I'm probably missing an older thread where this would have been a good fit....
Northwest Arkansas Community College has been requiring full-time faculty to spend at least 32 hours a week on campus, and they're not happy about it:
Quote
New on-campus attendance rule rankles Northwest Arkansas Community College faculty
by Dave Perozek | Today at 4:18 a.m.
BENTONVILLE -- Some full-time faculty members are unhappy about a new rule implemented this semester at Northwest Arkansas Community College that requires them to spend at least 32 hours per week working on campus, diminishing the flexibility they say is essential to their jobs.
Numerous faculty members complained about the rule in an anonymous survey done by the faculty senate earlier this month. Some also criticized the way the rule was imposed without faculty input. The Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette obtained the survey results through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The survey asked faculty members to rate their morale on a scale of 1-10. A total of 142 faculty members -- 102 full time and 40 part time -- responded with an average morale rating of 5.3. The full-time faculty members rated their morale at an average of 4.9.
The survey also invited faculty members to provide comments on the ratings.
Those comments varied, but 40 full-time faculty members referenced the 32-hour rule in their comments, with 37 of those expressing a negative opinion.
One person -- echoing the sentiments of several others -- wrote the hours requirement "completely disregards the amount of time I spend on nights and weekends working for the college, it's a slap in the face. I spend well over forty hours a week working for the college, not all of those hours are on campus, and now these new rules make me feel like my hard work and dedication are not appreciated at all."
Another said there's no reason for them to be in their office 32 hours a week, because most of their classes are online with students who ask the faculty member to meet with them online on evenings or weekends.
"I have been in my office every week since this has been mandated, and I have seen one student two times," the full-time faculty member wrote.
About 30% of the college's courses are being taught fully online this fall semester, according to Grant Hodges, director of communications, government relations and marketing.
More at https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/oct/24/new-on-campus-attendance-rule-rankles-northwest/
It's one of those measures they think will help with retention (e.g. - "If only professors could be seen anytime during the week when they need help, we'd be able to keep them paying tuition.") I could have 30 office hours per week and I'd still see the same amount of students I do now.
Quote from: Mobius on October 24, 2022, 01:34:32 PM
I could have 30 office hours per week and I'd still see the same amount of students I do now.
I'm required to have 1.5 office hours per section per week. So... this semester, that's 7.5 office hours every week. I have seen zero students so far.
Since I can have these hours online, it's not a big deal. But if I had to commute in for it... man, that would tank my morale, too. And I'd
still have to spend an additional 9.5 hours a week on campus, after all was said and done. Ugh.
My second to last year as Chair, the Provost decided to require Chairs to be on campus one day each week, every week. At least one of each of these things happened:
1) The Chairs didn't comply b/c they were away during part of the summer. Permission was occasionally sought.
2) Some Chairs did their assigned work ONLY on that day, and productivity plummeted.
3) Some Chairs scheduled in-person meetings with the Provost each week, thereby forcing the Provost to be on campus, as she was not wont to do. (Any rumors that they coordinated things so they met on different days to maximize the pain are unverified)
4) Some Chairs resigned. When the fall rolled around, several re-upped. At full Chair pay (a quirk of the budgeting system). Several others did not, and NO Chair work was completed for those departments.
This was the 1st Summer of COVID. No one was around anyway.
A Moral (?): What some people will willingly do voluntarily, they will absolutely refuse to do when required.
Am I the only one who noticed that this particular Arkansan cc is located in Walmartville, USA?
It's just classic bad management. If there's a problem with some faculty members not being available to students, that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. Imposing requirements that aren't really relevant to the actual job that people are doing is just going to irritate everyone and accomplish nothing.
Our contract talks open in Spring; I'm just waiting for The Nimrods In Charge to try to push this BS here. Right now, all FT faculty have to do 10 hours per week on campus, plus one additional hour for every OL section; English have a lower load (4/4, rather than 5/5), so we have to do 13 hours. Thank goodness my dean screwed up on my ADA accommodation and agreed I'd only have to do 6 on-campus hours during my 2 day/week on campus schedule.
I love your colleagues, FishProf! What I always find so insulting about stuff like this is that Admin forgets they're dealing with people way more educated and just plain brighter than they are, plus, we have years of seeing students play the system. I (and many of my colleagues) know our union contract inside and out, and if they want to put ridiculous crap in writing, that's just a signal for us to put our heads together and figure out how to use "the letter of the law" to get around it.
Although I think overly restrictive rules like this one are unproductive, I don't mind, say holding to rules we have about office hours (and, yes, I realize that office hours needn't really be in an official "office", but a certain amount really should be on campus, especially if its a residential campus). I actually have a more lax view about meetings these days: Almost all of them can be electronic, and thus people can catch it from 100 miles a way, on the way to their kid's soccer practice, etc.
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 25, 2022, 07:25:34 AM
Although I think overly restrictive rules like this one are unproductive, I don't mind, say holding to rules we have about office hours (and, yes, I realize that office hours needn't really be in an official "office", but a certain amount really should be on campus, especially if its a residential campus). I actually have a more lax view about meetings these days: Almost all of them can be electronic, and thus people can catch it from 100 miles a way, on the way to their kid's soccer practice, etc.
It's the heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach to fixing a few, perceived bad actors that rankles.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 24, 2022, 08:28:50 PM
Am I the only one who noticed that this particular Arkansan cc is located in Walmartville, USA?
Not sure about the relevance of this observation to the thread, but yes. I actually passed through Bentonville only a couple of weeks ago (They have a wonderful taco place that's great for lunches). Bentonville is a small town that has been turned into a boomtown by the presence of Wal-Mart's headquarters. Every time I go there, it's like a whole section of town has been turned upside down by the latest development project. Roads you drove down to get somewhere last time are suddenly no longer passable due to a massive construction site that has appeared.
It has a pleasant downtown area, and various amenities like museums and bicycle trails. But I can't imagine living in a place that's in such a constant state of upheaval. The population mostly gives the impression of being transitory. I actually felt self-conscious about my Arkansas accent, even though I was technically still in the state! And the cost of living there is rapidly getting out of reach for ordinary people. It's like a miniature San Francisco or NYC--there's so much money sluicing through the place that everything has gotten hopelessly distorted.
Artem Uni has not done anything quite this stupid, but apparently some idiots in the past abused the policy that a moderate purchase of alcohol was acceptable when entertaining faculty candidates or other guests. A couple too many bottles of Chateau Thames Embankment were purchased and now, it's just easier to open a separate ticket and buy alcohol out of my own pocket rather than dealing with accounting the next day. If I want a bottle of decent wine, I'm gonna order one. Life is too short to buy the $7 Chilean House Wine on offer
I had one of my faculty denied museum grade ethanol for preserving specimens on a field research trip because we were "a dry campus".
Oddly, when he bought Vodka in the field, they paid, as the receipt said "beverages". I didn't say anything, because the ETOH would've come out of the department budget, but meal reimbursement was a different fund.
Even prior to Covid, we have had faculty who taught online and lived outside the state/country. I don't think this particular CC has that issue. My institution does have an issue with campus presence. I'd guess I'm above the mean, but I don't think I'm on campus a lot.
Quote from: apl68 on October 24, 2022, 12:58:31 PM
I'm probably missing an older thread where this would have been a good fit....
Northwest Arkansas Community College has been requiring full-time faculty to spend at least 32 hours a week on campus, and they're not happy about it:
This has more than a whiff of the new push toward monitoring worker productivity (and which is diametrically opposed to worker flexibility and autonomy.)
The NYTimes recently ran a piece with the teaser "Now digital productivity monitoring is also spreading among white-collar jobs and roles that require graduate degrees (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/15/briefing/workers-tracking-productivity-employers.html)"
Walmart has been a leader in using such monitoring to make sure they don't pay anyone for a wasted breath. Some of the (management-perceived) benefits of such monitoring must be driving the thinking of administration at the local CC.
My environment is quite different, in that talking shop with other faculty on a regular basis and overseeing research labs that run >40h per week is essential to productivity. So faculty need to be around a lot. But the resulting sense of community has been hard to reestablish as people do more work tasks remotely. The weaker engagement with each other is hurting us. What is the value of the corresponding sense of community among the faculty at a community college that might be achieve if faculty were around most of the time?
Quote from: FishProf on October 25, 2022, 07:31:53 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 25, 2022, 07:25:34 AM
Although I think overly restrictive rules like this one are unproductive, I don't mind, say holding to rules we have about office hours (and, yes, I realize that office hours needn't really be in an official "office", but a certain amount really should be on campus, especially if its a residential campus). I actually have a more lax view about meetings these days: Almost all of them can be electronic, and thus people can catch it from 100 miles a way, on the way to their kid's soccer practice, etc.
It's the heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach to fixing a few, perceived bad actors that rankles.
Exactly. Why not just address the profs who set up robo-classes with 100% of grading based on automatic quizzes and never respond to student emails? Oh, because then you have to argue with that prof who claims they are being unfairly targeted.
My point was that the cc admins may well be either a) openly pandering to walmart management ethos requirements, or b) overthinking what they think walmart would want.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 25, 2022, 09:23:47 PM
My point was that the cc admins may well be either a) openly pandering to walmart management ethos requirements, or b) overthinking what they think walmart would want.
I would find it plausible to suppose that a community college in Bentonville would be highly influenced by Walmart, all right. As others on the thread have noted, though, this sort of thing has become widespread.
Speaking of Walmart, a part-time library staff member here works at the local Walmart in the evenings. Yesterday he did not seem entirely pleased to see the much-needed rain we had gotten. It seems that whenever there's a hard rain, it also rains
inside the local store. They have to put tubs and buckets out all over the place. Sounds a bit like the high school I attended back in the day.
Anyway, it looks like they can't get their roof fixed until Corporate in Bentonville gives them the okay to spend the money. It's an open question when, or whether, they will do so. I know that some years ago they solved the problem of leaky public water fountains at the store by permanently shutting down all of the public water fountains. I guess maintaining their small-town stores would interfere with funding all the things they're doing in Bentonville.
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 25, 2022, 03:38:26 PM
Exactly. Why not just address the profs who set up robo-classes with 100% of grading based on automatic quizzes and never respond to student emails? Oh, because then you have to argue with that prof who claims they are being unfairly targeted.
My school would first need a policy stating that mode of teaching is no longer accepted.
Which they have explicitly refused to do.
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 25, 2022, 03:38:26 PM
Exactly. Why not just address the profs who set up robo-classes with 100% of grading based on automatic quizzes and never respond to student emails? Oh, because then you have to argue with that prof who claims they are being unfairly targeted.
I've taken at least one class like this while working for my MLS. It was highly annoying. This class was an exception in that MLS program. Any program where stuff like this is the norm ought to pay a penalty in terms of accreditation.
Let's just say that WM is not known for spending a lot on things like maintenance, janitorial upkeep, heat and a/c, and, well...
Quote from: FishProf on October 24, 2022, 02:26:02 PM
My second to last year as Chair, the Provost decided to require Chairs to be on campus one day each week, every week. At least one of each of these things happened:
1) The Chairs didn't comply b/c they were away during part of the summer. Permission was occasionally sought.
2) Some Chairs did their assigned work ONLY on that day, and productivity plummeted.
3) Some Chairs scheduled in-person meetings with the Provost each week, thereby forcing the Provost to be on campus, as she was not wont to do. (Any rumors that they coordinated things so they met on different days to maximize the pain are unverified)
4) Some Chairs resigned. When the fall rolled around, several re-upped. At full Chair pay (a quirk of the budgeting system). Several others did not, and NO Chair work was completed for those departments.
This was the 1st Summer of COVID. No one was around anyway.
A Moral (?): What some people will willingly do voluntarily, they will absolutely refuse to do when required.
I take a different moral from this.
This reminds me of my undergrad job in the dormitory cafeteria. I worked the sandwich station. Complaints about the quality of the food were rampant, so the managers decided we would be much more "professional" if we stood behind our stations instead of sitting when we had no customers. There was usually a rush of sandwich-eaters at the beginning of lunch and then business immediately petered out. And there we all were, standing behind our stations to make the food taste better.
I'm sure this new rule makes all sorts of hairy-chested conservative thinkers happy.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 02, 2022, 04:48:02 PM
I'm sure this new rule makes all sorts of hairy-chested conservative thinkers happy.
And how should they respond to the knowledge that you despise them?
The future (and probably present at this point) of employment is "work from anywhere as long as you get your stuff done". In other words, if faculty teach in person, they need to show up to teach in person. If they teach remotely, they can teach from anywhere. In terms of research, faculty should be free to decide what works for themselves and their research groups. In terms of service, I am sure committees can sometimes meet over zoom and sometimes in person. Administration is another story, but to some extent can also be done remotely.
In other words, as long as people get their stuff done, I do not understand why anyone should be forced to physically be present in their office. For example, I am by far more productive when I am sitting on my couch or desk at home on my own writing my grants and papers. I am also much more comfortable and needless to say that I get to spend much more time with my family (= personal happiness).
We want to know what your "different moral" from the story above is. Do share, Mahagonny.
Quotehairy-chested conservative thinkers
This phrase made me wonder if liberal thinkers are smooth chested?
Would those with Dolly Parton-like physiques be more likely to be conservative or liberals?
(and now I regress to a joke my grandfather told me when I was a teen.... "Why are Dolly Parton's feet so small?
because nothing grows in the shade).
Sorry to distract from the topic at hand!
One problem, Resaecrh_prof, is that different schools and departments define "stuff" in very different ways. A school like mine really needs to have faculty present much of the time (no, not 9-5 , 5 days a week at a particular desk, but available). Committees are another issue, and I agree, much of that can be Zoomed, and is more efficient that way anyhow. I think the problems arise when students at an R1 (and their parents) want faculty to be available. Yet these faculty are mostly hired for other reasons, so those faculty work on the things that will get them tenure. Being at a desk so that students may or may not make use of them does not seem like a good use of time when they are primarily judged on scholarship. Of course, that source of conflict could arise at any sort of school.
I'm reporting Clean to the Title IX gods for that joke!
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 02, 2022, 06:41:02 PM
One problem, Resaecrh_prof, is that different schools and departments define "stuff" in very different ways. A school like mine really needs to have faculty present much of the time (no, not 9-5 , 5 days a week at a particular desk, but available). Committees are another issue, and I agree, much of that can be Zoomed, and is more efficient that way anyhow. I think the problems arise when students at an R1 (and their parents) want faculty to be available. Yet these faculty are mostly hired for other reasons, so those faculty work on the things that will get them tenure. Being at a desk so that students may or may not make use of them does not seem like a good use of time when they are primarily judged on scholarship. Of course, that source of conflict could arise at any sort of school.
That's why faculty have office hours. Yes, they need to be available during office hours as well and, of course, available over email during the week. That's how teaching works at the R1s I am familiar with.
Quote from: clean on November 02, 2022, 06:36:57 PM
Quotehairy-chested conservative thinkers
This phrase made me wonder if liberal thinkers are smooth chested?
I always heard "shave my harry chest" or "it will put hair on your chest" for either the lack of manly exploits or excessive desire for manly exploits. I just assume conservative men are hairier, but I could be wrong.
I bet'cha mahagonny knows about this. Hey mahag, how hairy are you? ;)
Quote from: clean on November 02, 2022, 06:36:57 PM
Would those with Dolly Parton-like physiques be more likely to be conservative or liberals?
Conservative. Definitely conservative.
QuoteI'm reporting Clean to the Title IX gods for that joke!
As I was a teen when my grandfather told me that, I m sure that the joke is 'Grandfathered' for at least 2 reasons!!
And it is agricultural, unless you have some other understanding of how things grow in the shade!
(But it did bring a happy memory of my grandfather, who rarely told jokes!!)
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 02, 2022, 06:34:55 PM
We want to know what your "different moral" from the story above is. Do share, Mahagonny.
I have been asked to post a trollish view. If anyone doesn't like it, take it up with rural guy.
Moral: Some tenured people will intentionally damage a department to show you how important it is to get along with those faculty who are eminently dedicated to the health of the department long term.
Quote2) Some Chairs did their assigned work ONLY on that day, and productivity plummeted.
Quote4) Some Chairs resigned. When the fall rolled around, several re-upped. At full Chair pay (a quirk of the budgeting system). Several others did not, and NO Chair work was completed for those departments.
QuoteI bet'cha mahagonny knows about this. Hey mahag, how hairy are you? ;)
Not hairy, but harried.
QuoteWould those with Dolly Parton-like physiques be more likely to be conservative or liberals?
Depends. Did the physique come into existence naturally?
Quote from: mahagonny on November 02, 2022, 07:32:33 PM
QuoteI bet'cha mahagonny knows about this. Hey mahag, how hairy are you? ;)
Not hairy, but harried.
QuoteWould those with Dolly Parton-like physiques be more likely to be conservative or liberals?
Depends. Did the physique come into existence naturally?
Good answer.
Good question.
I'd say the 'I-can't-believe-I'm-40-and-things-are-sagging' physique adjustments occur in Republican households in the south and southwest, and the 'I-live-in-L.A.-and-must-be-beautiful' physique adjustments are more popular in liberal households on the west coast. Everywhere else just lets it all slide.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 02, 2022, 08:21:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 02, 2022, 07:32:33 PM
QuoteI bet'cha mahagonny knows about this. Hey mahag, how hairy are you? ;)
Not hairy, but harried.
QuoteWould those with Dolly Parton-like physiques be more likely to be conservative or liberals?
Depends. Did the physique come into existence naturally?
Good answer.
Good question.
I'd say the 'I-can't-believe-I'm-40-and-things-are-sagging' physique adjustments occur in Republican households in the south and southwest, and the 'I-live-in-L.A.-and-must-be-beautiful' physique adjustments are more popular in liberal households on the west coast. Everywhere else just lets it all slide.
Not to mention, these days a person could be a transgender female, with, I suppose, girly parts picked from a catalog.
Re: Ruralguy's request.
I guess what I posted was not quite a moral. More like an observation containing what I consider to be irony from the adjunct perspective.
As far this policy helping the students, it seems to me that, if it mattered that much to have the profs on campus most all the time, this could been tried before all the online courses began. But the ship has sailed. Looks like they are trying for retention improvement. I expect to see more schemes as the situation of falling birth rate takes effect.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 02, 2022, 08:21:03 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 02, 2022, 07:32:33 PM
QuoteI bet'cha mahagonny knows about this. Hey mahag, how hairy are you? ;)
Not hairy, but harried.
QuoteWould those with Dolly Parton-like physiques be more likely to be conservative or liberals?
Depends. Did the physique come into existence naturally?
Good answer.
Good question.
I'd say the 'I-can't-believe-I'm-40-and-things-are-sagging' physique adjustments occur in Republican households in the south and southwest, and the 'I-live-in-L.A.-and-must-be-beautiful' physique adjustments are more popular in liberal households on the west coast. Everywhere else just lets it all slide.
Or sag?
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 02, 2022, 06:41:02 PM
One problem, Resaecrh_prof, is that different schools and departments define "stuff" in very different ways. A school like mine really needs to have faculty present much of the time (no, not 9-5 , 5 days a week at a particular desk, but available). Committees are another issue, and I agree, much of that can be Zoomed, and is more efficient that way anyhow. I think the problems arise when students at an R1 (and their parents) want faculty to be available. Yet these faculty are mostly hired for other reasons, so those faculty work on the things that will get them tenure. Being at a desk so that students may or may not make use of them does not seem like a good use of time when they are primarily judged on scholarship. Of course, that source of conflict could arise at any sort of school.
I'll step in here, since Dismalist hasn't, but I hope I can do justice to the idea.
The simple solution is to pay a certain premium for in-person activities. So classes taught in-person get a 10% (or whatever) premium; same for meetings, etc. Faculty who want to work remotely can do so, but those who do it in-person get rewarded. If the premium is granular, then it is most useful. Profs could have some remote "office hours" in a week, and some "in-person". Some lectures could be remote, and some in-person.
The point is, use the carrot, rather than the stick, to encourage in-person activities. Among other things, this encourages people to figure out what the actual value is to a specific activity in-person. For office hours, it's probably higher than for meetings, (especially for those meetings which basically involve a lot of one-way presentations).
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 05:09:27 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 02, 2022, 06:41:02 PM
One problem, Resaecrh_prof, is that different schools and departments define "stuff" in very different ways. A school like mine really needs to have faculty present much of the time (no, not 9-5 , 5 days a week at a particular desk, but available). Committees are another issue, and I agree, much of that can be Zoomed, and is more efficient that way anyhow. I think the problems arise when students at an R1 (and their parents) want faculty to be available. Yet these faculty are mostly hired for other reasons, so those faculty work on the things that will get them tenure. Being at a desk so that students may or may not make use of them does not seem like a good use of time when they are primarily judged on scholarship. Of course, that source of conflict could arise at any sort of school.
I'll step in here, since Dismalist hasn't, but I hope I can do justice to the idea.
The simple solution is to pay a certain premium for in-person activities. So classes taught in-person get a 10% (or whatever) premium; same for meetings, etc. Faculty who want to work remotely can do so, but those who do it in-person get rewarded. If the premium is granular, then it is most useful. Profs could have some remote "office hours" in a week, and some "in-person". Some lectures could be remote, and some in-person.
The point is, use the carrot, rather than the stick, to encourage in-person activities. Among other things, this encourages people to figure out what the actual value is to a specific activity in-person. For office hours, it's probably higher than for meetings, (especially for those meetings which basically involve a lot of one-way presentations).
I agree with the carrot rather than the stick approach, however, I feel even this approach will make academia weaker overall. Competent faculty will simply leave and go to industry, which allows them to work from anywhere they like and they get paid 2-3x more than their salaries in academia (yes, I know this is field specific--this is especially true though for technology-related fields). Personally, if my institution would tell me "you need to be physically here X days per week", I would probably quit and go to industry, especially now that I can see through my consulting gigs how much others are willing to pay for my skills.
In other words, competent faculty are likely to leave. Incompetent faculty will probably hang around forever. I will repeat what I have been saying for quite a while now: universities are employers as all other employers. If they want to retain talent, they need to be able to compete with other employers. At the end of the day, academia is just another job.
[/quote]
I agree with the carrot rather than the stick approach, however, I feel even this approach will make academia weaker overall. Competent faculty will simply leave and go to industry, which allows them to work from anywhere they like and they get paid 2-3x more than their salaries in academia (yes, I know this is field specific--this is especially true though for technology-related fields). Personally, if my institution would tell me "you need to be physically here X days per week", I would probably quit and go to industry, especially now that I can see through my consulting gigs how much others are willing to pay for my skills.
In other words, competent faculty are likely to leave. Incompetent faculty will probably hang around forever. I will repeat what I have been saying for quite a while now: universities are employers as all other employers. If they want to retain talent, they need to be able to compete with other employers. At the end of the day, academia is just another job.
[/quote]
This ---> "At the end of the day, academia is just another job." :
That is, as I see it, essentially one of the main problems with academic employment (in my perspective looking at medicine/bioscience). In many cases we are expected to sacrifice our families, "work/life balance" (whatever that is), our physical and mental health, and finances because: "This is your passion! You are doing what you love! Stop complaining AND BE GLAD YOU CAN PURSUE YOUR PASSION!!!". This I find to be a bit ridiculous, yet a pervasive outlook.
There is a crisis brewing for the future because young (career-wise not age) scientists in many cases do not want to get involved in the postdoc trap anymore and would prefer to go directly to industry after their PhD. Professor jobs are hard to come by, and for many reasons are not attractive (longer hours, crazy pressure to publish and get grants, lower salaries, etc.) when compared to working for a company. While academic employment can be very rewarding (after all there are reasons why we are all doing it!), in reality, "At the end of the day, academia is just another job."--You can always quit if you are unhappy and do something else if you have the skills to do so...
It boils down to seeing if there really is a problem, and then trying to solve that particular problem. Blanket policies, especially if implemented without representation or even consultation, are not usually effective and meet with a great deal of resistance. First, you would want to establish how much, on average, students really need to consult, in person, with a particular faculty member and how much faculty really need to be around to meet with other faculty. Also, you need to take into account differences is pedagogy and fields in general, because something like chemistry probably just requires more of a physical presence, at least for certain tasks, then some other fields. See if current office hour policies, at least on the surface, seem to be meeting those goals. Without too much intrusion, try to see if significant number of faculty are neglecting office hours. If this small amount of research indicates that there is a problem worth solving, then propose some sort of policy (which could include financial incentives or course equivalencies/releases).
Ultimately, of course Research_prof is correct. If people find that the policies are too restrictive and that they'd find conditions to be better elsewhere, they'd go elsewhere. I have observed at my school that people are even more likely to do this in *non-tech* fields. If I had to guess why, I think they probably thought they could do their job very remotely, do a lot of scholarship on the side, and just show up to teach and do minimal office hours. A higher percentage of the tech./sci people were probably used to being on site more anyway, but I have the feeling that will also reduce with time as more tasks get automated, and students want to consult more over email, text, Zoom, etc.. That's probably too simplistic, in that there may be many factors, some related to location and institution's "unique" (quirky?) mission, that might drive away people (though we aren't bleeding out faculty--just 1 TT person per year, usually of less than 100).
Quote from: bio-nonymous on November 03, 2022, 07:01:32 AM
I agree with the carrot rather than the stick approach, however, I feel even this approach will make academia weaker overall. Competent faculty will simply leave and go to industry, which allows them to work from anywhere they like and they get paid 2-3x more than their salaries in academia (yes, I know this is field specific--this is especially true though for technology-related fields). Personally, if my institution would tell me "you need to be physically here X days per week", I would probably quit and go to industry, especially now that I can see through my consulting gigs how much others are willing to pay for my skills.
In other words, competent faculty are likely to leave. Incompetent faculty will probably hang around forever. I will repeat what I have been saying for quite a while now: universities are employers as all other employers. If they want to retain talent, they need to be able to compete with other employers. At the end of the day, academia is just another job.
This ---> "At the end of the day, academia is just another job." :
That is, as I see it, essentially one of the main problems with academic employment (in my perspective looking at medicine/bioscience). In many cases we are expected to sacrifice our families, "work/life balance" (whatever that is), our physical and mental health, and finances because: "This is your passion! You are doing what you love! Stop complaining AND BE GLAD YOU CAN PURSUE YOUR PASSION!!!". This I find to be a bit ridiculous, yet a pervasive outlook.
There is a crisis brewing for the future because young (career-wise not age) scientists in many cases do not want to get involved in the postdoc trap anymore and would prefer to go directly to industry after their PhD. Professor jobs are hard to come by, and for many reasons are not attractive (longer hours, crazy pressure to publish and get grants, lower salaries, etc.) when compared to working for a company. While academic employment can be very rewarding (after all there are reasons why we are all doing it!), in reality, "At the end of the day, academia is just another job."--You can always quit if you are unhappy and do something else if you have the skills to do so...
@Bio-nonymous, I agree there are folks who cannot imagine themselves doing a different job. However, there are several folks (including myself) that can very well imagine themselves doing other jobs not related to academia. For example, having a 9-5 job that pays $200-300K per year with the prospects of moving up to $400-500K per year after a few years can definitely become my new passion and I am sure I will forget my academic passion relatively quickly.
For those who keep stating something like "we can always quit and go to industry...", that might work well in some fields, but it's not a solution for everyone. Not by a long shot, I would imagine.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 05:09:27 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 02, 2022, 06:41:02 PM
One problem, Resaecrh_prof, is that different schools and departments define "stuff" in very different ways. A school like mine really needs to have faculty present much of the time (no, not 9-5 , 5 days a week at a particular desk, but available). Committees are another issue, and I agree, much of that can be Zoomed, and is more efficient that way anyhow. I think the problems arise when students at an R1 (and their parents) want faculty to be available. Yet these faculty are mostly hired for other reasons, so those faculty work on the things that will get them tenure. Being at a desk so that students may or may not make use of them does not seem like a good use of time when they are primarily judged on scholarship. Of course, that source of conflict could arise at any sort of school.
I'll step in here, since Dismalist hasn't, but I hope I can do justice to the idea.
The simple solution is to pay a certain premium for in-person activities. So classes taught in-person get a 10% (or whatever) premium; same for meetings, etc. Faculty who want to work remotely can do so, but those who do it in-person get rewarded. If the premium is granular, then it is most useful. Profs could have some remote "office hours" in a week, and some "in-person". Some lectures could be remote, and some in-person.
The point is, use the carrot, rather than the stick, to encourage in-person activities. Among other things, this encourages people to figure out what the actual value is to a specific activity in-person. For office hours, it's probably higher than for meetings, (especially for those meetings which basically involve a lot of one-way presentations).
Ruralguy has the incentives right, and Marsh has a way of dealing with the problem.
What is the problem? We had a Covid shock which led to a learning-new-technology shock, so we don't have to show up at work anymore, we think! Before the shock, everything was regulated by tradition or well understood written rules. After the shock, we need new rules. What we get is the usual jousting for advantage among the workforce, trying to negotiate or force changes in their own favor.
[Reminds me of a strike for higher wages called by one union in a British tire producing firm [pre-Thatcher] in response to a technological innovation: Management was renumbering the offices!]
How about Marsh's solution, unbundling the professor's job and paying each component separately, with a bump up in pay for on-site teaching? Where's the money gonna come from? One answer is from the on-line instructors. They're getting the cushier job, so their pay can be cut to give the cash to the on-siters. There'd be rioting in the hallways! Tenured faculty bearing arms!
It's not easy to deal with such unrest.
I have no way of predicting the new "equilibrium". It will be reached by a combination of voice [bitching and moaning], managerial
ukase and exit [quitting for greener pastures]. My own feeling, and it's just a feeling, is that there's a tad too much bluster here. Working in academia is pretty cushy. Most exit threats are not credible.
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 03, 2022, 07:10:40 AM
Also, you need to take into account differences is pedagogy and fields in general, because something like chemistry probably just requires more of a physical presence, at least for certain tasks, then some other fields.
Somewhat tangential, but I've thought for years (i.e. long before COVID) about having courses with an in-person lab component delivered remotely, but with a "residential" requirement that would cram all of the labs into a couple of days. This would allow people who lived far away to do the course and only need to come to campus for a few days. Not good for international students, but workable for people who live up to a few hours' drive away from campus.
I forsee more ideas like this in the future.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 09:23:33 AM
Somewhat tangential, but I've thought for years (i.e. long before COVID) about having courses with an in-person lab component delivered remotely, but with a "residential" requirement that would cram all of the labs into a couple of days.
I've done this before for a field course taught at night in the Spring semester. Can't be in the field 6-9pm in February.
So, we did some online simulations, and the last 4 Saturdays (2 in April, 2 in May) were all day in-the-field labs. It worked. But it also kinda sucked.
Quote from: FishProf on November 03, 2022, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 09:23:33 AM
Somewhat tangential, but I've thought for years (i.e. long before COVID) about having courses with an in-person lab component delivered remotely, but with a "residential" requirement that would cram all of the labs into a couple of days.
I've done this before for a field course taught at night in the Spring semester. Can't be in the field 6-9pm in February.
So, we did some online simulations, and the last 4 Saturdays (2 in April, 2 in May) were all day in-the-field labs. It worked. But it also kinda sucked.
Its effectiveness would definitely differ by subject. But in some cases, the longer continuous time period would allow for something more like a project than isolated labs, and could be good for some things. (Obviously, in a case where students need to write reports after each lab, it's not a good fit, but on the other hand, where tasks are intended to follow a sequence, doing them without breaks in-between could be a bonus.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 09:23:33 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on November 03, 2022, 07:10:40 AM
Also, you need to take into account differences is pedagogy and fields in general, because something like chemistry probably just requires more of a physical presence, at least for certain tasks, then some other fields.
Somewhat tangential, but I've thought for years (i.e. long before COVID) about having courses with an in-person lab component delivered remotely, but with a "residential" requirement that would cram all of the labs into a couple of days. This would allow people who lived far away to do the course and only need to come to campus for a few days. Not good for international students, but workable for people who live up to a few hours' drive away from campus.
I forsee more ideas like this in the future.
We've been pitching this model for professional development certificates. Remote one or two evenings a week for a couple months, then a one-week residential practicum where they get their hands into stuff and have f2f talks with all the instructors and fellow students. These would be adults paying significant money and having a current need for the skills, so disinterest doesn't play a big role.
I could get on board with a week or two of intensive practicums in return for a trade-off of not doing much the rest of a term. I used to have a an intensive project where I worked 60-70 hours weeks for two weeks during each academic year, without time off to compensate.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 10:34:19 AM
Quote from: FishProf on November 03, 2022, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 03, 2022, 09:23:33 AM
Somewhat tangential, but I've thought for years (i.e. long before COVID) about having courses with an in-person lab component delivered remotely, but with a "residential" requirement that would cram all of the labs into a couple of days.
I've done this before for a field course taught at night in the Spring semester. Can't be in the field 6-9pm in February.
So, we did some online simulations, and the last 4 Saturdays (2 in April, 2 in May) were all day in-the-field labs. It worked. But it also kinda sucked.
Its effectiveness would definitely differ by subject. But in some cases, the longer continuous time period would allow for something more like a project than isolated labs, and could be good for some things. (Obviously, in a case where students need to write reports after each lab, it's not a good fit, but on the other hand, where tasks are intended to follow a sequence, doing them without breaks in-between could be a bonus.)
That's a model that could sometimes work beyond the sciences, as well. I've been experimenting with classes where the whole class jointly creates a project, but it can be tricky to make that work in 50 minute chunks. By the time everyone gets situated and starts figuring out what they are doing, class is over.
I've thought of the class project idea as well (by which I mean everyone working on the exact same final product which they then have to put together somehow), but it does mean sacrificing quite a bit.
We are starting Week 12. So far, I have had exactly ZERO student visitors to my office. (I've happily met with quite a few of them via Teams/Zoom, though, at their requests.)
Same here. Neither physical nor virtual visits from students. Simply 0.
Why should I even hold regular office hours?
I am halfway through the two-week advising period, and I have had 18 advisees choose to visit in person, while only 4 chose to attend via Zoom (there were 4 others via Zoom but that was the only option at that time slot.
On the other hand, I've had 1 student visit office hours (4 times, but just "to chat").
I've had a few, particularly in bigger intro classes, but more or less to make up work, or beg to make up work, etc.
I rarely get anyone who just comes in and says "halfway through your lecture, you said __, can you explain that?"
I used to get that more, but never these days. I get upper level students early in the semester, but if they are hurting in another upper level and doing OK in mine, then they just skip asking me as many questions. But considering I just agree to see any students so long as I am here and free, I don't see the need for copious listed hours. Still, I could see why going to having none posted could be a serious problem, especially at a residential college.