The Five Disastrous Mistakes I Made for Managing Disruptive Students

I taught economics at Suleyman Demirel University between 2008 and 2009, a private university located in Almaty, Kazakhstan. This country was once controlled by the Soviet Union before 1991. Kazakhstan inherited the Soviet education system with a strong foundation in mathematics and sciences. 

I recently started teaching and used the standard chalk and talk. I taught Production Economics to third year students, which can be a tough course. I used basic differential calculus and introduced students to game theory. The undergraduate students studied topics that professors would cover in graduate schools in the United States. I had five extremely bright students with two possibly being brilliant, and seven male students who were rotten to the core. 

The seven horrible students talked in class and usually arrived late. As a late student strolled into the classroom, he would disrupt the entire class by shaking everyone’s hand in his row and greet them before sitting down. 

I yelled and screamed at them. I would snap at the late student and would demand to know why he came late and why he must disrupt the whole class as he walked in. 

On one Saturday morning, the male students were excessively loud, as if they were throwing a party in the classroom during the lecture. Finally, I became furious as my face erupted into a bright rosy red, and I stormed out of the classroom half way during the lecture. 

At that time, I was young and impetuous. Even though I am a little older and a touch wiser, I can still be impetuous on occasion. Nevertheless, I never reflected why these seven male, misbehaving students acted the way they did. During that time, I emulated my U.S. professors who used the traditional teaching methods. We, students, must address the professor with his or her proper title. We were afraid to disrespect the professor or talk in class, unless to ask a question. We did not want to incur the professor’s wrath. Of course, I demanded my students act like the way I acted during my college days. Students must sit quietly at their seats, transcribing their notes, and only occasionally asking the professor questions politely. 

I let the frustration and angry simmer inside me. Some days, I wanted to toss my textbooks and white board markers into the trash and quit the teaching profession. However, I always awakened early in the morning, showered, and ate breakfast, dreading the long bus ride to the campus in the morning. Other times, I contemplated about wrapping my hands around one of the bad student’s neck, squeezing the life from him, and quieting his talking forever. Then rationality would invade my head as these questions flashed through my mind. Where would I hide the body? Could I handle the barrage of questions from the administration, and hysterics and tears from the parents? What is prison life like in Kazakhstan? However, I never reflected on why the students could not behave in the classroom. 

After reflecting on my classroom behavior, I made five serious mistakes. 

First Mistake: I assumed the students possessed a strong foundation of mathematics. Their previous instructors could have passed the bad students hoping never to see them again. I never assessed the mathematics skills of my students. Perhaps, the bad students could not sit quietly and listen to the lecturer speak in an alien language. They felt frustrated sitting in their chairs while the other students surrounding them nodded their heads in understanding. Then the bad students relieved their frustrations by lashing out at me. 

Second Mistake: I never nurtured a high-quality relationship with my students. I arrived at the classroom to deliver my lecture and waited in my office during consultation hours. I rarely interacted with my students outside the classroom. I never fostered an atmosphere filled with trust, mutual respect, and harmony (Kilmer 1998). According to Seidman (2005), instructors have fewer discipline problems if they nurture a high-quality relationship. 

Third Mistake: Students would prefer the instructor to talk to the disruptive, chatty student after class (Carter and Punyanunt-Carter 2009). Students do not want the instructor to yell at the talking student during class and demand whether the student needs to leave the classroom if he or she must continue their talking (Carter and Punyanunt-Carter 2009). 

Fourth Mistake: Instructors especially the inexperienced could be afraid to discipline or punish the student. As in my case, instructors never know whether the administration will back and support the instructor or take the student’s side (Seidman 2005). I should have sat down with the dean and discussed my options. Then if the dean would have agreed, we should have brought the disruptive students to the dean’s office and discussed their classroom behavior. 

Fifth Mistake: Students may not know how to behave in a classroom (Kilmer 1998). During Soviet times, the students would never disrespect their professors and authority figures, unless they wanted to work in the freezing labor camps scattered across Siberia. Once communism released its grip on society, the people became free while education transformed into a piece of paper that could be bought as a commodity. Political connections determine students’ future in Kazakhstan, and how far they would rise in a company or government agency. Thus, students have no incentive to do well in their courses. They will graduate and utilize their connections to jump-start their careers. 

Since disruptive students were becoming the norm at the university, the dean and faculty should have bonded together and designed a disciplinary plan. I became disturbed when an instructor described his second year students as “very naughty.” I would have taught these students next year if I had stayed at the university. Perhaps, the university should offer a course about classroom behavior, study skills, and study strategies. 

Unfortunately, the good students became the victims. They sat in the classroom and wanted to learn while they witnessed the instructor yell and scream at the misbehaving students. Alas, one or several bad students can taint and disrupt the class for everyone – one bad apple spoils the pie. Good students want the instructor to manage the classroom well (Seidman 2005). If good students experience a bad learning environment, they could withdraw from the university. Consequently, a university filled with instructors possessing poor classroom management skills can drop the university’s retention rate (Seidman 2005) as good students (and possibly good instructors) flee the university. 

References

1. Carter, Stacy L. and Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter. 2009. College students’ perceptions of treatment acceptability of how college professors deal with disruptive talking in the classroom. College Student Journal 43(1): 56-8.



2. Kilmer, Paulette D. 1998. When a few disruptive students challenge an instructor’s plan. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 53(2): 81-84:



3. Seidman, Alan. 2005. The learning killer: Disruptive student behavior in the classroom. Reading Improvement 42(1): 40-6.

7 Reasons To Avoid Becoming a Professor

At one time, professors had the easiest profession working for the academe. Although professors did not earn high salaries, they received excellent benefits. Once students left the university for break, the professors could leave too and go on vacation. Professors worked light schedules, taught from two to four courses per semester, pursued research that interested them, and received health care and retirement plans. Nevertheless, the academe began changing similarly to private companies in the information age. I list seven reasons why the academe has become a poor choice for a career.

Reason 1: The days are long gone when a university hired a professor and kept him or her to retirement. Many universities have thrown job security out the window. (Another casualty of the information economy). They boost hiring of adjuncts and contingent teachers who have no job security. University also does not pay benefits such as health care insurance and retirement plans. Under the new Obama healthcare plan, adjuncts must pay for health insurance out of their own salary. Universities pay adjuncts and contingent labor an hourly rate for contact hours in the classroom, where the adjuncts stand in front of the class and teach the students. Furthermore, some universities demand adjuncts hold office hours, perform research, and advise students without compensation.

A person can start a good career by taking an administrative position in a university. Careers in the university bureaucracies continue flourishing. Administrators continually expand their bureaucracies and hire more bureaucrats. Subsequently, they work full time and receive health insurance and retirement plans. They also can take out their wrath on the professors by imposing more rules and forcing them to write more reports.

Reason 2: Leaders' moods and temperaments change radically daily at a university. For example, a private university in Australia, plunged in its 2013 rankings. University took a beating for employing professors who contributed little to research. Administration started purging and eliminating the unproductive faculty during 2014. Unfortunately, the university has fired some of its older faculty including tenured professors in their 40s and 50s. The university has thrown them into the unemployment market as the professors search for new employment along with young people.

University administrators have lost their dedication to the professors and view them as commodities. Imagine you work for a university for 20 years and the university dismisses you. Many employers refuse to hire workers over 40 years old. Either the employers must pay a greater salary for their experience, or they have difficulties training the new employees. Without question, young people learn technology quicker than older people.

Reason 3: Many universities lost sight of their business. Public universities receive funding from the state to educate the state's citizens. Governments subsidize universities to reduce students' cost of receiving an education and to ensure their country and state have educated citizens to attract the high-tech industries. Furthermore, universities being nonprofit organizations may not pay income taxes to the government.

Many universities, unfortunately, place a low priority on teaching. Universities reward professors who engage in research while administrators look the other way if a professor teaches poorly. Day after day, I hear – research, research, and more research. That becomes the crux – research brings in limited funding for most universities but reflects a university's prestige. (Research also helps a university get accredited). Although teaching is the university's primary money maker, many universities view teaching as secondary. Unfortunately, professors who teach well win few accolades from the administration.

Many PhDs and professors are generating and writing research paper after research paper. Therefore, the number of journals and research articles has exploded, and this knowledge has inundated universities and researchers with too much information. Universities have taken the next step to make sense of this excessive information. Administrators know the majority of research is shit. Now, they started ranking journals, calculating a journal's and a research article's impact on scientific knowledge. In the old days, everyone could easily spot excellent research.

Reason 4: Universities are expanding online learning, where the students do not meet the professors face to face. Universities can hire adjuncts, graduate students, and staff to manage and grade the online courses. Thus, the universities make the professors develop the programs and then let the non-professors teach the course.

Reason 5: Many professors in the United States have delayed their retirement after their retirement plans experienced beatings from the 2001 and 2007 recessions. Many professors lost half the value of their retirement plans after the 2007 Great Recession. Furthermore, people cannot afford to retire in the Bush or Obama economy (depending on your view which president had damaged the economy the most). Many retirees complain they thought they saved and invested enough, but they started paying many unexpected costs and expenses. Even if professors do retire in large numbers, universities can hire retired professors to teach part time.

Reason 6: Many universities and colleges will shrink in size because they dumped thousands upon thousands of college graduates onto the market. For example, the United States has 25% of the population over age 25 who have at least four years of college. What would happen if the United States raises this rate to 50%? United States will still employ janitors, store clerks, fast food workers, street cleaners, farm hands, etc. These jobs do not require a college degree. Moreover, many employers require skilled workers for auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, air conditioning/heating techs, etc. Universities do not teach these skills, but tech colleges do. Our .society could crumble and fall apart because our citizens have the wrong skills to make our society function well.

How do we know we have too many college graduates in the United States? Only 40% of graduating students find jobs directly related to their college major. Young people will start viewing higher education as a bad investment. Thus, universities will lay off professors as student enrollment plummets.

Reason 7: The last reason relates to graduating too many students. The college bubble has reached its climax in the United States, and is on the verge of bursting. Universities cannot trick students in taking out massive loans to finance their education. Students applying for student loans have made a vital decision that impacts their living standard and incomes for decades. If they chose the wrong program or university, their decision will haunt them for decades and will ruin them financially. In 2014, students have borrowed $26,000 on average to pay for their college while PhDs and law school graduates can accumulate over $100,000 in loans.

After the 2007 Great Recession, many students are entering an abysmal job market. Some students cannot find employment while others find low paying jobs. Unfortunately, some students have defaulted on their loans. Over time, the U.S. government will tighten student loan standards as the default rate soars while students graduating from high school avoid student loans by not enrolling into the universities. Again, universities will lay off professors as student enrollments plunge.

I am not against people who want to improve themselves by pursuing higher education. I was fortunate and earned my PhD from a national public university. Moreover, I worked full time for several universities and repaid my student loans in full. (I accepted some lucrative contracts). However, I have no job security as I float from university to university across the world. I am riding this awesome wave that I know will crash. Thus, I am saving for a rainy day that is coming, and it will pour.

The 12 Rules of How Not to Manage an Organization

I replaced my university's name by 'Inept University' to protect the innocent and hide the guilty, and not create further trouble for me.

[INEPT UNIVERSITY] leaders strain to transform [INEPT UNIVERSITY] into the Eminent Management University in Malaysia and possibly the world. I have no idea where the administrators dreamed up this mission statement. Do not get me wrong, universities and colleges are extremely bureaucratic and poorly managed institutions. However, [INEPT UNIVERSITY] is the worst of the worst. Sometimes, I dream I am superman, and I fly around and help people, but I do not go around and tell anyone. Otherwise, people would think I was crazy. After reading this blog about this university, this idea of [INEPT UNIVERSITY] becoming the Eminent Management University is completely insane, but this leads to our first rule. Bureaucratic institutions with severe management problems can craft clever slogans and mission statements and conduct slick public relations campaigns.

Rule 1: Bureaucratic organizations become very good at crafting clever, intelligent mission statements and fabricating excellent public relation images.

I copied this mission statement directly from the [INEPT UNIVERSITY] website. The mission statement is a little wordy but common in the education industry. University informs everyone how great the university is.

"To be a consistently pre-eminent centre of academic excellence in teaching and learning, research, consultancy, and publication in the field of management, and, at the same time, to bring forth highly competent human capital that is commited to serving in the development of the nation and all humanity."

Analyzing this mission statement, parts are completely false. "..excellence in teaching..." Really? Who thought this up? I became shocked and enraged after a student told me most professors do not return exams, homework, and quizzes. In most classes, students do not know how well they are doing or which grade they are earning until after the class ends. I do not think I could do well in these courses because I would not know how long to study, how the professor grades exams and homework.

Problems at [INEPT UNIVERSITY] go beyond teaching. Old computers and equipment that are older than the students sitting in the classrooms fill every classroom. I had trouble with the computer and equipment weekly. Viruses infect at least half the computers while the computers break down frequently. For one class, the electronic lock had failed, and the students and I were locked out of the classroom. I switched classrooms. However, the bureaucrats still found ways to create problems. First year students must scan in their ID on the time clock to record their class attendance. Administrators marked all my students absent that day even after I informed them what had happened with the door.

My university's troubles exceed the false visions and mission statements. [INEPT UNIVERSITY] has evolved into a bureaucratic nightmare, adding layers upon layers of management. I taught in the College of Business, and these managers separate me from the Vice Chancellor:

1. Vice Chancellor - president of the whole university
2. Assistant Vice Chancellor - have no idea what this person does
3. Dean of the College of Business - supervises the economics, finance, and banking departments
4. Deputy Dean of the College of Business - have no idea what this person does
5. Department Head - supervises the economics department

Remember that old saying - too many cooks spoil the stew. With [INEPT UNIVERSITY] being overly bureaucratic, the managers insulate themselves in their offices, processing volumes of documents. They never once popped into my office to see what I was doing. I even tried to pop in and ask questions, but most the time, the managers lock their doors and isolate themselves, which becomes Rule 2. They send commands through their staff. Since some professors lack motivation, the staff always demands and snaps commands at the professors. They never politely ask or request for things. You must do it NOW even if I am in the middle of teaching a class! Drop everything you are doing! Come to the committee room now! The dean must see you now! If I were dean, I would not hide in my office. I would be knocking on people's door, finding out what people are doing, and what they are working on.

Rule 2: Leaders who isolate themselves from the workers provide poor leadership. They do not inspire, encourage, or develop healthy relationships with their employees.

Many universities want to transform themselves into a research university because they are prestigious as professors conduct breakthrough research. Furthermore, accreditation hinges on a university conducting research because professors bring that knowledge into the classroom, teaching students the most up to date methods. Unfortunately, many universities focus on research and neglect teaching.

I will let you know a little secret. Many university researchers write research papers that contribute little to their fields, playing a numbers game with the university. If we eliminated 80% of the published research, humanity would never miss it. If we eliminated another 10% of research, humanity would lose some knowledge, but we would survive. In every field, a handful of researchers discover the breakthroughs while the remaining researchers play catch up and regurgitate and recycle the research with new angles.

[INEPT UNIVERSITY] leaders want to transform [INEPT UNIVERSITY] into a research university, but they do not know how to achieve their goals. They created the KPI that outlines the duties and responsibilities of every university employee including the managers. Malaysian government uses the KPI to boost workers' productivity. (Remember the movie - Office Space? KPI is the new TPS Report - a mindless, useless report that all managers want in the movie with the correct cover page). Every few months, the administrators incessantly change the employees' goals and duties, which becomes Rule 3. As an employee, how can I complete a goal if I know my goals will change in several months? I could organize and perform research on a subject that satisfies my current KPI. When the administration alters my KPI, then my efforts and work could become wasted if the project satisfies the old KPI and not the new KPI. After my third KPI, I ignored the KPI and revived the old rule. I will teach my classes and publish research papers that I want.

Rule 3: Managers constantly changing the goals, duties, and mission of their employees do not know what they are doing. If a manager knows which goals his or her employees must accomplish, subsequently, the managers would outline their duties and then monitor their progress. Indecision reflects poor leadership and incompetence.

Bureaucrats can divert activities away from its core mission, which leads to Rule 4. A university has two goals: educate students and conduct research. For example, [INEPT UNIVERSITY] wants to enroll more foreign students. [INEPT UNIVERSITY] advertises and sends professors to foreign countries to meet with potential students. Some students become interested and contact the university. Bam! Then the students meet the [INEPT UNIVERSITY] bureaucrats. [INEPT UNIVERSITY] bureaucrats never return phone calls or answer emails and ignore the students. Frustrated students give up and move on to another university. Consequently, [INEPT UNIVERSITY], on one side, tries to recruit students while, on the other side, the bureaucrats are chasing the students away.

Rule 4: Bureaucrats can divert activities away from its core business and in extreme cases can undermine their primary mission.

[INEPT UNIVERSITY] has almost no transparency. I do not think the leaders designed the organization this way, but [INEPT UNIVERSITY] bureaucrats will not divulge any information. Employees wait for commands from upper management, and they avoid trouble by not divulging information that managers will change later. Upper management changes their decisions like the Malaysian weather. Skies are clear and cloudless one minute, and a minute later, thunderstorms are dumping rain from the skies. When I first arrived to the university, no one explained the rules and procedures. I relied on an expatriate professor who has been teaching at [INEPT UNIVERSITY] for a while. For example, no one would say definitively when my contract ends. Normally, the end date is explicit in the contract, but [INEPT UNIVERSITY] starts the contract the first day the professor arrives and not the date within the contract. I could never get a straight answer from the administration, but they keep paying me, so I still stick around.

Rule 5: Nontransparent organizations become susceptible to arbitrary rules and decisions, and in severe cases, fraud, and corruption permeates the organization.

I never seen anything that could be defined as fraud or corrupt, but I have never seen any financial statements from the university and I do not want to see them. However, the rules are arbitrary. For instance, the department will pay professors a bonus for publishing a research paper. Nevertheless, this is not entirely true because at the end of every rule should state "at the discretion of the dean." I learned the administration will pay the local professors the bonus but withhold the bonus from foreign faculty because the foreigners earn greater salaries.

As bureaucracies expand and become more complex, they create complicated budgets that cause bureaucrats to waste and squander resources and money, which becomes Rule 6. For example, the university needs to replace the ancient computers and equipment in the classrooms, but bureaucrats have not allocated money for new computers in the budget. However, the dean for the College of Business demanded every professor to attend training during Spring break in the Cameron-Highlands at the Heritage Hotel. At first, I was happy because the university paid the workers to see another part of Malaysia. However, the organizers turned the workshop into a nightmare as the bureaucrats wasted time and money. They needed to spend all the funds in this one account or the College of Business would lose the money.

Bureaucrats locked us in the hotel for two days, participating in the most boring workshops, stretching half-hour presentation into hours. I became furious on my first night there as the dean kept us until 10 PM. One hundred and fifty people with PhDs and Master degrees filled the conference room. Dean's brilliant team building exercise was to have every team construct a newspaper tent that could support a bottle of water. WTF?

I shook my head in disgust because the university paid a substantial amount of money to transport, feed, and house 150 faculty and staff at a hotel. Yet, I enter my classroom every day to teach, using those damn, ancient desktop computers running XP. Dean could have locked us up in a conference room on campus and made us pay for our own lunches and dinners. Then he could use the money to replace all the old computers and equipment.

Rule 6: Bureaucratic institutions create complicated budgets that cause administers and bureaucrats to waste and squander money on the wrong activities.

Bureaucratic organizations can erect walls and divisions between managers and workers. Managers develop an us versus them mentality. Consequently, managers groom and promote new leaders based on loyalty and not on merit, which becomes Rule 7. In my case, the department paired me with a young professional who was the rising star in the department. We had to coordinate and teach the identical course for multiple sections of this class. It was horrible. She changed things at the last minute and would not inform me such as altering the syllabus and exams. Half way into the semester, she hands me the new textbook where I had been teaching from the older edition book. My personal favorite - she waited two hours before the exam before emailing and asking me to help proctor the mid-term exam. Enough is enough! I told her I refused to work with her anymore half way into the semester. Unfortunately, I sealed my fate and doomed my career at the Eminent Management University.

Rule 7: Bureaucratic organizations promote employees to management based on loyalty and not on merit.

Managers and leaders isolate themselves in their offices processing documents and reports. They demand we professors write research papers, apply for grants, and consult for industry. Professors always write glowing reports how we applied for an international grant and give the details, or we recently submitted a research paper. Then the managers pass the reports up the management chain. I would never accept a grant, always sabotaging my efforts. If an international agency had given a grant for research, then the university requires me to transfer the funding to the administration so the bureaucrats can control the money. My colleagues complained many times about their struggles for reimbursement from the administration while reimbursement stretches into months. Accordingly, our leaders have trouble managing and monitoring us, which becomes Rule 8. At one point, I snuck away from the university for two weeks to travel in Indonesia, and no one noticed.

Rule 8: Bureaucratic organizations have trouble coordinating, managing, motivating, and monitoring workers.

As you guessed, workers and professors lack motivation at my university. They arrive to campus and teach their courses. Then they flee the campus silently, avoiding the leaders' offices, just in case the leaders happen to be looking out their office windows. In the academe, I hear the magic number many times - 10 percent. At many universities, 10% of the workers do all the work and carry the 90% who sit in the break rooms, gossiping about the TV shows and the people around them.

Managers have resorted to intimidating the professors to boost the professors' productivity - i.e. that research defined in the KPI. Dean emailed the entire foreign faculty and requested we meet in the committee boardroom. Dean sat at the head of the table while we professors sat on one side of the table lined up like ducks at a shooting range. Then the College of Business department heads, advisors, and coordinators came in solemnly and sat along the wall at their special table like inquisition judges. Dean outlined our research plans, changed our KPI again, and demanded we professors start producing research while the inquisition judges glared down at us. Ironically, most foreign professors had published research while the dean and inquisition judges have produced nothing except for one.

Rule 9: Leaders and managers threatening and intimidating their employees reflect severe management problems in an organization. Consequently, the organization is doomed as employees begin fleeing.

I work for a university where the leaders and managers refuse to communicate to me except when they demand a document. Managers have isolated themselves from us, and I feel no connection or dedication to my employer. I stopped going to my office, and I work at home. I try to teach my classes well, but my morale and work ethic has suffered in the other areas at my job, which becomes Rule 10. I have not committed sabotage or done anything to my employer, but I am far from a good employee. I have a journal article being reviewed. If the journal accepts my article, I will not inform the dean or anyone at the university. I know their KPIs depend on faculty publishing research, so I will not help boost their KPIs. Of course, my managers hold me in such contempt; they probably would not even consider the publication if I had informed them.

Rule 10: Employees' morale and work ethic suffers if the managers and leaders mistreat them. Employees may sabotage projects and deliberately reduce their productivity in revenge, striking back at their bosses.

Sometimes, the [INEPT UNIVERSITY] bureaucrats do crazy things, which become Rule 11. Then couple this with the Asian mentality where a subordinate can never challenge a manager's decision. For example, bureaucrats at [INEPT UNIVERSITY] continually change document formatting. Professors must adhere to the exact format for writing the final exam questions. Last year, professors had to write the exam questions using Arial font and paragraphs were not justified. This year, the supreme committee of upper management in their infinite wisdom had decided, professors must use Times Roman font with justified paragraphs. Then a committee of PhDs breaks out their rulers, analyzing and examining every professor's final exam for question content and formatting. Of course, a bureaucrat cannot create a template and email the template to the professors. Bureaucrats continually create work for the professors. Their pettiness truly dazzles my mind. For another instance, the bureaucrats had rejected my syllabi for my classes. Last year's syllabi had the university's logo while this year, the committee wants the professors to remove the logo. (I am not making this up).

Rule 11: Sometimes, extremely bureaucratic institutions do crazy things without any thought, reason, or logic.

Last Rule, Rule 12, kills organizations, causing them to stagnate and go into decline. Leaders and bureaucrats fostering a terrible, hostile work environment force its employees to transfer and work for rival employers. Even at my university, some workers and bureaucrats work hard and try to do their jobs well. I become disappointed and frustrated when I pop into an office where competent, hardworking people work and learned they quit their jobs and started working for another organization. A new employee takes over and must learn how to do their job and duties. Consequently, a high turnover rate hurts the bad employer in three ways. First, employer can lose institutional memory when fleeing employees take their knowledge and experience with them. Second, competing employers will hire and poach the best employees from rival companies while poorly managed organizations become filled with bad employees over time. Finally, the fleeing employers may work harder for their new employers, subconsciously getting back at their previous bosses.

Rule 12: Severely mismanaged organizations experience high turnover rates with its personnel. Unfortunately, the organization can lose its best employees as competing organizations hire them. Over time, the mismanaged organization becomes stuck with poorly motivated, low-skilled workers.

Many bureaucrats and leaders poorly manage their institutions and would break half these rules continually. However, my special university in Malaysia violates all these rules daily. What is hysterical is the Vice Chancellor gave a good speech about companies and countries that grew fast but went into decline. He said we must adapt and change with our environment and remain competitive. However, the president needs to examine his own institution especially his management team. Bureaucrats and leaders can write glowing reports and documents and blame others for an institution's failures. Many failing companies and stagnating countries institute overbearing bureaucracies that hindered growth and stifled change.

Problems at [INEPT UNIVERSITY] will continually worsen. Bureaucracies grow over time, and the [INEPT UNIVERSITY] bureaucracy already interferes with its mission - conduct research and educate students. Bureaucrats will create new paperwork, procedures, and processes that halt all progress and chase the good employees from the university. Bureaucrats are pesky flies multiplying on the piles of cow dung spread across the college campuses. We professors are doomed.

The Problems of Higher Education and the College Bubble

The Occupy Wall Street protestors meander through the cold streets during the 2011 winter. Corporate greed, crony capitalism, income inequality, and corrupt politicians anger them. They have united their voices and screamed for change. They interrupted political speeches, boycotted the large banks, and in one cases, shut down the Oakland California seaport. Although participating in the protest movement, the college students remained silent about greed in higher education. When did colleges and universities become exempt from public criticism? Unfortunately, university leaders are just as greedy as the Wall Street bankers are. This blog outlines the greed in higher education and the financial storm that will unravel the college bubble.

One sign of greed is the rapid tuition rises for higher education. Tuition increases have greatly outpaced inflation. For example, I graduated with a bachelor's degree from a small liberal arts college, Northern Michigan University, in 1993. I paid roughly $2,000 tuition per year. In 2011, this university charged about $8,000 per year. If the university increased the tuition at the end of the school year, then the administrators increased tuition 7.5% per year. On the other hand, the average U.S. inflation rate ranges from 2 to 3% per year, far below the tuition increases. Unfortunately, my university is typical of higher education because most U.S. colleges and universities increased their tuition at similar rates.

The rapid rise of tuition does not tell the complete story. College administrators created a variety of fees to extract additional money from students. Most universities and colleges charge application fees for admissions, library fees, computer lab fees, building maintenance fees, etc., continuing ad nauseam. Unfortunately, administrators boost both fees and tuition. When a university or college experiences a little financial trouble, they create new fees to generate more revenue source. Unfortunately, some institutions charge fees that rival the tuition, and some college administrators are disingenuous. When a university or college reports a tuition increase to the public, they often are quiet about the rising fees.

Leadership in universities and colleges deliberately skew statistics. Looking at my alma mater, Northern Michigan University, the State of Michigan appropriated roughly $39 million for Fiscal Year 1992, which climbed to $45 million for Fiscal Year 2011. Although the State of Michigan is mired in a perpetual recession since 2001, the state government still increased my university’s appropriations. Thus, the university gained an extra $6 million in funding, amounting to a 0.75% annual increase. If the inflation rate is 3%, then the State of Michigan reduced its funding by 2.25% in real terms, or 0.75% subtracted from 3.0%). Similar to the U.S. federal government, a program's budget increase just became a decrease. Consequently, university leaders never report their state appropriations, nor show the state appropriations over time. They must show statistics where the state harms and underfunds higher education.

University officials often quote the startling statistic, the state funding percentage. For example, the State of Michigan provided 60% of funding to Michigan universities in 1987. By 2011, the state only provided 18% of a university's funding. Thus, the State of Michigan is cruel, heartless, shortsighted. Then a state winds up with an uneducated workforce, and it can never attract the high-tech industries, but we know the truth. The State of Michigan did increase its appropriations to its public universities and colleges during tough times. Two factors could worsen a state's funding percentage. First, a university increasing its tuition faster than state funding increase causes the state funding percentage to fall. Second, a university enrolling more students receives more tuition dollars. If the state funding remains constant, then the state funding percentage drops. Consequently, university and college leaders use misleading statistics to grab greater state funding, which suspiciously sounds like greed.

Greed rears its ugly head, when private businesses produce and sell goods and services on a university campus. The university and colleges lease retail space to fast-food restaurants, coffee shops, stores, and travel agents. In 2003, Oklahoma State University experienced a budget crisis, and the administrators boosted tuition by 24%. Furthermore, the administrators forced a coffee shop owner to leave the student union because a national chain offered to pay more for the lease then she did, and the chain did not want competition. Furthermore, universities and colleges have thousands of students (i.e. consumers). The administrators enter into contracts with particular suppliers such one beverage company. Then only that company’s sodas are available on campus, and in turn, the beverage company bestows gifts and endowments upon the university.

The higher education leaders often misrepresent tuition increases. For example, they claim they will boost financial aid if the university can raise its tuition. On the surface, this sounds reasonable, but it does not hold once you peer under the surface. For example, if a university increased tuition by $10 million and subsequently offered $10 million more in scholarships, the university does not collect more funding. A university would never do this. However, if the students would receive more scholarship money from outside the university or would apply for more student loans, then the university receives more money from the tuition increase (assuming the university does not lose students). Thus, financial aid coming from the university's pocket book would never keep abreast with the tuition increases.

Administrators increasing tuition force students to accumulate debt. Students, on average, have borrowed $25,000 in 2011, doubling from 1993. Unfortunately, some students do not realize federal student loans are not grants, and they must be repaid. We can estimate the monthly loan payment by the Rule of 100. If a student owes $50,000, then he or she pays roughly $500 per month (just divide loan balance by 100). Some professionals, such as PhDs, lawyers, medical doctors, and dentists accumulate student loans in excess of $100,000. Using the Rule of 100, their monthly payments would exceed $1,000 per month. Finally, the government claims it will forgive a student loan after twenty years of repayment. However, if a student defaults on the loan, the 20-year limit does not apply.

A federal student loan is worse than dealing with a loan shark. The U.S. government imposes drastic penalties that can haunt a student, who defaulted. First, the student cannot file for bankruptcy because a bankruptcy court cannot discharge federal student loans. Second, the loan holder, the U.S. Department of Treasury or SallieMae, often add fines and penalties, which could double the loan balance. The loan holder will capitalize the interest, which means, the lender adds the unpaid interest onto the loan balance, causing it to grow. (I strongly disagree with this practice because if a loan can never be forgiven, why can the government double the loan balance.) Third, the seven-year rule for bad debts does not apply to student loans. A student could be plagued with bad credit as long as he or she is in default. Fourth, the government excludes the students who defaulted from federal contracts and programs. If the student becomes a dentist, doctor, or professional, then a defaulter cannot see patients, clients, or federal employees who are insured by the U.S. government. Finally, the U.S. government may withhold tax refunds, garnish wages, or garnish Social Security Benefits. Thus, student loans can shackle a student for the rest of his/her life.

Greed shows up in school spirit. Freshmen are happy and proud to move away from their parents, and they begin their studies. They often buy their school's clothing and knickknacks. The universities and colleges own the trademarks for their logos and names, and they collect a percentage of sales from every t-shirt, clothing, or knickknack, blazoned with the university’s logo. If the college or university has a popular sports team, a university or college receives a 10% royalty for every trademark item sold, netting the institution with millions of dollars per year. Finally, every college and university have an Alumni Association, which encourages the college graduates to join and donate money to the university. Although I received a good education from Northern Michigan University, I will never donate money to this institution. I remember how those greedy bastards in the administration acted, when I owed the university a $100. An administrator threatened to withdraw me from the university halfway through the semester. (I experienced similar problems with my alma maters, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M; unfortunately, it’s all about the money.)

Administrators in higher education greedily collect their tuition dollars and squeeze anyone associated with the university or college for money. Greed is not necessarily bad, depending where they spend this money. Administrators often claim the university raises tuition to hire more professors and improve the quality of education. However, this is partially true. First, a growing trend is administrators hire more adjunct faculty (or part-time professors) or enroll more graduate students who teach the low-level courses. Adjunct faculty and graduate students earn low salaries, have few fringe benefits, and reduce a university's cost. Second, universities and colleges pay salaries unequally. At one college where I taught, the salaries ranged from $30K for an English professor to $100K for a finance professor. Finally, the golden rule for colleges and universities is the more distance between the employee and the classroom, the greater his or her salary. Consequently, the sport coaches, presidents, provosts, and deans earn the highest salaries on campus.

Administrators often proclaim the higher tuition and larger fees help support more research. Administrators transfer tuition and state funding to build new laboratories and research facilities because the research universities are the best U.S. universities. However, administrators do not reveal the full story. The administration encourages the scientists, researchers, and professors to find external funding to support their research. In some cases, a professor's longevity at his or her university depends on his or her ability to obtain research money. Professors must apply for grants from corporations and governments. Consequently, administrators force professors to finance their research with outside funding sources.

Higher education leaders use tuition and state funding to fund sports programs that can easily cost millions of dollars for a large university. In some cases, a coach of a popular sports team could earn a higher salary than the university president earns. What does sports have to do with educating students? Absolutely nothing! However, the university operates as a business. If the revenue from game tickets, merchandise, and advertisement exceed the sports program’s cost, then the university should keep the program. Unfortunately, many universities and colleges without a popular NCAA team subsidize their sports programs with tuition and state funding, diverting money away from education, and the classrooms.

The tuition and state funding, unfortunately, support the university leaders. Usually colleges and universities have layers upon layers of senior management. The upper management consists of the president, provosts, and deans. The university or college president earns a salary ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 per year with many perks. One perk is the president lives in the campus mansion for free. Other leadership positions include the provosts and deans whose salaries range from $100,000 to $200,000 per year. Although salaries in higher education are not on par with bankers' salaries on Wall Street, the salaries show the same trend. Universities and colleges cut costs by hiring more adjunct faculties or enrolling more graduate students. Moreover, administrators create new positions, such as a lecturer that pays a lower salary than a professor. Towards the top of the hierarchy, salaries for deans, provosts, and presidents are soaring.

Salaries for presidents, provosts, and deans will continue to rise because institutions stopped promoting faculty to leadership positions within the university. Thus, the United States has a shortage of leaders, causing many vacancies Then the administrators boost salaries to attract applicants from rival universities, instead of promoting within their ranks. Usually, a president, provost, or dean works at the college for several years until they transfer to a higher-paying position at another university. Before the 1990s, presidents, provosts, and deans would work for one university for their whole life. At one small university where I taught, the president's position was vacant for two years. If the university can survive without a president for two years, then the university has a great opportunity to eliminate a position, saving the state and students some money.

Colleges and universities find themselves in a difficult position in 2012. Although people flock to higher education to upgrade their skills during a recession, we are in the fifth year of the 2007 Great Recession, and no economic recovery is in sight. Higher education keeps raising the price of their service until the service becomes unaffordable. Any further tuition increases could cause students to flee. Many students do not want a college degree while they accumulate debt in the thousands and cannot find a job in a bad economy. The albatross of student loans may also haunt universities and colleges. If the 2012 college graduates cannot find jobs and start defaulting on student loans in large numbers, subsequently the U.S. government will restrict future loans. Then the U.S. government would end the era of easy loan money.

Universities and colleges cannot rely on foreign students to finance their budgets. Foreign students pay the full cost of their education, and college costs have become prohibited. Furthermore, the financial crisis is reducing the number of rich foreign students who can afford to pay high college tuition, and they have other options than to study in the United States. They can enroll in less-expensive universities in Europe or Asia, and these countries have easier visa requirements. Finally, a Chinese analyst stated in January 2012 - Although education in the United States and Europe are considered superior, and students will find better-paying jobs in their country with a U.S. or European degree, those students may not do better if they had stayed in their own country for an education. Once they include the education costs, the return to their education becomes negative. Many public universities and colleges charge foreign students between $30K and $50K per year for tuition.

The United States is caught in a college bubble. Universities and colleges have inflated their costs to unsustainable levels. Decreasing student enrollment will cause a financial tsunami that will devastate many colleges and universities. Unfortunately, universities and colleges evolved into bureaucratic institutions employing large armies of staff. Once funding starts decreasing, massive layoffs would follow. Some colleges and universities will not survive a contraction. One firm estimated 30% of U.S. universities and colleges will fail and disappear within five years. The Ivy League and well-funded public universities will survive the college bubble, but the expensive private universities, such as University of Phoenix, Kaplan University, and Devry will be the first casualties of the college bubble. University of Phoenix and Kaplan University already reported a 40% decline in enrollment for 2011. (These private for-profit universities took greed to a new level, and they deserve their own blog). Furthermore, several law schools reported 10% declines in enrollment for 2011. Some law school graduates are suing their alma maters because the law schools misrepresented the job placement statistics.

This blog's purpose is not to scare students away from higher education. This blog just illustrates that universities and colleges are greedy moneymaking ventures similar to their Wall Street counterparts. The only difference is higher education has fooled the public; they are profit institutions hiding behind their nonprofit status. The cost of higher education has exploded and has become unaffordable to students. Therefore, students must view higher education as a long-run investment, especially before they decide to accumulate thousands of dollars of debt.