Simon Schwartzman and Elizabeth Balbachevsky
Universidade de São PauloTable 28: Centralization, decentralization and personal influence in academic governance | |||||
I - How decisions are made in your institution? (average scores: 1: control by top administrators; 5: control by faculty | |||||
State (SP) | State (others) | Federal | Private | Total | |
selecting key administrators | 2.3 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 3.0 |
choosing new faculty | 3.3 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 3.4 |
making faculty promotion and tenure decisions | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 2.8 |
determining budget priorities | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
determining the overall teaching load of faculty | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 3.6 |
setting admission standards for undergraduates | 2.2 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.1 |
approving new academic programs | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
index of centralization*: | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
II - Personal influence (1: very influential; 4: not at all influential) | |||||
at the level of department of similar unit | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
at the level of the faculty or school | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.7 |
at the institutional level | 3.3 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
index of influence* | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
* These indexes were calculated by adding the answers to the respective items, and reducing them to a 1-5 scale. |