COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub" source file
C00010 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub" source file;
.<<
.FONT 1 "basl30"; TURN ON "%";
.FONT 2 "BASI30";
.FONT 3 "basb30";
.FONT 4 "sta200";
.FONT 5 "ngb25";
.>>
.FONT 6 "SUP";
∂AILProfessor Robert B. Textor↓School of Education↓Stanford University
↓Stanford, California 94305$John McCarthy↓Professor of Computer Science↓↓
↓↓cc. Lyman, Miller, Massy, Linvill∞
Dear Professor Textor:

	Thank you for your note and telephone call concerning my response
to the AAUP questionnaire.  As you recall, I was uninterested in the
issues raised in questionnaire  but told you my conclusion that Stanford
was spending far too much money on administration.

	I have considered your request that I attend your November 6
meeting with the Provost and  raise the issue from the floor with a fact
sheet, the idea being that if the presentation aroused interest, then
maybe some people would help prepare a resolution for the AAUP Spring
meeting.
I have concluded that I don't want to raise the issue under such
circumstances.  The reason is that the expense issue is qualitatively
different from the other issues you plan to raise which are mainly
issues of fairness.  In my opinion, Stanford is, on the whole fairly run,
and that large improvements in the life of the faculty
or in the quality of education and research are not going
to come from procedural changes of the kind you hint at within the present budget.
In fact, to the extent that your efforts merely mobilize some floating
suspicion or hostility to the Administration, the response is likely
to be addition of staff to meet even more stringent procedural standards
of fairness - probably with the effect of eliminating one or two opportunities
for younger faculty to achieve tenure by increasing costs.

	Before coming to this conclusion, I discussed with Professor Massy
and Professor Linvill the forthcoming report of the faculty committee
on administrative expenses.  The report will conclude that while some
changes should be made to force internal Stanford services to compete
with outside services where this is feasible, on the whole Stanford is
economically administered.  In my opinion, this conclusion is not warranted
by the evidence the committee examined and is probably incorrect.  The
study included no comparisons of the cost in money or personnel of
Stanford functions (.e.g. the personnel department or registration
or administrative computing) with corresponding functions at other
universities.  In particular, the Caltech statement that their ratio
of academic ccsts went from 3.3 to 3.8 during a period in which
Stanford's went from .8 to .6 was not examined to see if we had anything
to learn from a school that has been pursuing the issue for so long
a time and claims such success was not examined.  I sent this statement
to Provost Miller in March and he referred it to the committee chairman -
apparently as a curio.  In support of my belief that a detailed comparison
would show very large savings is a comparison I made in 1971 comparing
Stanford's administrative computing costs with those of other universities.
It showed that whether the comparison was on the basis of number of
students or dollar of operating budget, Stanford's expenses were way
out of line with all the others.  A letter to President Lyman produced
not even an acknowledgement and no willingness to make comparisons.  In
fact, both Massy and Linvill explicitly said that comparisons were
pointless, because Stanford is so different.  Therefore, they won't make
such comparisons, in my opinion, unless someone else makes such
comparisons and persistently publicizes them.

	Although I am convinced that their methodology of self-criticism
is faulty, and I think they are probably wasting several million dollars
a year, I agree with them on many issues, and see no advantage in
simply contributing to unfocussed suspicion and hostility, that is more
likely to become focussed on issues in which I think they are more right
than their critics.

	However, if the AAUP executive committee is interested in
determining whether it might improve Stanford by investigating
excessive adminstrative costs and campaigning to reduce them, then
I would be glad to meet with it and suggest how approximately 40 man hours
invested would determine (with high probability)
whether there are large savings to be made.

	I may have more to say after the committee report appears in
Campus Report as I have been refused access to an advance copy.  It seems
likely that it will contain a suggestion to improve administration better
by paying more for better people as Stanford does with faculty.  Unfortunately,
in the absence of a willingness to make comparisons of operations with
other schools, this is likely to result in paying more money for the
same performance.

	I apologize for not having the time to revise this letter and make
it more concise.


.SGN