Discussion on question by Franck Dernoncourt: Why does the ratio of non-instructional to instructional full-time staff keep increasing in US universities?

Feeds

01:18

0

Q: Why does the ratio of non-instructional to instructional full-time staff keep increasing in US universities?

Liminary note: I'd like to emphasize I'm asking this question neutrally. There could be some good reason for that trend, such as more non-instructional research staff. I saw on https://x.com/DOGE/status/1869811780543021359 : Beware that the y-axis starts at 50,000 rather than 0. The plot shows ...

united-states

Snijderfrey

Would you calculate the ratio to see if there is such a trend at all?

Franck Dernoncourt

@Snijderfrey about 20% increase in 10 years

Jon Custer

Those numbers make no sense at all in terms of any university that I know of. It seems to me that actual professors are not included in 'instructional staff'.

Arno

Given the source, it seems unlikely to me that the data shown is an accurate reflection of anything. Please look for a reasonable data source instead.

Franck Dernoncourt

@Arno what's wrong with the US National Center for Education Statistics?

Jon Custer

01:18

The engineering school I went to offered non-credit classes in the machine shop. That is an instructor. Same for teaching first aid in outdoor programs. This graphic is being intentionally misleading to push an agenda.

Franck Dernoncourt

@JonCuster Answers rebuking the graph are welcome

Arno

@FranckDernoncourt Who made the graph? How are they classifying people?

Franck Dernoncourt

@Arno 1) I believe US DOGE 2) i.sstatic.net/rEbv8bjk.png (UC Berkeley)

Stephan Kolassa

I do not understand the downvotes. How does this question "not show any research effort, is unclear or not useful"? If, e.g., people believe that the data underlying the question are misinterpreted, then by all means please write an answer explaining this. This is indeed a question that quite a number of people are wondering about, whether misguidedly so or not.

Lazzaro Campeotti

Whatever the specifics of the data, I would be interested to know why the y-axis starts at 50,000 rather than 0.

MisterMiyagi

01:18

@StephanKolassa The question still has a significant lack of an actual source for the ratio it asks about. That the current answer basically opens by rejecting the premise of the question kind of speaks against sufficient research effort.

Franck Dernoncourt

@MisterMiyagi Ratio comes from nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/SelectVariables.aspx,

MisterMiyagi

@FranckDernoncourt Feel free to include the actual ratio data in the question itself. I don’t directly see it there in your link.

Franck Dernoncourt

@MisterMiyagi i.sstatic.net/YjbTDnKx.jpg divide blue by red

MisterMiyagi

@FranckDernoncourt Please go ahead and do so, then. Then include the results in your question.

Franck Dernoncourt

@MisterMiyagi The plot shows that the number of full-time instructional staff has remained relatively stable over the years. However, the plot also shows a much larger count of full-time non-instructional staff, which has been increasing over time. Therefore the ratio has been increasing over time.

MisterMiyagi

01:18

@FranckDernoncourt I see both bars increasing over time. The blue bar is "relatively stable" only compared to the much larger bar, but it does not stay constant. The 2020, 2021 red bars are notably larger than the 2012, 2013 red bars, for example.

Franck Dernoncourt

@MisterMiyagi you're missing the fact that the y axis starts at 50k, so red barely changes in relative terms.

MisterMiyagi

@FranckDernoncourt Maybe. At least my eyeball estimate isn't clear either way, there's well room for a 10%-20% change. Which just underlines that the question should provide that data instead of having everyone eyeball themselves.

Bryan Krause

Downvoting for propagating a horrible graphic with misleading axes. These are choices made by the poster and not necessary to pose the question.

Ian Sudbery

I wonder if a title that implied more scepticism or at least neutrality on the validity of the claim on which this question is based might be more appropriate. E,g, "What is behind the claim that ratio of instructional to non-instructional staff is increasing at US universities?"

ZeroTheHero

'cuz universities have finally figured out that their target consumers are more interested in the latest gym equipment than the latest physics labs.

Franck Dernoncourt

01:18

@BryanKrause I didn't want to redo the graph.

Bryan Krause

I don't care very much if laziness is the reason that you chose to propagate a poor graphic with misleading axes, that's not much of a defense, is it?

Franck Dernoncourt

@BryanKrause I've added "Beware that the y-axis starts at 50,000 rather than 0. The plot shows that the number of full-time instructional staff has remained relatively stable over the years (around 60k). The plot also shows a much larger count of full-time non-instructional staff, which has been increasing over time. Therefore the ratio of non-instructional to instructional full-time staff has been increasing over time (~20% in from 2012 to 2022)." to help readers understand the plot.

Buffy

Interesting that most universities describe their employees with separate categories for "faculty" and "staff" along with "administration", the second being support personnel, not teaching or research faculty. And in recent times that support function has been declining, leaving faculty to do their own typing, and such. Is this propaganda with manipulated numbers intended to justify the destruction of the Department of Education, along with all the others?

Jochen Glueck

I am having difficulties to make sense of the distinction between "instructional staff" and "research staff" (which appears both in the UC Berkeley data in the question and in the chart in Ian Sudbery's answer. If a full-time employee is employed both for teaching and research, to which category do they count? Could anyone familiar with the US university system and the data (or similar data) try to clarify this?

smci

09:21

The statement of the claim is loose and potentially misleading for three reasons:

a) Why compare *ratio of staff (Headcount)* instead of the ratio of spending, which is going to be more informative? (and invariant to whether there was a change from 5 part-time or 3 full-time administrators). Also where professors were replaced with adjuncts, headcount might even have gone up while instructional spending went down.

b) Better to replace the "keep increasing.." (i.e. through 2021, 2024) claim with "increase from 1970-2020", which is uncontroversial fact [0]. Presumably the years 2020-2 were …

Transcript for

Discussion on question by Franck Dern…