THE MANAGEMENT GETS MORE OF WHAT IT CHOOSES TO MEASURE. Whether it chooses to measure the right thing is another matter.

[Dr. Crazy, who I have reason to believe is at a not-quite mid-major, extending an argument by Wesleyan's Tenured Radical] notes in passing the different understandings of 'productivity' that underlie the work speedup. More students per class increases the tuition generated per professor, at least in the short run; that's one version of 'productivity.' More students per class decreases the amount of individual attention the professor can really give, which leads to a decline in the quality of feedback; that's another version of 'productivity.' Both versions are internally valid, but they don't necessarily mesh with each other. And that's where the real problem is.

I think I've sung that song before.

Once again, higher education emulates the railroads. Whether the fault lies with the legislators or with their willing accomplices in university administration, the obsession of whoever is calling the shots with cost per degree or student credit hours per professor is emulating the Chicago Great Western's emphasis on gross ton miles per train hour.

(I've since changed the template, the extended argument, with pictures, is here.) The deeper problem in higher education, however, is precisely that there is excess capacity in access-assessment-remediation-retention. The following is not a quote from me.

Worse, some students actually prefer classes that don't ask very much of them. (If you doubt the truth of this, spend a day at in-person registration, just listening.) The mutual non-aggression pact between an instructor who doesn't ask very much and students who'd rather not be bothered is one of the open secrets of American higher ed, and it fits short-term institutional needs disturbingly well. There's a reason that Rocks for Jocks and Physics for Poets still exist.

You produce more student credit hours to divide by whatever base you're using by not challenging the students; your retention rate is higher if fewer students get reality checks. Never mind that those metrics simply keep the positional arms race going and help U.S. News sell more of those annual guides. Never mind that your job fairs only fill up when the economy is vibrant.

The endemic conflict is that beyond a minimal level, and outside of the elites, there's no economic incentive for the institution to do better than okay in the classroom. Once you understand that, the rest follows. (There's a moral imperative, but that's a different issue.) For a college that's struggling to stay afloat financially, the short-term cost of stuffing a few extra seats into each class is dwarfed by the tangible and immediate tuition gain (or labor saving). You can blame pinheaded administrators for that if you want to, but you'd be missing the point; the math is what the math is. When the college is flush, it's possible to make a choice to have your cake and eat it too; when the college is strapped, though, the contradiction is unavoidable.

That assumes away the market test for the college. One of these days a state board of higher education is going to look at the graduation rates and job placement records of its universities, colleges, and community colleges, and ask if all of them are necessary. I won't rule out that happening in Illinois first.