U.S. Institutions Are Becoming Top Heavy: The Administrative Creep at PUIs

Tags: Faculty, Administrators, Policy Makers

A Quick Opinion Piece from the PUI Connect Editorial

There was a time when U.S. universities, especially predominantly undergraduate institutions (PUIs), existed primarily for one purpose: teaching students. Faculty were the central figures in this mission. Their intellectual autonomy, mentorship, and scholarship shaped the university’s identity. The last decade, however, a very different picture is emerging; US universities are becoming increasingly “top heavy”, run like corporate entities where the central role of faculty is being eroded by the expanding influence of administrators.

At PUIs, where teaching should remain the defining activity, the story is especially troubling. Faculty are expected to be the workhorses, handling heavier teaching loads with fewer resources, while class sizes creep upward under the guise of efficiency. Meanwhile, administrative roles multiply or are rewarded disproportionately compared to teaching faculty. These administrative positions, whether filled by professional staff or regular faculty drawn away from classrooms, carry higher salaries, more job security, and often less accountability.

The irony is striking. Tenure, once the bedrock protection for academic freedom and scholarly independence, is eroding. Even tenured faculty find their positions at risk through budget cuts or program elimination. Administrators, by contrast, hold no tenure, yet their roles are more secure. When an administrative policy or initiative fails to deliver results, the administrators behind it rarely face consequences. Instead, the fallout lands on faculty lines, leading to fewer full-time positions, more adjunct hires, and heavier teaching burdens for those who remain.

This trend also breeds a poisonous culture. Instead of supporting the academic mission, administrators become managers of faculty, creating layer upon layer of compliance requirements and initiatives that drain time and energy from teaching and mentoring. Faculty find themselves working harder, not to educate students, but to satisfy checklists, fill out reports, or participate in non-academic programming that adds little to the core mission of a PUI.

The most insidious part is that faculty themselves are being drawn into this cycle. Facing shrinking support for teaching roles and uncertain job security, many find it more attractive to move into administrative positions, which appear safer and more valued by the institution. This internal migration not only drains the classroom of experienced teachers but also reinforces the system by supplying a steady flow of administrators who view management, not teaching, as the primary career path.

For PUIs, this trajectory is dangerous. These institutions thrive when faculty remain engaged with undergraduates, offering personalized instruction and mentorship. A top heavy structure, where administrative expansion comes at the cost of faculty positions, undermines this defining strength. If unchecked, PUIs risk becoming indistinguishable from large bureaucratic organizations, where managerial layers outweigh the very people delivering the education.

The message is clear. Unless universities, and particularly PUIs, reverse this trend, they will weaken the very foundation on which they were built. Teaching, not administrative expansion, must remain the central mission. Otherwise, top heavy institutions will collapse under their own misplaced priorities, leaving students underserved and faculty disillusioned.

This is a short opinion piece from our editorial team. More articles will follow that substantiate these concerns with data and specific examples.