I'm glad you put this poster's comments up on the big screen. They give an excellent perspective on the question of LS's "vision."
One thing I found missing in the Harvard Magazine piece was any mention of LS's disingenuous remarks on the Shleifer affair. Actually two things: I'd also include LS's "vision" for the Graduate School--which he presented differently to different constituencies, ultimately entangling himself in an untruthful statement at an FAS meeting.
 

Below is one part of the long "A Post To Remember." When I see something such as this, which is wrong, I wonder why so many FAS faculty don't bother to learn more about the finances of the FAS. Other parts of the posts clearly show that this faculty member still hasn't realized the significant changes that have occurred in the last twenty years vis- a- vis running a major research university. I would wager that the faculty member is not in the sciences. I would suggest in the time remaining before classes start, that the person who wrote the post, review all of the (FAS) Dean's annual letters and the University's annual reports for the last twenty years. If he or she reads them, perhaps a more realistic "real world" view would emerge.
"The interview concludes, as it begins, with an allusion to the growth in the endowment. This should make us all very happy. But it doesn’t, because of the artificial and punitive approach to budgeting that has been adopted under LS. I’ve gone on far too long to elaborate on this, but let me try to put the point sharply: if a major goal of the university is to enhance faculty-student contact, why is FAS being taxed and subjected to non-negotiable budget demands rather than being allowed to share in this lovely increase in the endowment to engage in a major increase in the size of its faculty?"
 

Tell me more, Anon 1:42. I'm curious where you think the knowledge gaps are....
 

Start with the "artificial and punitive approach to budgeting", then "non-negotiable budget demands", then "rather than being allowed to share in this lovely increase" and go from there.
Why doesn't the poster state specifically what justification he/she has in making those claims?
 

Come on, Anon 1.42/5.26! Let's have more argument, rather than mere quoting and assertion of incompetence. You get very heated about the penultimate bullet of the promoted poster, but really don't refute anything he/she says in his/her excellent and wide-ranging post. The tax on FAS (and other faculty) endowments has nothing to do with science vs non-science, it is across the board (brought in under Pres. Rudenstine for Allston infrastructure), and the increases in costs (building projects, fringe benefits, energy, etc. etc.) have meant that FAS has cut back on its unrestricted budgetary input to units where it can (for instance with the library) and therefore placed a burden on endowments, while the return on the endowment has not been reflected by a payout in any way commensurate with the excellent performance of the endowments. That is indeed "punitive" and "non-negotiable" if you are on the receiving end of it.
 

Professor Thomas,
Even with grade inflation, I’d give you a D for accuracy, and perhaps a C for your research. First, however, I’ll point out that at some schools at Harvard, if someone makes a statement and is challenged on that statement, it is up to the person who originally made the statement to defend it with facts. Perhaps that is not the way it works with some faculty who are in the FAS. It is up to the poster to justify his/her comments.
With regard to accuracy… I did not say that “the tax on FAS ( and other faculty)” had anything to do with “science vs non-science.”
With regard to your research, I’d like to point out that your statement “ while the return on the endowment has not been reflected by a payout in any way commensurate with the excellent performance of the endowments” is incorrect. Had you bothered to do your research and look at the past Annual Reports of Harvard, you would have seen (ill-advised) increases in endowment payouts of greater than 20% in both fiscal 2000 and 2002.
Perhaps had there been no costly million dollar exploratory art museum projects or ten of millions of dollars of cost overruns on other university projects because of incompetent management under the watch of the president before LS, there would be more money for libraries.
As far as your comment about endowment payouts, why don’t you tell us what payout you would suggest and tell us the rationale. I’ll be happy to respond.
 

Why does Anon 1:42 think that the poster he or she is criticizing is "not in the Sciences"?
Why does Anon 1:42 assume (in his or her 5:26 message) that the poster has not read past and recent budget reports quite closely?
How does Anon 1:42 explain the heavy tax on FAS and the administration's apparent unwillingness to improve the faculty/student ratio more than superficially?
 

To answer your questions (in order) Professor Ryan:
1.A person in the sciences would realize, perhaps more than a professor in the humanities, that the "the massive growth in the presidential-provostial bureaucracy" has a great deal to do with what the Federal government requires re the sciences, specifically, but not only in the grants area. The university world (not just Harvard's) has changed enormously in the last twenty five years in terms of complexity as well as the reporting and oversight functions (to a great extent relating to the sciences and the government). Obviously, Germanic languages and literatures doesn't face these requirements to the extent that other departments (and the university) do.
2.You (as do many of your colleagues) seem to have a problem with understanding many financial aspects of the university. Additionally, you inaccurately reported what I wrote (as did Professor Thomas before you). I did not, as you wrote, say anything about the poster not having read past and recent budget reports quite closely. You wrote that; I didn't say that. I wrote "review all of the (FAS) Dean's annual letters and the University's annual reports for the last twenty years."
Annual reports and Dean's letters are not budget reports. May I suggest that you learn the difference between an annual report and a budget letter. The two documents cover substantially different financial areas. I am not at Harvard,and would not have access to(internal) budgets. The annual reports and Dean's letters are public and I read them. I suggested that the poster had not read them carefully and a close reading might have given some insights into the real world financial problems that Harvard and other great research universities face.It would also, as I suggested to Professor Thomas, shed light on the endowment payout and perhaps help the poster to understand one of the reasons (perhaps the most important one)why the FAS is in the postion it is in. Then again, from what I see, it is not in the dire position that has been bandied about...if, one looks at how construction costs are accounted for. That, however, is beyond the scope of this post.
3. With regard to point #3, as I said, I am not at Harvard, and so have no comment on what is obviously an internal matter. I will note, however, that from public documents, the tax that you refer to is levied on all schools, not just the FAS. As Professor Thomas stated," [it was ]brought in under Pres. Rudenstine for Allston infrastructure."
 

Thanks for your helpful elaborations. I stand corrected about the government's increased requirements concerning reporting and oversight in the sciences. That must, indeed, place an additional administrative burden on the university. I'm not sure, though, that it explains all of the administrative expansion that has taken place at Harvard in recent years.
The distinction between the FAS Dean's letter and the published annual report is clear. With respect the more detailed annual budget reports intended for internal use, I can't say whether the anonymous poster has or has not studied them. I hope the poster will come back into this discussion and speak to those matters.
As for the "tax" on FAS, you're right: all schools at Harvard are taxed to support the Allston infrastructure. And you're right that this was brought in under Neil Rudenstine. Many of us in FAS believe that our faculty has been taxed disproportionately.
I share Richard Thomas's concern about library funding, and also the anonymous poster's concern about the faculty/student ratio in the College. I am trying to understand why the administration is not addressing these matters as vigorously as some of us believe is necessary.
 

To 9:38: yes, there were large payouts five and seven years ago, but payouts over the LAST FIVE years that were well under increases in fringe, energy and other costs (even setting aside increases due to incompetence) have led to cuts in areas not of interest to the then University leadership. You sound as if you share that lack of interest, so not much point suggesting a figure. But I woud say necessitating slightly dubious fungibility of, say, book funds, so as to avoid lay-offs, with the result that those funds are not available for things like acquisition, would be something to avoid in a world where the endowment has been performing pretty well, given what is at stake for those of us who DO care about things like libraries.
 

Contrary to the ill informed non Harvard poster, the growth in the presidential-provostial bureaucracy has little to do with "what the Federal government requires re the sciences, specifically, but not only in the grants area."

The provost's office has grown from four deputies when Hyman arrived to more than 12 now. (The count is not exact because the titles and positions are fudged on official listings.) Only one or two of the new positions (e.g. Research) have anything to do with federal or any other kind of external relations. The most notable additions and largest staff support are in sub provostial offices that are mostly internal, and not a response at all to federal or state regulation: Faculty Development and Diversity, Social Science, Culture, International Affairs, Planning and Resources (ie fundraising). Even the Science and the Technology Development officials are not much involved with what the poster refers to. Although some centralization was probably desirable, this was done without any serious thinking about what these people would actually do.
The result is a classic bureaucracy that Summers was purportedly against. I've heard (second hand) that Bok is appalled by what he has found.
 

Both Anon 1:50 and 3:49 are partially correct and partially wrong. Anon 3:49 is seriously off in a number of areas. Anon 1:58: I would not characterize “the massive growth… has a great deal to do what the Federal government requires re the sciences.” Some of it does, but I think it is better to think in terms of reporting and oversight in general, as opposed to specifically looking at science. The university world, indeed, has become much more complex and reporting and oversight has become of paramount importance.
Anon 3:49: The biggest increase is in the Faculty Development and Diversity area. That area exists because of The Report. That area is now a little fiefdom. Given the nature of the office and how it was developed, tell us what you think the consequences would have been had it been formed differently.
Three other areas of growth are International, Research and Arts and Culture. Two out of the three were faculty appointments.
While many in the FAS (including some former Deans) might argue that the school was able to execute oversight, faculty opening offices in Harvard’s name in foreign countries without authorization and hiring people in foreign countries without authorization, belie that argument. So do past research problems. Two of the other appointments, both of whom are faculty members, involve inter-faculty initiatives. These initiatives didn’t exist five, ten or twenty-five years ago. The Chief Technology Development Officer will pay for himself many, many times over. There you have it.
Why don’t you tell us what you would have done?
 

The comments from Anon 4:38 confirm exactly what many of us have been saying: the aim of the centralization especially in the Provost's office is "reporting and oversight" which has now "become of paramount importance." We thought and hoped that the Provost would "facilitate" and "coordinate"--not add another layer of bureaucracy. That was how Carnesale and Fineberg saw their job, and why they kept the office small.

The Provost and the Center should have more control if there are efficiency gains, competing opportunities, federal regulations, intellectual potential for collaboration and such. This is quite different from the oversight and reporting roles.
Complexity is not itself a reason to centralize: it may be as much a reason to let each school work out its own way of dealing with problems. If a Dean and their staffs cannot be trusted, then replace the Dean. It does not take a bureaucracy to set goals, and hold deans accountable.

Re other points that this poster raises:
-Just because the bureaucrat is a faculty member does not mean that the office or function is necessary or will be constructive. The Diversity office is headed by a much respected and liked faculty member, but the office has grown and multiplied despite her best intentions. It is ALL oversight and reporting, without any effect. It is certainly a "fiefdom" as the poster says. Summers and Hyman rushed the creation, a panicked and misguided effort to save Summers' presidency. The function is important, but can be effective only closer to the ground in the schools.

Just to be clear: I don't think professional administrators are the problem. One of the least bureacratic of the many sub provosts, the Culture Czar, is not a faculty member (a very effective holdover from the previous regime).

- Most of the interfaculty initiatives existed before Summers and Hyman (the first started by Bok, most others by Rudenstine) when the Provost's office was smaller--or non existent.

- It was the Business School that has set up the biggest (and only continuing) foreign sites. The Dean did not do this secretly. Summers was not willing to challenge the Dean. To think that sub provosts could control this tendency is naive. Using a small group of Deans themselves led by the Provost was the right approach.

- On technology transfer: although we have heard for a long time how much money there is in this area, only a few universities have made any significant amounts, and then all of it from a few (windfall) patents. We already had a tech transfer office. We didnt need another high level administrator, just more ground level work.

- Research is one of the areas that fits the criteria I mentioned. University wide regulation and coordination is necessary here to protect the whole institution (and to exploit some common advantages). THere may be a few others such areas, but the expansion of the center has proceeded so quickly and with so little explanation (and it seems, so little thought) that there is reason to doubt whether any one has applied any criteria at all.
 

The sub Provost for Planning and Resources is another new addition, whose job evidently is only to plan to gather resources in the Campaign that never was. It had to be put on hold because of Summers' failures.
But even so, why add another high level person here? If more people are necessary for a campaign, they should be in the Development Office.
The pattern seems to be if one administrator is not doing the job, then add another one in another office. And multiply the deputies, and inflate the titles.