cash requirements while illiquid investments were underwater.

Thus my comment about "generally". It took an epic meltdown to produce those layoffs. Even then, the 500 or so layoffs was a relative drop in the bucket compared to other institutions. I can't find the head count in 2008, but the 500 layoffs would be about 3% of the current staff. So maybe 6% back then? Nothing compared to what lots of industry was doing.