"Grants and contracts revenue represents the largest component of University revenue ($1.5 billion and 38%)."[0]<p>Indeed. Many large US universities are more accurately labeled as research centers with schools attached.<p>Because those grants are extremely restricted in what they can pay for, it's not quite accurate to include them in anything like an "available operating revenue" number.<p>[0]<a href="https://resources.finance.duke.edu/resources/docs/Financial_Reports2023-24.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://resources.finance.duke.edu/resources/docs/Financial_...</a>
I'd be curious to know the breakdown of "wages and benefits" between academics, teachers and administrative staff. I've heard that admin takes up a huge fraction of the cost. How large can it be?
From <a href="https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-facility-and-administrative-costs-rate-reimbursement-explainer-nih-20251016" rel="nofollow">https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-facility-a...</a>:<p>> Duke has a F&A rate of 61.5% with the NIH, which means that for every dollar provided to a Duke faculty member conducting research, an additional 61.5 cents is given to the University to compensate for its F&A costs.<p>This is not an uncommon overhead rate for a large university, and is in line with overhead rates at the largest government contractors. That doesn't mean it's entirely reasonable or a sign of an efficient operation.
What distinction do you draw between academics and teachers? Those are usually overlapping roles.<p>According to <a href="https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/compensation/" rel="nofollow">https://publicaffairs.vpcomm.umich.edu/key-issues/compensati...</a> (just an example of a public university), it's $376K to executives, $481K to deans, and $152.7K to faculty in FY2013. Deans usually count as ~50% admin, so we could call that $376K + $240.5K = $616.5K to admin and $240.5K + $152.7K = $393.2K to faculty, roughly a 3:2 ratio.
"Academic" is kind of a broad brush. A professor and a teacher are both academics. One difference is tenure and research. A professor is eligible for tenure, and expected to do research or scholarship. They can train grad students.<p>In contrast, most undergraduate teaching is done by "adjuncts" for whom the job is essentially gig work. Moreover, professors are considered "faculty" and adjuncts "staff," making it confusing to figure out how many employees of a university are engaged in teaching versus doing other things. For instance a faculty-to-staff ratio would be misleading.<p>Disclosure: I was an "adjunct" many years ago.
I'm an academic and its difficult for me to imagine what the fuck deans do that is worth ~3-4 times as much as the people actually teaching and doing research. Fire them into outer space, I say.
> I'm an academic and its difficult for me to imagine what the fuck deans do that is worth ~3-4 times as much as the people actually teaching and doing research. Fire them into outer space, I say.<p>I'm also an academic. To me, the primary role of a dean is to insulate me as much as possible from upper admin. I've had deans who are good at this job, and those who either aren't good at it, or think that their job is something else. The ones who are good at what I think their job is ... I'm not sure I'd want to see them get 3–4x my pay, but I'm definitely willing to pay a premium to have someone else deal with upper admin.
From the comments:<p>>The number of staff and non-tenure track faculty has ballooned dramatically since I arrived at Rice in 2004. I agree with you, that from what I've read elsewhere, it's a common phenomenon at well-resourced institutions.<p>What I've seen at a number of universities are opportunities to get hired on to things like full-time maintenance staff with better pay, job security, and work-life-balance compared to actual PhDs.<p>And maybe more likely to be a decades-long career at the same institution, compared to recognized scholars.<p>I couldn't help but notice this about ten years ago, and UH looks like it is on track too.