Rage Triggered by Incompetence

I originally wrote this piece in May 2024, but did not post or otherwise disclose this writing at the request of the person who was most directly impacted.  What is not captured here is that in July 2024 the Board of Trustees assured that the insitution's President reigned for personal reasons and stepped headlong into the chasm that had been created, to the point that one of their own, Mr. David Heacock, became acting President and indeed pulled us back from the brink.  For that reason I am now posting this reflection of the circumstances of that time as it ought to be an object lesson that, as I saw in my second tour in Iraq, leadership matters and we can, indeed, turn from rage to stalwart resolve and actions for the better.

 

20 May 2024

Today something I have dreaded, happened.  I had rage, serious rage, return.  One could call this post-dramatic stress, and that might be right, but is something that really has hit me strongly.  The reason for being “triggered” is acute, but the circumstances are absolutely not unique.  That said, this is rivaling one of the worst experiences with leadership that I have had in my entire life.

 

To begin, then, let’s first give the backstory.  For those that know me, know that I am a 20 plus year US Army veteran.  Thanks to serving in combat for two tours, I often wear my Operation Iraqi Freedom hat as I come and go.  But let me tell you, my two tours in combat, when it came to leadership, couldn’t be more starkly different.  Someday, when I write my recollections of my service, the working title will be “A Tale of Two Tours:  An Engineer Officer in Combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom” and I have more or less decided on the opening, borrowing from Charles Dickens (and the book from which my working title is drawn), “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …”[1]  Rather than try to put into text the tale of my first tour in Iraq, I will share with you a message (sermon) I gave about it, that was recorded on video because we were in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic lock-downs during the summer of 2020:  https://youtu.be/5R2f7z8Ejjk?si=uBxMwY8X_i8_9WxV&t=623.  Starting at the 6:23 mark and going until 17:33, I recall a vivid memory that I will never be able to fully get out of my head.  I did not “change the names to protect the innocent”, if you are wondering.[2]  And to be succinct, this is the PG version of events, as I don’t get into the graphic details, and as a part of a sermon on the issues of passing judgement, well, it made no sense to get into those details.  I will just say that was the early bottom.  And it was just one of many reasons to have long lasting anger about the tour, especially the leadership above me, and their utter failures, misjudgments, and incompetence, in the face of very real needs for strong leadership, people of strong moral character, and a willingness to have a vision for more than their own benefits and their own careers or legacies.  Rage is simply the best word that I have about what happened to me and to those that stood with me in the midst of unspeakable challenges, brutally harsh conditions, and a nearly impossible mission because of the failures of these supposed leaders.

 

It is to this past that I am triggered.  To a past that literally nearly killed people because of the failures of leadership that I witnessed, in my then fairly early career as a military officer.  Lessons that I learned and cannot unlearn about leadership.  Its lessons like how one can ascertain the leadership capabilities of someone else, one need only look at those that said someone else surrounds themselves with.  Are they surrounded with those that are going to challenge the leader and each other such that the leader can distil, from vigorous yet honest debate, the best path forward?  Or are they wanting a coterie of those that simply are “yes” people and/or sycophants that stoke the ego of the person in charge, being uncritical and unwilling to stop failures moral, ethical, legal, or otherwise, either among themselves or by the supposed leader?  Or are they surrounded by a brutish bunch that are out for self-interest, caught up in pet theories, doctrinaire to a fault, and unwilling to acknowledge, never mind apologize for, mistakes made?  Or are they wanting to be seen as the “smartest person in the room” by ensuring those around them can never challenge them or that they are ignorant of the failures and incompetence of those around them because they so clearly have no interest in getting the ground truth?  Yes, you can see very clearly who is a leader and is not, if you ask these questions and more.  And the rage I feel is based on many more lessons I have learned in and out of combat, some of the worst examples came from this first tour in Iraq.

 

So, what has me enraged?  Simply put, I am a part of an institution that is at a precipice.  While no one is being asked to put their life on the line for this organization, it is an organization that has, for me (and many others) deep and abiding roots.  It is an organization that should it fail, will have devastating effects on the livelihoods of those it employs, devastating effects on the very economic foundation of the community it resides within, and devastating effects on those that found their very selves while traversing a very influential part of their lives on its campus(es).  As an institution, it should not be in the conversation about these lackluster possibilities, given its focus on engineering, business, the sciences, and other national needs.  It is a haven for those that take seriously their future and it has, at its bones, the results, amazing results, which prove it can stand the test of time.  It is here, when as an industry many are in much worst starting positions, worse inherent fundamentals, and seeing many failures result in utter shuttering of their enterprises, that this otherwise “ahead of the game” institution is experiencing some of the worst leadership failures and tolerance of utter incompetence, negating all of its advantages.  As I relayed to a Vice President as little as 8 months ago, the institution had about 2 years of runway, financially, culturally, and humanly, to get on the right track.  But it’s hard to see how the choices that have been made in interim have done anything more than to squander even that limited set of benefits.

 

And today’s exceptionally poor choice took the cake; well fecal pie in actuality.  One of the saving graces of the institution in question has been its ability to capitalize on professional graduate education.  It has been able to leverage its position as a well-respected and, in several areas, foremost institution for engineering, science and business, to attract and educate those seeking a degree beyond the bachelor’s degree.  And while undergraduate enrollment has been slipping, and this year in free fall, since 2016, the professional graduate enrollment numbers have been steady, if not climbing, through the same period.  At the helm of this stable, “going well despite other headwinds,” result has been two good stewards for this effort, with the most recent being a woman of unassuming but fantastic abilities (leadership, academic, research, business, and more).  Repeating, in other words, basically saving the bacon of the institution has been a remarkable person, unparalleled in emotional, never mind raw, intelligence, wise well beyond her years, capable of doing twice as much with half the resources, and putting her loyalty in the institution as an alum, and as a member of the institution’s very DNA, above her own self-interests.  Full disclosure, the person directly involved, whom I just lavished significant praise, is a personal friend whom I have known since we were undergrads at the same institution we now serve.  That said, regardless of personal feeling, the facts are incontrovertible.  To this person, the President, after having snubbed her once and putting in a completely unqualified person in a position above her, was again highly insulted by telling her, and I quote:  “As a part of your role as Dean of the Graduate Studies,[3] you have done a commendable job in overseeing graduate recruiting.[4]  It is in Clarkson’s best interest moving forward[5] to centralize admissions under one Vice President.[6]  The decision has been made to do that under the VP of Strategic Enrollment Management.[7]”  So, to shorten, you’re doing an amazing job, let’s give it to a guy[8] who is failing at what he is supposed to be doing, because I don’t give a crap about actual results.

 

My response, once reading the memo that was perfunctorily sent to her, was “Bullshit!”  I went on to say, “So it’s working (well), so I need to fuck it up.  Well done [President’s first name].”  Long and short this is the kind of ineptitude, failure of leadership, and doubling down on incompetence that I loathe, and in other situations has resulted in the near death of those in combat.  There is no good reason to do this, NONE!  This is pure unadulterated failure to see the forest for the trees.  It’s doubling down on failure.  It’s the sickest, darkest, and most profound mockery of any semblance of leadership I have seen since those dark days I experienced in Iraq in 2003-2004.  But unlike then, I no longer have the rose tinted glasses, nor, given the situation, the obligation to sit quietly by within the restrictions of the chain of command.  I am many years wiser and many leadership experiences older, to know what pseudo-leadership is and what true leadership looks like.  This is no Lee Iacocca that has come to this institution to pull us out of our doldrums, this is another Bernie Madoff that is playing it for all he and those that go along with him can get.  It’s horrible, and it’s wrong.  It needs to end.

 

And this is even more why I am enraged.  I am not fully sure how to cut through the bullshit.  As a part of a group of loyalists trying to right the ship, we seem to be in an endless cycle of plugging yet another hole created by the administration, using the deck gun to shoot another self-inflicted hole through the hull.  The ship need not leak this bad, but they are incapable of doing anything more than doing harm.  One would hope that the trustees, who are supposed to be asking the hard questions, looking out for the long term future of the institution, supposed to be making sure that it remains there in perpetuity, and not taking anything for granted, cut through the façade.  I/we need to figure that out, I/we really do.  Because, as much as it can be the hardest thing in the world, doing the harder right over the easier wrong, in the end, does win the day.  That is the lesson of the second of two combat tours has taught me.  Leadership matters, and despite the problems, true leaders can and will come to the fore.  So as much as I am angry, ready to lash out, it is that discipline that I have honed for too many years, which will serve us well.  The path (gate) may be narrow, but it exists.  It seems now to be a light, yet dimly seen, in the distance.  I just pray it becomes brighter, clearer, and stronger, soon.

 

---

[1] Charles Dickens, Tale of Two Cities, full quote:  “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

[2] And candidly, do not apologize.  The leadership failures were so utter, that I would be glad to stand in any court to relay the same tale, eternal or otherwise.

[3] Note:  the position is actually the “Dean of the Graduate School” (cf. University Organization Chart).  The President can’t even cite the proper name of the organization she is in charge of operating, which he is supposedly overseeing.

[4] Acknowledgement here that she is achieving success, well beyond what ought to be expected.

[5] “best interest moving forward”:  to be succinct there is nearly no evidence that the person making this decision actually knows what the best interests of the institution in question are.  Since his hiring, he has not secured one major donation nor has he done anything other than create an environment of distrust and austerity, often self-fulfilling.

[6] What basis is there for this?  None is given, and there is no evidence that there will be better results otherwise.  Basically, this is just not true.  Other examples of centralization over the last several years have proven disastrous.

[7] Who has been responsible for the lowest incoming class enrollment since the late 1980s or early 1990s.

[8] And it is a guy, not a gal.

Legacy of Leadership

So, the Saturday of Clarkson’s Celebration & Recognition of Excellence Weekend (CREW) took a turn that was unexpected and elating.  I am still processing the reality of this and remain humbled, surprised, and deeply grateful.  As I relayed to a colleague, whom I am sure was in on the scheme, I ought to be angry that I was so easily hoodwinked, but of course I cannot be, not even in the least.

First some prologue.  In 1996, at the annual Clarkson University spring University Recognition Day (URD) ceremony, I was inducted into Phalanx, Clarkson’s highest honor society.  It was a shock, an exceptionally emotional and joyous shock, that I was selected, as a Junior, to be a member of the most prestigious organization at the academic institution of my choosing.  Being inducted is an extremely high honor, and being so inducted as a Junior is an exceptionally high honor.  This is because you are chosen for what you’ve done to serve and lead within the Clarkson Community, not as a departure acknowledgement, but because you rose to such a level that you were selected over Seniors that likely had accomplished amazing things in their own right, and were given the daunting task of then leading the effort to select the next inductees the next year.  This is a weighty responsibility, especially as Clarkson was among the top Engineering, Science, and Business focused institutions in the United States (the MIT of New York State as a faculty at Syracuse University in 1992 once said).

Fast forward to 2015, having been only back to Clarkson for mere months, I found myself sitting in an interview, thanks to having been nominated by a peer or student for consideration of a university service or leadership award.  Easily being “found out” by virtue of my wearing my Phalanx pin on my sport coat lapel, I was of course ineligible for these awards.  You see, the long standing tradition holds that once you’ve been inducted into Phalanx, you are thereafter ineligible for the awards that Phalanx is privileged to make free selections for.  It led, however, to an even greater honor, serving as the faculty advisor of this esteemed organization.  Having gone through the process of choosing and arbitrating the inductees for 1997, I knew well that this role was not insignificant, but critical for Phalanx, and the university as a whole, having weighty ceremonial duties.  

URD, as I had known, but knew even better coming back as a faculty member, was one of the four most significant and public events at Clarkson; only to be rivaled by Commencement/Recognition events at the end of the Spring and Fall semesters and the annual opening Convocation that launched the academic year.  Unlike those others, this event, URD, is a ceremony for all students, all staff, all faculty members, and all community members.  This means it is the one time the spotlight is on the best, brightest, most accomplished among all, not just graduating students and incoming students.  The day has a long history, going back to 1929 when “Moving-up Day” events began (moving up as the students would advanced from one academic level to the next, e.g. Sophomores to Juniors, etc.).  It is the highest point in the academic year, with the penultimate significance to Spring Commencement.  So, as the advisor, making sure the ceremony, the process to get there, and the needed support to make it all possible, requires the ability and leadership needed to make it the event it needs to be, for everyone.

An added challenge is that Phalanx, as an organization, is the one to run this event, within the larger weekend of events.  CREW, as it’s now known, is a rather recent occurrence, pulling in many academic tear ending efforts including the annual STEMQuest competition, recognition for faculty research awards, the annual Research and Projects Showcase (RAPS), and the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Access (DEIA) Dinner celebration.  Phalanx having been the catalyst that got this to coalesce around the annual URD ceremony (and now ceremonies).  This means that not only are you coordinating the event itself, but also working with numerous other groups to pull of a string of events that need to form a complete tableau.  This takes deftness and care, and is peer leadership on steroids.

The biggest challenge, however, is that the active members of Phalanx, as I indicated above, are the undergraduate students that were inducted the year before, with no appreciation of all the steps it takes to get all that is URD (and the wider CREW) accomplished.  It’s an annual exercise of setting fire to the phoenix, to see it get reborn, grow, and blaze again the next year.  So as advisor, given the gravity and significance of URD, it is not a “hands off” or “let the students run with it” exercise.  No, Phalanx reports to the University President, and no one else.  As advisor, it is your role to make sure the students succeed without dictating terms, but guiding, coaching, being present, and empowering the students to make the organization and the entire university shine with a glow that is emblematic of its promise.  It’s a high honor to do this, but I’ll also tell you it’s an enormous amount of work.  By the way, you don’t get paid more to do this, you don’t get relief from other responsibilities.  Yes, you get a bit more access to the President’s office than other standard faculty, for good and for the challenges that brings. Getting to be with some of the most amazing young adults, the ultimate over-achievers at an institution of over-achievers, is something really cool, no doubt.  These young people are going places.  And as you look at the profile of many of the alumni that have been “tapped” into Phalanx, you can tell this is the reality (the symbolic method used to induct members is to have them tapped in the shoulders using the University’s mace).  So just rubbing elbows can be its own reward. But it’s fundamentally a labor of love.  And, as my spouse will tell you, I do love it, even as it takes a pile of time.

So what did happen to me at the ceremony this year?  Well, the prologue isn’t quite done yet.  You see, in 2022, as a part of the URD events, officially hosted by the University President, two new awards were created by Phalanx in honor of the longest serving first couple of the institution who were retiring that June:  Karen and Anthony “Tony” Collins (this being the last time they would be said hosts).  The Karen Collins Legacy of Service and Tony Collins Legacy of Leadership awards were born to recognize them for their long-standing roles in the Clarkson community as well as those who had similar long lasting legacies of service and leadership at the institution.  In their creation, these awards were distinctly created to be given irregularly, but would be awards that can be given to inducted Phalanx members (and any others) whom Phalanx may determine worthy of such an honor.

I will admit the genesis of the idea was of my own making, mainly as we had to come up with a way to recognize Karen and Tony who were already inducted members.  But my motivation, and the students at the time, was also to spur the Phalanx Alumni Affinity Group and the university administration to begin a thoughtful process to begin recognizing long standing leaders and servers (members of Phalanx or those that weren’t) that deserved particular attention and further recognition as part of pantheon, if you will, of Golden Knights. If you will, a group of people that could be looked to as exemplars of the best parts of the Clarkson tradition and accomplishments in its amazing human talent over the decades.  Sadly, the intervening two years from the inception of the awards to this academic year, were ones that were bereft of the kind of institutional leadership at the top rungs that could actualize, with the Phalanx members and alumni, that needed exercise.  And with the significant, but exceptionally positive, upending that was the start of this academic year, I had no illusions that it was time to pick this up again for a push to create an inaugural Karen Collins Legacy of Service and Tony Collins Legacy of Leadership awards classes.  Embarrassingly, however, the Phalanx Students had other ideas.

You see, yup, they did it, they, out of the blue, under my nose, with a few helps from some friends, made me the first awardee of the Tony Collins Legacy of Leadership awardee besides its namesake.  As I opened, I was shocked, stunned, blown away, humbled, and yea, there was a moist set of eyes.  Juan-Pablo Sola-Thomas as President, with Kimberly Gomez, Abigail Vincent, Ella Weldy, Ryan Teplitzky, Grace Trowler, and Cayden Fernandez, all pulled it off and gave me an award.  It’s not something I sought.  As a matter of fact I thought that it was critical that I not be the advisor and well retired if I was ever even considered for these awards (stress on if ever).  No the likes of Steve “Newker” Newkofsky, or Robert “Soupy” Campbell, or Spencer “Spence” Thew, or Egon Matijevic, or H. George Davis, or Brad Broughton, or a ton of others ought to be well ahead of me in the great host of witnesses of Clarkson’s storied greatness.  But there I was, with no way to stop it, none.  Dumbfounded.  Given, as I’ve said, an unspeakable honor.  I cannot be more thankful to all of them, to Phalanx as an organization, and to my alma mater, Clarkson, for this honor.  While others have said to me I clearly am worthy, I’ll hold that with a very bold and well qualified asterisks.

So that’s what happened on April 12th, 2025, that caused me to pen this post.  A short social media thanks and announcement was clearly insufficient.  The need to place this in its context and its place in my heart needed a longer explanation.  It also comes as I am going to have to realign several of my roles at Clarkson in light of the mission I am willingly taking on to meet our greatest challenge the institution has ever been lucky enough to receive, representative of the Ken and Grace Solinsky Challenge.  It is one that I have some skills to bring to bear, but also one that will enable me to grow in new and distinct ways as I do my best to serve the institution well into the future.  More details will come out later, but it will require me to step out of the solo role as Phalanx Advisor going forward.  It is not something that I decided easily, but it is a bat-ton that I need to start passing.  And that too is a part of the legacy of leadership, which I’m, thankfully, learning quickly.  Thanks again for the honor, even as I question my worthiness.  I pray to live up to the expectations that it’s receipt implies.

Good leaders have a strong professional critic

 “Lieutenant, get in my f—-ing office, now!”  I can hear that voice as if it happened this morning, the day that Captain Chris Dessaso laid into me in one of the most memorable ass chewings of my lifetime.  It was my first unit assignments and I had really made a mistake.  Charlie 1-10 Infantry was a basic training company at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, that was arguably the best in the Battalion and certainly in the top tier of the Brigade.  And a big part of that was Chris’ drive for excellence and willingness to lay down the law as the commander to achieve it.  As a young, wet behind the ears, and eager second lieutenant, I was all about doing my best and driving hard in what equated to a 5 to 9 job, 7 days a week.  My mistake, however, was to open my mouth to his spouse about some inner murmurings that not everything was going as well as the commander thought they were, and that he needed to think about that some.  It was a classic case of “going around the boss” that proved to be a colossal failure.  But I learned more than that the next morning as I was in the front leaning rest before his desk as he raged for what seemed to be an interminable length of time.  It wasn’t just a lesson on why not going direct to your boss with concerns was a bad idea or don’t mistake cordiality of relationships with your boss’ spouse as a way to relay messages.  No, I learned a key lesson that I think every leader absolutely needs to learn:  you need to have a harsh, respected, professional, critic that can stab you in the eye when you need it.

One of my weaknesses as a leader is that I get what I call “sagely”.  It’s a mixture of both being a “know it all” and having way too much pride/confidence for my own good.  I am a type “A” personality.  Or as my wife puts it, I’m an over achiever.  Lots of folks around give me feedback that can absolutely stroke my ego and go to my head.  And sometimes it does just that.  But that is precisely when I need to be crushed back down to planet earth.  Jackie, in my personal life, is very adept at putting me in my place, and I deeply love her for that (even as sometimes I’d not like to admit it or appreciate it in the moment).  But in my professional life it’s been critical as well to have someone be my sounding board and to set me in my place periodically, less I travel down a road that hurts the mission and objectives of the work I’m trying to do, never mind myself and my career.  In my mind, as a result, I am beyond convinced, every good leader needs to have a mentor, peer, or other designated person in your professional life who’s job it is to knock you off your proverbial high horse, regularly.  And those who rise to high heights that don’t have this, not only fail as leaders, fail personally, but fail to actually be leaders in reality.

There are several historical examples of this reality, both in colossal failures and phenomenal success.  Napoleon is a classic example of where he did not have this critic, and it led him to exceptionally destructive behaviors, including the devastating March to Moscow.  But we can and should look at examples where the opposite occurred.  A pair of great examples were arguably our two best Presidents ever, Washington and Lincoln.   Both of these two leaders had such critics that served them well.  In Washington’s case he relied on Hamilton for this to a degree as well as ensuring he had a cast of rivals around him as advisors including Jefferson as well as Madison.  In Lincoln’s case, he had Seward and a similar team of rivals (to use a title of a famous biography of him) that he used to check himself.  Both of these leaders could not have risen to the heights they did without the required professional critic that they depended on to seek out and find the flaws in their leadership styles and approaches to issues.  While they were brilliant into themselves and had hearty egos to go with it, they knew that they had to dispatch with sycophants, surround themselves with capable persons who challenged them, and keep hubris in abeyance.

In my life, I have been a part of organizations where I’ve seen where the appointed or selected leader, both failed to have this kind of critic that was taken seriously and respected, and ones where they had one or two and thus the entire enterprise benefitted.  It was among the reasons for the clear differences between my two combat tours in Iraq.  Tour #1 went through two O-5 Battalion Commanders who didn’t remain grounded, despite the Battalion’s motto being “Down to Earth”.  The second had a full bird Colonel who had a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) who was unabashed in laying out his often forceful criticisms.  While not always going with the advice he got from his CSM, DeLuca listened and ensured he ameliorated the risks because of the criticisms he received.  Similarly, at two academic institutions, I have now witnessed the consequences of when the President has a person in his cabinet that holds significant sway and his respect that was a part of the loyal opposition, and one that has not.  The former thrived and the other is at a proverbial crossroads.

To me then, the sign of a great leader, is whom he or she or they surround themselves with. Do they have a distinct person or cadre thereof, professionally, that challenge them and tell them the harsh truth about themselves, such that the leader changes and grows and avoids their worst impulses?  Or are they unwilling to own that the failure in most organizations starts with them?  Leaders have to hold both those around them accountable as well as themselves.  The only way to do that is have someone that can confront them, who they respect and listen to, which will help them be the change they need to be in order for themselves and those they lead to be as successful as they can be.

“Erik you really have changed,” said Derrick Edmond, a peer during my second deployment to Iraq.  Going into what is probably one of my most successful military assignments, I was a very headstrong and direct leader within our small Facilities Engineer Detachment of 15 people.  Derrick, along with another officer whom I respected, along with the OIC, early on, pulled me aside and pointed out my flaw in my character.  I was not respecting some members of the team because I was so “high speed” and had expressed unrealistic expectations of the others to think, act, and function as I did.  Hearing this, I changed my approach and made choices to engage with the team.  It took conscious effort, I had to check some of my instincts, but in the end it made me and the whole team much more successful.  And this hasn’t been the only time.  Having someone that I check in with regularly that can give me honest feedback about my flaws and where I need to improve is among my most important colleagues and friends I can have.  If you too are a leader, make sure you have this professional guide in your midst; for your sake and that of those around you.

Avoiding Lobotomy - Again

As a junior officer in the US Army, and commonly spoken in the undercurrent among both Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and junior officers alike, is the “Field Officer lobotomy”(https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/v5taom/majors_whats_wrong_with_you/).  This is the thing that happens, somewhere in the development of an officer, typically when they are a Major, when they seemingly forget the basics of how the Army runs, and get lost into some rabbit hole while stuck in the long period between company command and battalion command.  It’s as if we just loose sense of what is “common sense” as well as being grounded in (and with) the very challenging realities of troops at the company level and below.  It’s as if all the staff and broadening “special assignments” time you spend puts you into some esoteric death spiral.  Sure you’re smart or capable, etc, but you’ve become this amorphous blob of uncertainty, indecision, and constant incapability because you’ve lost that command touch.  The vast majority of officers succumb at some point, as if they become “company men” or “women”, and accept the utter stupidity and core failings in the systems instead of seeking to work to challenge them and make for better systems or simply level with folks about the absurdity of it all.

In my military career, I worked really hard, I mean really hard, to not get/have said lobotomy.  Part of this was done by not taking the “normal path”, by eschewing just going with the flow from above as a way to get ahead.  Sure I didn’t run away from the core traditional command assignments (company and battalion command), but I found a way to do things that were impactful and as pragmatic as possible, in between.  That said, when it came to late 2016 and what I was going to do as I reached 20 years of service, I decided that micromanaging whether Johnny Joe or Jane soldier went to their dental appointment as a the way I was being measured as a commander in the Army Reserve, was ludicrous.  While it wasn’t the only reason to opt to decline a full command assignment (medical, career, and family reasons were more prominent), avoiding becoming lobotomized was also on the list.  Soldiers who served with me can tell you how successful or not I was at that task.  By summer 2017, however, I was heading to retirement, lest I succumbed.

So I am now on the cusp of yet another one of those “lobotomy” points.  In 2014 I went to the “dark side” in my career in the AEC (Architecture/Engineering/Construction) world:  I became a full time professor.  This said, I did so in a fashion that was atypical; I did not possess a doctorate.  In academia, these days, holding a PhD is normally the minimum prerequisite for such a role.  But instead I was hired to be a full time instructor and Director of the much more pragmatic Construction Engineering Management program at my alma mater, Clarkson.  If we look back at the history of engineering education, it was not until the 1970s that it became common that those serving as professors held doctorates.  Rather, it was more critical, nay the minimum prerequisite, that you had experience and knowledge that came from practice, demonstrated through licensure and robust professional credentials otherwise, rather than a having a background primarily as a researcher.  At Clarkson in particular, who’s motto is “a workman who needn’t not to be ashamed”, it was very common/valued that most faculty were consultants on the side and had a large portfolio of practical experience before and during their appointments.  Academia, for a variety of reasons, has turned to become research first, practical knowledge second, as the resume required in most settings.  And akin to the above undercurrent in the Army, it’s pretty much the unwritten rule that PhD means you have “pilled high and deep” a wall of theoretical knowledge that makes you lose the ability to have common sense or be grounded in the practical aspects of life.  And that stereotype is way too often more true than false, including a number of my colleagues in my department and beyond.

As I said, I am on the cusp of crossing that PhD line.  Not counting my chickens before they’re hatched, I still have to figure out how to get this last course done and finish the edits to my dissertation by the end of April, but the light outside that tunnel is very bright at this point.  So, if that happens, it’ll be Dr. Backus, fitting in with the crowd that is academia.  Now, strictly speaking, I did not have to pursue this.  I am a Professor of Practice at this point, something academia is finally realizing is needed; not, therefore, requiring a doctorate.  That said, there’s still a barrier to those without one to academic leadership (as was put by one person, “Erik doesn’t have a PhD so he can’t become chair, and shouldn’t remain as XO of the department”).  As I’ve seen time and time again, I’m more or less convinced that the fetish academia has with research, and the normal track for preparation and promotion for professors, is neither good nor healthy long term for the greater academy.  Running a lab, doing fundamental research, and publishing papers, does not prepare you well for become a leader of a department, school, college, etc.  And the things that are needed (eg organizational management & training, practical knowledge, leadership skills, etc.), are seen as almost anathema to gaining tenure and promotion (distractions, as one colleague put it).

So here am I, at that crossroads, about to become “one of them”, a “true academic”, with a doctorate and all to prove it.  I have no intent nor do I desire to work to gain tenure, expecting to remain a Professor of Practice through to retirement (although, I’d be very welcome, many years hence, to be considered for professor emeritus status, should that come about).  I made this pursuit, however, because it will open the doors to more senior leadership academically, given the current way things work, and it will alleviate my rather constant requirements to correct students from referring to me as “Doctor Backus” when I don’t have one.  I have always been a deep and big thinker.  I love learning, I remain ever curious and interested in expanding knowledge.  So I am not allergic to research (there’s parts of it I really like) and have been doing research even as far back as my Masters and in other roles in the military and when I was a practitioner in facilities organizations.  But I really think studying the ability to generate electrical power from lobsters (https://improbable.com/2013/02/06/renewable-power-source-search-lobsters/ ), while novel and cool, is utterly impractical and I am really not that interested in it.  I’m not saying that there isn’t a need for researching such things if they can lead to some real breakthrough, but it’s not my bag.  And to that, I hope it never becomes “my bag” as I stay rooted in the much more pragmatic, like making sure my students actually know how a toilet works, have had the experience of actually hammering a nail, as well as being able to do structural analysis, understand how to do concrete batch designs, size heating and cooling equipment, and build safer, better, and more resilient/sustainable infrastructure & buildings. I just do not want to be lobotomized away from what my experience and continuing practice allow me to do to bring value to my students, in the immediate sense, and through them, for the broader AEC community as a result.

I am going to say, hitting this milestone is something I remain sheepish and humble about.  The resume, so long as things finish as they should, will now list getting a PhD in 2023 (long removed from my Masters in 2004, so a late return to getting a terminal degree).  I will remain a bit of a unicorn, not fitting in exactly and pushing back against the consensus on what the broader academy needs to look like to remain relevant.  I do not believe one can be “over educated” as some seem to think happens here, when you’ve done a pursuit for a doctorate.  But I do get that we cannot and should not stare down our noses or exhibit the too often seen elitism that comes being in an academic ivory tower (evidenced just this week as senior academics poo-pooed the idea that a long-term decades-experienced, successful senior manager in the AEC world was not capable of teaching a masters level course in the “business of construction”, because he lacked an advance degree in business).  And I think engineering education, in particular, needs to return more to the practical, hands on, even trade skill training and education, that keeps us rooted.  I just don’t want to fit the moniker, I don’t want to be unable to relate to, empathize with, and understand the plumber, carpenter, iron worker in the field.  To me, being at the top of what I do means I help tomorrow’s construction (and, more broadly, AEC) leaders, grow in ways that brings better solutions than we come to today, working together and respectfully across backgrounds and experiences.  I just can’t succumb to a PhD lobotomy, in other words.  To that end, I hope those around me keep me grounded accordingly.

The Cause of the High Rate of Price Increase in Higher Education in 9 Charts

I continue to have this dialog about the cost of higher education and the college debt crisis.  It is driving me more or less nuts that I can never find the time to write the full explanation for what is happening and why.  People keep blaming the wrong things on why the cost of college education on the part of the individual student is rising at a faster pace than nearly everything else in the economy.  Here are some of the reasons I have heard that are just bunk:

• Federal government backing college loans is driving up the cost of higher education.

• Higher education really isn’t “non-profit” or “not-for-profit” and is all about raking in money.

• Colleges and Universities have been on a building spree, creating mounting debt that is only causing tuition to rise.

• Athletics is costing more and the average student is paying for these non-academic “luxuries”.

• Too many are going to college that don’t need to, inflating the cost for those that do.

• And many more.

I am not going to spend time debunking each of these, because I want to get out a post on this now.  Suffice it to say, they just are not the reasons for the spiking cost of higher education.  The real reason for why this is happening comes down to a perfect storm of factors that have very little to do with the above, at all!  What it comes down to, in order of effect, is:

1. Plummeting taxpayer/public support for higher education by the several states.

2. Significant increase in labor cost to employers especially for healthcare and daycare in an industry that is highly labor dependent.

3. Increased mandated oversight and administrative tasks requiring increased administrative full time equivalent staff.

4. Increased demand for capacity for student support and auxiliary services as a differentiator among the competition.

So here in a series of graphs and charts I am going to try to spell it out.  Let’s first start with the fact that, yes, the cost of higher education has skyrocketed over the last several decades.  Here is a handy chart from the American Enterprise Institute that lays it out fairly clearly; other than hospital stays, the cost of the price college (to the consumer) has risen starkly.

[i]

But the question is why?  Well let me start with the most clear reason:  its simply not being subsidized like it used to be.  As a case in point, here is a chart from George Mason University, a public institution in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  This chart lays out in clear terms the impact of what the precipitous loss of State support to the institution is doing to the individual student and their expenses.

[ii]

Basically, since 1985, the ratio of state support coverage of the cost of attending Mason to that of what the student paid or other revenue sources[iii] pay has more than flipped (and if you go back to the 1960s, where many a baby boomer will recall covering college by “working their way through”, it is even more stark).  Simply, the taxpayer used to cover most of the cost, and now they are “supporting” the effort at a significantly reduced rate.  Mason is simply an easy example with a clear chart.  The next two charts show how States have pulled out of the college funding business, in some cases nearly completely.

[iv]

[v]

And as recessions hit, or other economic challenges emerge within the world of State financing, it’s getting worse each time.  As shown in this chart, the easy answer for State legislatures to help balance their budgets and/or lower taxes is to cut higher education spending when times are tough.

[vi]

So bottom line is that a huge contribution to the driver of the rise in the cost of college education to the individual student is that government is not helping nearly as much, or even at a reasonable proportion of as much as it did for their parents or their grandparents.  So what we have is that college costs are going to rise faster than inflation, or the general cost of everything else, because what had previously covered it was gone.

This brings us to the next driver, however, and that is the general cost of labor has risen steadily over that last decades driven by several things, but certainly healthcare.  The following a chart created from data available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as it relates to employer costs for employing its labor.

You will note from this graph, that the cost of labor has gone up.  If you look carefully, however, you will also note that workers’ wages are NOT increasing, rather it is really driven by the cost of insurance going up.  On the side of the higher education customer (students and their parents), this basically means that there aren’t any increased resources on their part to cover the costs that they are incurring.  So, the many charts available that show how the cost of college is outpacing wages and salaries are on par.  All good there (well not "good" but accurate).  What folks continue to forget, however, is that on the college and university side, this has yet another effect: driving the cost of higher education even higher.

As is illustrated in a report from the California State Legislative Analyst’s Office, the following graphs make clear that largest portion of any college or university is the cost of its employees, somewhere between 66 to 75% of the overall enterprise.

[vii]

Thus, when you put together that the largest portion of the actual cost to run a college or university has risen some 15 to 25% in the last two decades (and over 60% since the 1980s), it becomes clear that the reality is that it just costs a lot to do education, because education is a human resource intensive enterprise.  This is seen in K-12 education as well.  This is especially true when you want to do it well and at a level commensurate with the expectations society has for it (e.g. leading to professional careers or other pursuits near the top of society).  This is not really any different than one of the major causes of the rise in health care costs, in that health care is inherently human resource intensive too (which creates a bit of a price spiral).  To that point the following chart helps you see how salaries have tracked as it relates to higher education as compared with medical professionals as well as lawyers.

[viii]

These are just not industries like construction, finance, industry or others where there are other components like materials, energy, and equipment drive the cost of the enterprise.  This means the cost of it will outpace the cost growth in most of those other industries consistently.  So when you add the precipitous drop in public/taxpayer support higher education to this intensive real cost increase, that exceeds the norm for most any other industry or component in the economy, it is a perfect cost storm to the individual student.  These two factors (loss of support and increased cost of labor) are the largest components of the actual reasons for the increased cost of college for the average individual student.

That said, there are a couple more reasons for the rapid cost increases, that are not at the level of the previous reasons, yet are worth mentioning.  Of the two, one is shown in the following chart, which shows the increase in the full time equivalent senior staff and administrators compared with faculty in the University of California system over time.

[ix]

This is not unusual or particularly helpful in itself, except as it relates a couple points.  Administrators typically cost more than faculty at most ranks, so an increased number means increased marginal cost to the institution.  The further question is, why then are there more administrators?  Good question.  Well the biggest driver of the increase in the number of administrators is the numerous additional regulations and other oversight mechanisms that have been put into place on the industry, creating an administrative burden that someone is paying for (aka the average college student).  But it also ties to the other reason for the uptick in the college price tag: the demand for services that go beyond what we had in yesteryear.

The following chart helps to show this shift.  This chart from the University of California system, again, highlights the breakdown of the spending from two different snapshots in time, just 5 years apart.

[x]

If you look carefully, you will note that, as a percentage, instruction costs have gone down from 26.3% to 24.2% (and facilities costs have gone from 3.3% to 1%).  Then you will see that three specific areas have had varying levels of growth:

• Academic support went from 7% to 8.5%

• Student services went from 3.8% to 3.9%

• Auxiliary enterprises went from 6.3% to 9.1%

Adding those increases together, is a whopping 5% shift, all towards providing more “niceties” if you will.  Some of these are certainly things like an on campus Starbucks or better recreation facilities, but others are much more robust accommodative services, increased and improved tutoring or other academic help, counseling services, increased public safety, and better student life activities for all, which, many times are also mandated.  These final two reasons also contribute to the rise in per capita cost to the customer.  The bottom line is, yes, there are potentially some small nice to haves that are adding to the bottom line.  In many cases however, the cause for them is based on “must do” items that won’t appreciably change the picture unless the said same legislatures that are reducing the support for higher education also give relief from those requirements; there is fairly low likelihood of that.

In conclusion, the biggest driver of the increase in the price tag of college comes back to the rather dramatic decrease of taxpayer/public support coupled with the significant increase in the cost of the human resources required to make the enterprise work.  Fixes for this will inevitably come in the form of public policy shifts that we have to struggle to debate and resolve.  Public policies, however, can also make the problem a lot worse.  One such prime example is a minimum wage hike where colleges and universities employ many low-wage workers, sometimes college students, to accomplish a myriad of activities across campuses.  Adding even more costs to the already intensive human resource enterprise will only add to the high rate of growth.  I am not sure I have a silver bullet, other than to realize that yesteryear’s highly subsidized false price tag of higher education is a false comparison.  To that end, we need to get real and get on making some hard choices going forward.

End Notes:

[i] “Chart of the Day.... or Century?,” American Enterprise Institute - AEI (blog), January 11, 2019, https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century/.

[ii] Davis, J.J. Wagner (2016), Presentation to the Board of Visitors, Finance and Land Use Committee, George Mason University, October, 13 2016

[iii] Basically, on campus enterprises, auxiliaries and so forth as well as fundraising.  In some cases this further increases the cost to the student (e.g. for housing and dining) and in others has driven decisions about things like athletics, public-private partnerships, and so forth with the costs being carried by others.

[iv] Mitchell, Michael, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. “Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges,” August 15, 2016, 28.

[v] Mitchell, Michael, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. “Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges,” August 15, 2016, 28.

[vi] Mitchell, Michael, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. “Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges,” August 15, 2016, 28.

[vii] “The 2020-21 Budget: Analyzing UC and CSU Cost Pressures,” December 17, 2019, 20.

[viii] Archibald, Robert B, and David H Feldman. “Drivers of the Rising Price of a College Education,” August 2018, 20.

[ix] Christensen, Kim. “Is UC Spending Too Little on Teaching, Too Much on Administration?” Los Angeles Times, October 17, 2015. https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-spending-20151011-story.html.

[x] Public Policy Institute of California. “Higher Education in California: Institutional Costs.” Accessed December 8, 2020. https://www.ppic.org/publication/higher-education-in-california-institutional-costs/.