It wasn't immediately clear to me whether the resource vampires are
i) things that you don't want that are siphoning off resources
ii) things that you do want, but didn't realize the cumulative cost of
Type i) makes more sense of the metaphor (vampires, after all), but apparently the suggestion here is (I can say with some authority) type ii).
Type ii) "vampires" seem much less interesting. Just cancel Hulu, problem solved. (Well, sure, you have to recognize that a ten small leaks make one big leak, but still.)
What's more interesting are things like type i), where an institution (let's say) finds itself paying for things that it doesn't want. At first glance, that seems just as simple to solve as the type ii) vampires: just get rid of the minor league sports team.... Except, obviously, the minor league sports team has developed a life and constituency of its own; before one knows it, the coach is the most highly paid person on campus and has an army of alumni behind him (at least as long as he is winning. but that army will back someone else if it devours him). The University sacrifices other programs, compromises its requirements for "students," finds itself host to an expensive operation which isn't in any sensible way part of the University's mission of education and research.
It's not just sports, other "initiatives" can take root in the University and redirect its resources to their separate aims.
But vampire is probably not the best metaphor for something like this that infects the University (or organization or organism) to change the host's behavior for its own benefit. It's more like a ... hmm ... something ... the term seems just out of reach of my brain ... I feel like if I were to climb up and latch on to the bottom of this leaf, it would burst out of my head.
I certainly meant resource vampires in your type (ii) sense, but I'm not convinced there's a real distinction between type (i) and type (ii). Here's why: *somebody* will want that thing. It doesn't just have a life of its own. Simply cancel Hulu? fine by me, but it turns out that other members of my household want Hulu, and I'm not empowered to make unilateral decisions on this topic. Just get rid of expensive semi-pro college sports? Fine by me. I think giving our students scholarships to get chronic traumatic encephalopathy is antithetical to our basic mission of educating them anyway. But it turns out that plenty of other stakeholders disagree with me about this. All of the resource vampires are serving *some* invested constituency, which is why they are so hard to detach.
One distinction is that your type (ii), as proposed, becomes significant only when it is one of many small costs. But a type (i) may be by itself an onerous cost.
Another is that your type (ii) supports the mission of the institution; it is a cost that must be borne or managed. A type (i) cost is a burden that at best diminishes the effectiveness of the institution.
The important distinction, though, is that a type (i) cost persists by creating constituencies or structures which change the behavior of the institution to ensure that it cannot be easily cancelled. And that change of behavior, at least as much as the direct costs, is how they damage institutions.
Vampires are parasites. Some parasites can take over the host and cause it to act in ways that reduce its fitness, like toxoplasma gondii in rodents. I believe you are arguing that some resource vampires can act this way. I agree. There’s probably a technical term for this kind of parasite, but I don’t know it. Let’s call them mind-controlling parasites. All mind-controlling parasites in colleges are resource vampires, but not all resource vampires are mind-controlling parasites.
It wasn't immediately clear to me whether the resource vampires are
i) things that you don't want that are siphoning off resources
ii) things that you do want, but didn't realize the cumulative cost of
Type i) makes more sense of the metaphor (vampires, after all), but apparently the suggestion here is (I can say with some authority) type ii).
Type ii) "vampires" seem much less interesting. Just cancel Hulu, problem solved. (Well, sure, you have to recognize that a ten small leaks make one big leak, but still.)
What's more interesting are things like type i), where an institution (let's say) finds itself paying for things that it doesn't want. At first glance, that seems just as simple to solve as the type ii) vampires: just get rid of the minor league sports team.... Except, obviously, the minor league sports team has developed a life and constituency of its own; before one knows it, the coach is the most highly paid person on campus and has an army of alumni behind him (at least as long as he is winning. but that army will back someone else if it devours him). The University sacrifices other programs, compromises its requirements for "students," finds itself host to an expensive operation which isn't in any sensible way part of the University's mission of education and research.
It's not just sports, other "initiatives" can take root in the University and redirect its resources to their separate aims.
But vampire is probably not the best metaphor for something like this that infects the University (or organization or organism) to change the host's behavior for its own benefit. It's more like a ... hmm ... something ... the term seems just out of reach of my brain ... I feel like if I were to climb up and latch on to the bottom of this leaf, it would burst out of my head.
BRB, maybe.
I certainly meant resource vampires in your type (ii) sense, but I'm not convinced there's a real distinction between type (i) and type (ii). Here's why: *somebody* will want that thing. It doesn't just have a life of its own. Simply cancel Hulu? fine by me, but it turns out that other members of my household want Hulu, and I'm not empowered to make unilateral decisions on this topic. Just get rid of expensive semi-pro college sports? Fine by me. I think giving our students scholarships to get chronic traumatic encephalopathy is antithetical to our basic mission of educating them anyway. But it turns out that plenty of other stakeholders disagree with me about this. All of the resource vampires are serving *some* invested constituency, which is why they are so hard to detach.
One distinction is that your type (ii), as proposed, becomes significant only when it is one of many small costs. But a type (i) may be by itself an onerous cost.
Another is that your type (ii) supports the mission of the institution; it is a cost that must be borne or managed. A type (i) cost is a burden that at best diminishes the effectiveness of the institution.
The important distinction, though, is that a type (i) cost persists by creating constituencies or structures which change the behavior of the institution to ensure that it cannot be easily cancelled. And that change of behavior, at least as much as the direct costs, is how they damage institutions.
Vampires are parasites. Some parasites can take over the host and cause it to act in ways that reduce its fitness, like toxoplasma gondii in rodents. I believe you are arguing that some resource vampires can act this way. I agree. There’s probably a technical term for this kind of parasite, but I don’t know it. Let’s call them mind-controlling parasites. All mind-controlling parasites in colleges are resource vampires, but not all resource vampires are mind-controlling parasites.