Higher education's expansion frenzy and ponzi schemes

A few years ago, when I had at least a little bit of voice within the academic walls, I proposed to my departmental colleagues that we merge the four-person geography department with the three-person anthropology department, or at least seriously consider closer collaboration.  My idea was that we could then minimize duplication in the intellectual areas where we overlap, which will then free up resources to offer a lot more variety in both the disciplines.  It was a sure win-win, as far as I could see.

But, this proposal went nowhere.  (editor: did any of your proposals in the university ever go anywhere?) (Yes, you know-nothing-editor, I did achieve quite a few. Shut up already!)

Many academic terms have gone by since then.

A couple of weeks ago, in the annual report, the Chair of the Division notes as challenges ahead:

"With one member of our three-person department on sabbatical, the stress on other professors has been significant" and that "Small, three faculty departments in Anthropology and Sociology makes teaching and advising excessively demanding.  This is aggravated by sabbaticals and course releases."

To which I can only think, "duh!"

It does not take that metaphorical doctorate in rocket science to imagine the logistical issues that could arise out of offering programs through three-person departments. 

But, and worryingly so, this is not any unique academic story.  It is repeated across colleges and universities many times over.  Even this Great Recession apparently is incapable of arresting this trend, which is what Mark Taylor writes about in his NY Times op-ed.  He cites his own Columbia on a competitive expansionary race against NYU, even though this means both universities take on more and more debt.  Taylor writes:

Last year Columbia reported $1.4 billion in outstanding debt against a $5.89 billion endowment. N.Y.U. had a staggering $2.22 billion debt with a relatively modest $2.2 billion endowment — one that had shrunk by more than 11 percent over the previous fiscal year. For universities, as for banks, the question is not only the value of current and projected assets but also the availability of liquidity so they can pay off interim debt obligations during a time of financial instability.

Taylor, who has written many essays sharply critical of some of the practices in higher education, gives a tangible example that is not dissimilar from my own geography/anthropology example:

The competition between Columbia and N.Y.U. is an example of what educational institutions should not be doing. Universities should be looking for new ways to provide high-quality education to more students at a lower price. In today’s world, it no longer makes sense for every school to cover every subject.
For example, it is absurd for Columbia and N.Y.U. to be have competing philosophy departments at a time when there are few jobs for philosophy academics. Instead, they could cooperate by forming a joint graduate and undergraduate program, which would reduce costs by requiring fewer faculty members and a more modest physical presence, while at the same time increasing course choices for students. And in our wired world, universities on opposite sides of the globe could find similar ways to collaborate.

With every passing day, I am even more amazed than before that the public hasn't caught on and discovered that higher education has morphed into one huge ponzi scheme.