Spending Up the Ranks? The Relationship Between Striving for Prestige and Administrative Expenditures at U.S. Public Research Universities

References

• Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2008). Explaining increases in higher education costs. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 268–295. doi:10.1080/00221546.2008.11772099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastedo, M. N. (2004). Open systems theory. In F. W. English (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 711–12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis. The American Economic Review, 57, 415–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann, B. R. (1991). Bloated administration, blighted campuses. Academe, 77(6), 12–16.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boehner, J. A., & McKeon, H. P. (2003). The college cost crisis (Report of U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce and U.S. House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, H. R. (1980). The costs of higher education: How much do colleges and universities spend per student and how much should they spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50, 415–436. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9129-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82. doi:10.1093/pan/mpi014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brankovic, J. (2017). The status games they play: Unpacking the dynamics of organizational status competition in higher education. Higher Education, 75(4), 695–709. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0169-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2001). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkman, P. T., & Leslie, L. L. (1986). Economies of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research. Review of Higher Education, 10, 1–28. doi:10.1353/rhe.1986.0009
   Google Scholar
• Burd, S. (2013). Undermining Pell: How colleges compete for wealthy students and leave the low-income behind. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Campos, P. F. (2015, April). The real reason college tuition costs so much. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, A. (2013). State tuition, fees, and financial aid policies for public colleges and universities. Boulder, CO: SHEEO, State Higher Education Executive Officers. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/Tuition%20and%20Fees%20Policy%20Report%2020131015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (n.d.). About Carnegie Classification. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu
   Google Scholar
• The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2001). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2000 ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Desrochers, D., & Kirshstein, R. (2014). Labor intensive or labor expensive? Changing staffing and compensation patterns in higher education (Delta Cost Project Issue Brief). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 549–560. doi:10.1162/003465398557825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg, R. G., Rizzo, M. J., & Jakubson, G. H. (2007). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? In P. Stephan & R. G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Science and the university (pp. 19–35). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erwin, A., & Wood, M. (2014). The one-percent at State U: How public university presidents profit from rising student debt and low-wage faculty labor. Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Finnegan, D. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1996). Disciplinary adaptations to research culture in comprehensive institutions. Review of Higher Education, 19, 141–177. doi:10.1353/rhe.1996.0028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all-administrative university and why it matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalized ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. Review of Higher Education, 36, 179–209. doi:10.1353/rhe.2013.0000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government Accountability Office. (2012). Financial trends in public and private nonprofit institutions (GAO-12-179). Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. P., Kisida, B., & Mills, J. (2010). Administrative bloat at American universities: The real reason for high costs in higher education (Goldwater Institute Policy Report). Phoenix, AZ: Goldwater Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gumport, P., & Pusser, B. (1995). A case of bureaucratic accretion: Context and consequences. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 493–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halfond, J. A. (1991). How to control administrative cost. Academe, 77(6), 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Hearn, J. C., & Rosinger, K. O. (2014). Socioeconomic diversity in selective private colleges: An organizational analysis. Review of Higher Education, 38, 71–104. doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedrick, D. W., Wassell, C. S., Jr., & Henson, S. E. (2009). Administrative costs in higher education: How fast are they really growing? Education Economics, 17, 123–137. doi:10.1080/09645290701523184
   Google Scholar
• Iglesias, K. W. (2012). The price of prestige: A study of the impact of striving behavior on expenditure patterns of American colleges and universities ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University.
   Google Scholar
• James, E. (1990). Decision processes and priorities in higher education. In S. A. Hoenack & E. L. Collins (Eds.), The economics of American universities: Management, operations, and fiscal environment (pp. 77–106). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXIX, pp. 467–533). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leslie, L. L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanations. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 187–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within U.S. research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53, 614–639. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9248-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClure, K. R. (2016). The next generation of higher education management fads. Academe. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/next-generation-higher-education-management-fads#.WJctJGQrKfQ
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Morphew, C. C. (2002). ‘A rose by another name’: Which colleges became universities. Review of Higher Education, 25, 207–223. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morphew, C. C., & Baker, B. D. (2004). The cost of prestige: Do new research I universities incur higher administrative costs? Review of Higher Education, 27, 365–384. doi:10.1353/rhe.2004.0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27, 491–506. doi:10.1080/0379772022000071977
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). 2016–17 survey materials: Glossary. Washington, DC: IPEDS Data Collection System.
   Google Scholar
• O’Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 121–179). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rhoades, G. (2014). Extending academic capitalism by foregrounding academic labor. In B. Cantwell & I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. 113–134). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosinger, K. O., Taylor, B. J., Coco, L., & Slaughter, S. (2016). Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 87, 27–54. doi:10.1080/00221546.2016.11777393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidtlein, F. A., & Berdahl, R. O. (2005). Autonomy and accountability: Who controls academe? In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 71–91). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2015). Global competition, US research universities, and international doctoral education: Growth and consolidation of an organizational field. Research in Higher Education, 56, 411–441. doi:10.1007/s11162-014-9355-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titus, M. A., Vamosiu, A., & McClure, K. R. (2017). Are public master’s universities cost efficient? A stochastic frontier and spatial analysis. Research in Higher Education, 58, 469–496. doi:10.1007/s11162-016-9434-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washburn, J. (2005). University, Inc.: The corporate corruption of American higher education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 13–36. doi:10.1257/jep.13.1.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. A. (1990). Cost containment: Committing to a new economic reality. Change, 22(6), 16–22. doi:10.1080/00091383.1990.9937662
   Google Scholar