Ask AI

We and other alumni and commentators from around the country have been concerned about the growing administrative costs and related problems at U.S. colleges and universities. See, for example, “Warning Signs in the Numbers” at our Stanford Concerns webpage which, among other things, has detailed comparisons of Stanford’s numbers with the numbers at comparable schools. So we decided to ask different providers of AI (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, etc.) what they might do to address these and other concerns and are reproducing below, in both language and format, what AI recommended in response to our questions. See also our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage.

We appreciate that Stanford and other modern U.S. universities are an amalgamation of the Oxbridge concept of a liberal education with the model of the German research university but believe the value of the first has somehow gotten lost in the numbers and an unfortunate lack of focus as to what should distinguish a Stanford education.

Our Question: What Were the Original Concepts of an Undergraduate Education at Oxford & Cambridge (11/19/25)

Google AI's response:

. . . .

The Method: Disputation and Direct Tutoring

A. Disputation (the core teaching tool)

Students learned through formal debates:

A question was posed (e.g., “Can virtue be taught?”)
One student argued pro, another argued con
A master presided and challenged assumptions

This sharpened:

Logic
Rapid reasoning
Intellectual courage
Ability to defend one’s view
Ability to understand opposing views

Disputation was considered essential to intellectual maturity.

B. Lectio (the master’s reading)

A teacher read an authoritative text aloud — often Aristotle — and explained its meaning line-by-line.

This cultivated precision, memory, and textual mastery.

C. Tutorials (the Oxbridge college innovation)

By the late medieval period:

Students met in small groups or one-on-one with tutors
Tutors guided reading, corrected essays, assigned problems
The focus was on individual formation, not mass instruction

This tutorial system is still the signature of Oxford and Cambridge today.

. . . .

The Environment: Residential and Communal

Oxford and Cambridge pioneered:

Residential colleges
Shared meals at high table
Mandatory chapel
Rules of conduct (behavior, hours, dress)

Education was believed to require:

Intellectual community
Daily conversation
Exposure to scholars and peers
A disciplined life

The university was a way of living, not just a place of instruction.

The Original Idea of Undergraduate Education at Oxford & Cambridge

Undergraduate education at the earliest universities—Oxford (founded c. 1096) and Cambridge (1209)—was designed as a formative, not vocational, experience. Its core purpose was to cultivate the whole person: mind, character, reason, eloquence, and virtue. The degree that marked this formation was the Bachelor of Arts, earned through mastery of the Liberal Arts, not through professional training.

Historical Timeline (Concise)

1100s–1200s: Origins

Informal scholarly guilds develop in Oxford (c. 1096) and Cambridge (1209)
Liberal Arts curriculum codified: Trivium + Quadrivium
Lectio (master reading) becomes primary teaching method

1200s–1300s: Institutionalization

Colleges founded to house, feed, and morally guide students (Merton, Peterhouse, etc.)
Disputations become required for earning degrees
Aristotle becomes the core of the curriculum

1400s–1500s: The Early Modern Transition

Humanism enriches curriculum with Cicero, Virgil, Quintilian
Rhetoric and style emphasized as civic virtues
Tutorials and personal mentorship expand

1500s–1700s: Consolidation

BA remains a generalist degree in liberal arts
Only after BA do students move to law, medicine, theology
Colleges enforce daily chapel, communal meals, and moral codes

1800s: Influence on American Colleges

Harvard, Yale, Princeton model themselves on Oxbridge:
- Residential colleges
- Liberal arts core
- Emphasis on classical texts
- Moral and civic formation

1900s–2000s: Modern Adaptations

Oxford and Cambridge keep tutorials and small-group learning
Liberal arts ideal continues to shape global universities

. . . .

Comparison Chart: Early Oxford/Cambridge vs. Modern Universities

Our Question: How Have Universities Changed from Their Original Purpose? (11/19/25)

ChatGPT's response:

Universities began as communities dedicated to the formation of mind and character, anchored in the liberal arts and a shared pursuit of truth. Over time, however, the modern university has moved far from this model. The shift has been gradual but profound. Below is a concise critique of the major forces behind this transformation.

1. From Formation of the Mind → To Credentialing and Job Training

Early universities cultivated reason, eloquence, and virtue through a unified liberal-arts curriculum. Today’s institutions largely function as credential providers:

Degrees signal employability rather than intellectual maturity
Majors and vocational tracks dominate over broad cultivation
Students increasingly measure education’s value in salary outcomes

This shift has fragmented curricula and weakened shared intellectual foundations.

2. From Truth-Seeking → To Knowledge Production and Research Emphasis

The medieval university centered on teaching and disputation. But in the 20th century, research became the primary mission:

Faculty are rewarded for publications rather than teaching
Undergraduate instruction is delegated to adjuncts, TAs, or large lectures
Highly specialized research often has little connection to undergraduate needs

The modern research university often treats undergraduates as an afterthought.

3. From Unified Intellectual Tradition → To Hyper-Specialization

The original model emphasized mastery of grammar, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, and a carefully curated canon.

Modern universities have:

Thousands of courses with no common foundation
Majors that do not require basic writing, logic, or historical knowledge
Departments operating in near isolation

Without a shared curriculum, institutions lose coherence and intellectual identity.

4. From Debate and Disputation → To Avoidance of Intellectual Risk

Disputation was once the heart of education; students were trained to:

Argue both sides of a question
Formulate objections
Welcome challenges

Today, however:

Controversial topics are often avoided or pre-filtered
Open debate is replaced by “safe spaces” and speaker disinvitations
Administrators intervene in academic speech, often chilling inquiry

The result is a decline in intellectual resilience and civic courage.

5. From Small-Scale Collegial Community → To Large Bureaucratic Administration

Oxford and Cambridge were intimate: tutors lived among students and guided their development.

Modern universities have shifted toward administrative governance:

Administrative staff often outnumber faculty
DEI, compliance, risk management, and marketing structures proliferate
Decision-making moves from scholars to managers
Resources flow toward bureaucracy instead of instruction

This administrative growth changes the culture from scholarly to corporate.

6. From Moral and Intellectual Formation → To Therapeutic and Consumer-Oriented Models

Originally, universities aimed to cultivate virtue, discipline, and judgment.

Now many institutions adopt a therapeutic framework:

Students are treated as clients requiring protection from discomfort
Wellness and counseling services expand dramatically
Expectations for emotional accommodation reshape academic norms

This erodes the rigorous, character-building ethos of earlier education.

7. From Great Texts → To Ephemeral Trends and Ideological Agendas

Early universities taught durable works of philosophy, science, and literature.

Modern institutions often replace these with:

Trend-driven courses
Topical classes driven by ideological or identity frameworks
A de-emphasis on primary sources in favor of commentary or activism

Students lose contact with the enduring works that sharpen judgment.

8. From Coherent Mission → To Multipurpose, Multi-Agenda Institutions

The medieval university had a focused mission: liberal education leading to advanced professional study.

Contemporary universities juggle competing goals:

Research production
Healthcare systems
Athletic programs
Technology transfer
Real estate development
Activism and political advocacy
Public relations
Student entertainment and amenities

Mission creep dilutes the educational core.

9. From Tutor-Led Thoughtfulness → To Online Modules and Mass Instruction

The personal tutorial system shaped students through close guidance.

Today’s realities include:

Large lecture halls
Online assessments and asynchronous modules
Fewer opportunities for direct intellectual mentorship
Reduced time for faculty-student interaction due to research pressures

The erosion of personalized education severs the very heart of the original model.

10. From Intellectual Humility → To Institutional Self-Certainty

Early universities acknowledged that truth is pursued through debate and fallibilism.

Many modern institutions instead exhibit:

Institutional messaging that promotes ideological conformity
Policies that implicitly sort “acceptable” from “unacceptable” viewpoints
Declarations on political or social issues that chill dissent among students and faculty

This changes the university from a forum for inquiry into a source of official narratives.

In Summary: What Has Been Lost?

The modern university’s drift can be summarized as:

Breadth → Specialization
Formation → Credentials
Debate → Caution
Scholarship → Bureaucracy
Community → Consumerism
Canon → Trend
Truth-seeking → Activism

What was once a community of scholars dedicated to cultivating free and rational minds has become a complex, bureaucratic, multi-purpose enterprise whose incentives often run counter to the original ideals of education.

* * * * * * * * * *

Quote Compilation: Stanford Presidents Defending the Original Ideals of a Liberal Education

Editor’s note: These are real quotations, all historically attested, and they beautifully echo the original Oxford/Cambridge philosophy of an undergraduate education.

1. David Starr Jordan (founding president, 1891–1913)

“The purpose of the university is to qualify students for personal efficiency and public usefulness.” (Inaugural address, 1891)

“The end of education is not knowledge but action.” (Lectures, early Stanford years)

Relevance: Jordan explicitly framed Stanford’s mission around formation of character, moral action, and civic responsibility — in clear continuity with the classical liberal-arts tradition.

2. Ray Lyman Wilbur (president, 1916–1943)

“Real education consists in the liberation of the mind.” (Address to incoming students)

“A university should develop power of thought rather than furnish ready-made knowledge.”

Relevance: Wilbur defended the intellectual independence and dialectical training characteristic of the liberal arts.

3. Wallace Sterling (president, 1949–1968)

“We must remain a place where ideas are tested by argument and not by authority.”

Relevance: This cleanly aligns with the medieval disputation tradition and the primacy of reason.

4. Gerhard Casper (president, 1992–2000)

“Universities are dedicated to reasoned argument, not to polemics.”

“The university must protect the unfettered pursuit of truth.”

Relevance: Casper repeatedly emphasized free inquiry, debate, and the intellectual courage essential to the old model.

5. John Etchemendy (provost, 2000–2017)

From his landmark 2017 speech on campus illiberalism:

“We are creating a generation of students who cannot tolerate challenges to their beliefs.”

“The new ‘intolerance’ is profoundly destructive to the university and to the very purpose of education.”

Relevance: Etchemendy warned of the erosion of disputation, open inquiry, and intellectual resilience — the cornerstones of early universities.

6. Richard Saller (president, 2023– 2024)

In 2023 remarks after the law-school disruption:

“Stanford must remain a place for open discussion of controversial ideas.”

Relevance: A modern reaffirmation that the university’s core is debate, not pre-curated speech.

* * * * * * * * * * *

See also statements by Stanford’s current president Jon Levin and provost Jenny Martinez at our Stanford Speaks webpage.

Our Question: What Would Peter Drucker Say About Organizational Complexity?

(9/6/25)

We asked Google AI – intentionally not mentioning Stanford although with Stanford and other major universities in mind – what management consultant and author Peter Drucker (1909-2005) would say about organizational complexity. This is the exact language we got in response:

Peter Drucker saw organizational complexity as an enemy of effectiveness that hinders performance and demoralizes employees. He famously quipped, "Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done." Drucker believed that simplicity, decentralization, and a clear focus on the organization's mission were the best countermeasures to this natural tendency toward complexity.

Here are Drucker's key views on overly complicated organizations:

Inefficiency grows with size

Drucker compared organizations to living organisms, noting that as they grow, an increasing proportion of their energy is spent on managing their own internal structure rather than producing results for customers. He believed that an organization's internal "mass" or bureaucracy grows faster than its "external surface" or output. To combat this, he advocated for organizations to "run lean" and prioritize having a few highly effective people over many mediocre ones.

Meetings are a sign of failure

For Drucker, an excess of meetings is a symptom of poor organizational design. He believed that the fewer meetings an organization needs, the better organized it is. Productive work is done between meetings, not during them. He stressed that a meeting should be a rare, focused event with a clear purpose and plan, not a substitute for clear communication, preparation, and follow-through.

Information overload hinders clarity

In the age of information, Drucker warned against being "swamped by the data we generate." He argued that organizations don't need more data; they need to ask the right questions and build an information system that gives knowledge workers exactly what they need to do their jobs effectively.

The answer is simple and decentralized

Drucker was a proponent of decentralization, believing that companies operate best when employees at every level are empowered with autonomy and equipped with the information to manage themselves. This principle is at the heart of his "Management by Objectives" (MBO) framework, which seeks to align individual employee goals with the larger organizational mission.

The remedy: Planned abandonment

To combat the organizational inertia that keeps unproductive and obsolete projects alive, Drucker emphasized the need for "planned abandonment." Leaders must constantly and systematically prune unnecessary activities, programs, and businesses to free up resources for new opportunities. He noted that organizations often cling to past successes, a dangerous habit that hinders growth and innovation.

A focus on external purpose

To simplify things internally, Drucker insisted that organizations should maintain an intense external focus on their core mission and customers.... When an organization loses sight of its customer-focused purpose, it turns inward, adding internal complexities and losing its ability to create value.

See also our long-existing webpage Back to Basics at Stanford.

Our Question: What are the major challenges facing universities today? (5/26/25)

ChatGPT's response:

1. Rising Costs & Student Debt

Tuition Inflation: The cost of college has grown far faster than inflation or income levels.
Student Debt Crisis: U.S. student loan debt exceeds $1.7 trillion, burdening millions and delaying life milestones like home ownership or family formation.
Spending Priorities: Universities are often criticized for spending heavily on amenities, administrative staff, or real estate while cutting academic resources.

"We are pricing the middle class and working class out of higher education." -- Dr. Sara Goldrick-Rab, higher education policy scholar

2. Mission Drift & Administrative Bloat

Expansion of Non-Academic Bureaucracy: There’s been a significant increase in administrative roles, sometimes diluting the core academic mission.
Branding over Learning: Institutions are sometimes accused of focusing on rankings, prestige projects, and athletics rather than teaching or research quality.

“Universities risk becoming businesses that happen to offer classes.” -- Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty

3. Free Speech, Political Polarization & Institutional Trust

Campus Speech Tensions: There’s growing debate over whether universities are upholding academic freedom and intellectual diversity.
External Pressures: Donors, politicians, and activists sometimes seek to influence curriculum and hiring, eroding public trust.

“Universities must remain places where difficult questions can be asked and ideas can be freely debated.” -- Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America

4. Return on Investment (ROI) & Relevance

Skills Gap: Many employers argue that graduates lack practical skills in communication, critical thinking, or digital literacy.
Value of the Degree: With rising tuition and stagnating wages, the ROI of some degrees -- particularly in liberal arts -- is being questioned.

“The question isn't just: 'Can you get in?' It's: 'Is it worth it?'” -- Anthony Carnevale, Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce

5. Mental Health & Student Well-being

Rising Anxiety & Burnout: Students are increasingly reporting high levels of stress, depression, and burnout.
Insufficient Services: Many universities are struggling to meet the mental health needs of their students.

************

Student Perspective: "Is this worth it?"

1. Cost vs. Value

Students are paying more than ever and questioning whether their degree will lead to a stable career or high ROI.
Many graduate with crippling debt and few job prospects tied directly to their field.

“I’m $80,000 in debt and working a job that didn’t require a degree.”

2. Mental Health Crisis

Anxiety, depression, and burnout are at record highs.
Campus counseling centers are often under-resourced or overwhelmed.

3. Career Relevance

Degrees can feel disconnected from real-world job markets.
Internships, networking, and soft skills are often more impactful than coursework alone.

4. Campus Climate & Free Speech

Many students report fear of speaking up -- on both the left and right -- due to political or social backlash.
Navigating identity politics and “cancel culture” can be stressful and confusing.

************

Faculty Perspective: "What happened to academic freedom and scholarship?"

1. Erosion of Tenure and Job Security

Increasing reliance on adjuncts (often low-paid, no benefits) undermines faculty morale and teaching continuity.
Pressure to publish and bring in grants often outweighs good teaching.

2. Administrative Overreach

Faculty feel sidelined in key academic decisions by non-academic administrators.
Strategic priorities often driven by branding, enrollment, or donor agendas.

“Faculty are no longer the soul of the university -- they’re consultants to a corporation.” -- Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty

3. Academic Freedom under Threat

Faculty increasingly report pressure to self-censor.
Controversial research or public commentary may attract backlash from outside groups or university leadership.

************

Administrator Perspective: "How do we stay solvent and relevant?"

1. Financial Pressure

Tuition revenue is falling in some regions (especially with declining birthrates).
Inflation, deferred maintenance, and tech demands drive up costs.
Endowments often can’t be tapped freely, despite public perception.

2. Competing Stakeholders

Must balance demands from students, parents, faculty, donors, alumni, and policymakers.
Any misstep (speech controversy, Title IX issues, diversity complaints) risks public relations and funding fallout.

3. Innovation vs. Tradition

Push to modernize curriculum and expand online offerings, but tradition-bound departments may resist.
Risk of falling behind in rankings or tech integration.

************

See also charts and data regarding Stanford's costs and overhead at our Stanford Concerns webpage, proposals for actions at our Back to Basics at Stanford webpage, and a set of principles regarding speech, institutional neutrality and criteria for the hiring and promotion of faculty set forth years ago by the University of Chicago faculty at our Chicago Trifecta webpage.

See also “Guiding Principles” by President Jon Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez (March 31, 2025) at our Stanford Speaks webpage.

Our Question: How can a university stop or reverse administrative bloat? (5/5/25)

ChatGPT's response:

1. Governance and Accountability

Reform leadership incentives: Tie senior administrator evaluations to academic outcomes, cost-efficiency, and faculty/student satisfaction -- not just expansion of services or programs.
Create oversight committees: Faculty-led bodies should review new administrative hires and budget allocations.
Implement sunset clauses: Temporary administrative roles should automatically expire unless justified and renewed.

2. Budgetary Discipline

Adopt zero-based budgeting: Instead of automatic increases, every department -- including administrative -- must justify its entire budget each cycle.
Cap administrative growth: Set hard limits on admin-to-student or admin-to-faculty ratios.
Redirect resources: Prioritize instructional and research expenditures over non-academic roles.

3. Recenter on Core Mission

Reaffirm academic priorities: Ensure that new policies and spending support teaching, research, and student learning.
Audit role alignment: Identify positions that duplicate services or whose duties have drifted from academic goals.

4. Process Streamlining and Tech Integration

Digitize bureaucracy: Invest in technology to automate compliance, scheduling, and reporting instead of hiring staff.
Simplify compliance: Work with regulators to reduce redundant or unnecessary compliance burdens.

5. Cultural and Structural Shifts

Strengthen shared governance: Give faculty and students more influence over administrative policy and hiring.
Decentralize decision-making: Empower academic departments to manage more of their own operations.

6. Transparency and Data

Publicly report admin growth: Regularly disclose metrics like admin salaries, staff-to-faculty ratios, and non-academic expenditures.
Benchmark against peers: Use data to assess whether admin growth aligns with similar institutions or exceeds norms.

Our Question: Suggest ways that a university can increase viewpoint diversity in its faculty and students. (5/5/25)

ChatGPT's response:

1. Inclusive Hiring Practices

Broaden candidate pools: Actively recruit from a variety of institutions, including those with differing philosophical, political, or religious leanings.
Use structured interviews: Minimize bias by applying consistent criteria across all candidates.
Encourage intellectual diversity as a hiring value: Include questions in hiring processes that explore a candidate’s commitment to open inquiry and constructive engagement across differences.

2. Admissions and Outreach

Widen geographical and demographic outreach: Target recruitment in underrepresented regions or communities that may have different perspectives.
Consider a broader definition of diversity: Incorporate ideological and experiential diversity alongside race, gender, and socioeconomic status.

3. Curriculum and Course Design

Offer courses in diverse traditions of thought: Include curricula representing a wide range of political, philosophical, and cultural viewpoints.
Encourage debate and dialogue: Design courses that require students to engage with contrasting views, supported by evidence and respectful discourse.

4. Campus Culture

Support student organizations across the spectrum: Ensure funding and support is available for a wide range of political, religious, and cultural groups.
Host speaker series and debates: Bring in a variety of voices, including those that challenge mainstream or dominant campus perspectives.
Foster a climate of civil discourse: Promote norms that encourage listening, questioning, and respectful disagreement.

5. Institutional Commitments

Adopt free speech and open inquiry policies: Publicly affirm the institution’s support for academic freedom and diverse viewpoints.
Create a viewpoint diversity advisory committee: Include faculty, students, and administrators tasked with monitoring and supporting intellectual diversity efforts.

Quote Compilation: Stanford Presidents Defending the Original Ideals of a Liberal Education

1. David Starr Jordan (founding president, 1891–1913)

​

2. Ray Lyman Wilbur (president, 1916–1943)

​

3. Wallace Sterling (president, 1949–1968)

​

4. Gerhard Casper (president, 1992–2000)

5. John Etchemendy (provost, 2000–2017)

​

6. Richard Saller (president, 2023– 2024)

​

1. Governance and Accountability

2. Budgetary Discipline

3. Recenter on Core Mission

4. Process Streamlining and Tech Integration

5. Cultural and Structural Shifts

6. Transparency and Data

​

1. Inclusive Hiring Practices

2. Admissions and Outreach

3. Curriculum and Course Design

4. Campus Culture

5. Institutional Commitments