The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Tulsa Trustees Override Faculty to Uphold Academic-Restructuring Plan With Sweeping Cuts (https://www.chronicle.com/article/Tulsa-Trustees-Override/247504?key=j_DIeWIUtJsVs9ToXQRavjIsR9Z4Db2XCvVP2dI4uq62mELdi21wDB0uQt4hnvwNOThSZGhsRDIzLU95V0t6dzdSSUFHVTZHbk9UVkdvYXpoSnk5cUFMOW93TQ)

EDS (Episcopal Divinity School) all over again...

M.

Details of programs/majors/minors affected:  https://utulsa.edu/truecommitment/reprioritizing-reallocating-resources/ (https://utulsa.edu/truecommitment/reprioritizing-reallocating-resources/)

Interesting to see biochemistry and chemistry grad program killed, as well as physics grad, geosciences, history, some ed programs, math and a number of business degrees in the mix while the English graduate program is left apparently intact.  It really is a selective college-wide slash and burn.  Very sad about music and ancient languages.  The whole theater program is axed.  And even some law school degrees are gone.

The impoverishment of American higher ed takes yet another hit.

How is this going to affect U of Tulsa's rankings?

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 08, 2019, 08:53:46 PM
Interesting to see biochemistry and chemistry grad program killed, as well as physics grad, geosciences, history, some ed programs, math and a number of business degrees in the mix while the English graduate program is left apparently intact.  It really is a selective college-wide slash and burn.  Very sad about music and ancient languages.  The whole theater program is axed.  And even some law school degrees are gone.

The impoverishment of American higher ed takes yet another hit.

How is this going to affect U of Tulsa's rankings?

I don't know how rankings work, but I assume the cuts are either necessary, justified or rationalized (depending on one's interpretation and sympathies) by money.

Bothersome, crass (and will probably be considered irrelevant) questions:

If maintaining all the majors and courses taught should be the priority, couldn't they have been continued by just moving to non-tenure track faculty? Or is maintaining academic careers and jobs of acceptable status the priority?

Quote from: mahagonny on November 08, 2019, 09:26:57 PM

[. . . ]

I don't know how rankings work, but I assume the cuts are either necessary, justified or rationalized (depending on one's interpretation and sympathies) by money.

[. . .]

Supposedly the university acted like a Third World petro-state and spent itself into a hole that it is now trying to climb out of.

Many of the program eliminations look rational from the standpoint of focusing on what will help differentiate the university from competitors. Who needs more LLM degree holders in the USA, for example? But I would have kept some of the physics, geophysics, and chemistry programs. I'm surprised the university has nothing in chemical engineering given its program in petroleum engineering.

Quote from: spork on November 09, 2019, 03:05:45 AM
I'm surprised the university has nothing in chemical engineering given its program in petroleum engineering.

I see chemical engineering on aside's link with even the PhD being kept (first column in the engineering school where petroleum engineering is the last column).  What am I missing?

Quote from: spork on November 09, 2019, 03:05:45 AM
But I would have kept some of the physics, geophysics, and chemistry programs.

U Tulsa ia not competitive in those graduate areas and there's no reason to believe they could get more market share.  Whereas, having an established computational sciences specialty puts them as one of the frontrunners in a growing field, buzzwordy or not.

Nationally (and sometimes internationally), chemistry and physics have been losing majors to other fields at the undergraduate level.  The American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, and the European equivalents have spent more than a decade trying to spread the word about how a bachelor's degree in physics prepares one for a great career.  Reports are available at https://www.aip.org/statistics/employment while career guidance documents are at https://www.aps.org/careers/guidance/.  The upshot at the undergrad level is slightly better than the pitch for a liberal arts degree (you're a critical thinker with decent communication skills, good team work skills, and you can do math!), but the substance still comes down to a heavy dollop of "we don't have enough engineers in many specialities so we'll pay a physicist to learn engineering on the job".

British chemistry majors are down 20% in the past few years. (https://cen.acs.org/education/undergraduate-education/British-students-decline-study-chemistry/97/i40) The situation isn't dire like that in the US, but a quick look at degrees awarded in physical sciences and science technologies indicates growth from 20k to 30k in my lifetime (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_322.10.asp).  50% increase seems good, until one realizes that's still fewer degrees every year in the combination of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and a few others than English alone and is nowhere near the growth or current numbers for computer science, biology, and communications/journalism.

When I was running numbers for Super Dinky, more HS students on the ACT indicated an interest in philosophy than in chemistry.  Chemistry knowledge, like physics, is core to a lot of other fields, but isn't all that popular as a standalone major.

People who do a little research may choose to study something in which chemistry is important, but is not the sole learning goal.  For those who don't know,

There are 85k chemists in the US making an average of $84k/year.   (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192031.htm)

Chemical engineers average $105k/year (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172041.htm),

Petroleum engineers average $154k/year (during the recent boom) (https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes172171.htm)

Materials engineers average $92k/year (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172131.htm),

Materials scientists average $100k/year (https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes192032.htm)

Biochemists and biophysicists average $105k/year (https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes191021.htm)

Biomedical engineers average $95k/year (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172031.htm)

The kicker is how few people are employed in most of these fields compared to chemistry.  The saving grace is one can generally then drop down to the technician/technologist level to make middle-class income (albeit more like $35k-$40k starting out instead of $70k) or take a job doing something else that requires a college degree because one will have all the benefits of critical thinking and communication as well as a proficiency with math and basic technology.

In another interesting turn, the push in some areas has been to do interdisciplinary majors that include chemistry and physics, but aren't traditional programs focused solely on those areas.  For example, Canadian universities have some programs (now 10 years old) that bring together several sciences to leverage their utility as part of a fabulous undergrad program. (https://cen.acs.org/education/undergraduate-education/Major-in-chemistry-Physics-Nah-With-these-programs-students-can-major-in-science/97/i41).

In short, people who did the research on what to cut probably made good choices by looking carefully at their particular programs instead of going all in on a blanket STEM-is-the-future vision.

Quote from: polly_mer on November 09, 2019, 05:49:01 AM

Quote from: spork on November 09, 2019, 03:05:45 AM
I'm surprised the university has nothing in chemical engineering given its program in petroleum engineering.

I see chemical engineering on aside's link with even the PhD being kept (first column in the engineering school where petroleum engineering is the last column).  What am I missing?

[. . . ]

Oops, my mistake. I'm the one who missed it.

Note that U. of Tulsa has effectively killed all foreign language majors except Spanish. I bet there's a gen ed foreign language requirement of two semesters, which means first-year German, Chinese, and French will likely be taught by adjuncts.

My employer is very likely to do a similar restructuring of its academic programs in perhaps two years, but we have zero engineering, physics is limited to I and II and is taught by an adjunct, and computer science is represented by a single introduction to Python course taught out of the math department. Math graduates about one major per year. Meanwhile the philosophy and religious studies departments have a combined thirteen tenure-track faculty lines but together graduate only about four majors per year, usually double majors -- no one deliberately comes here to major in philosophy.

And I predict the outcome of this restructuring will be that the cancerous tumor that is our undergraduate business program will grow even larger, making the university even less differentiated from the competition than it already is.

Tulsa is nuking their biochem M.S. as well as their chem M.S. and Ph.D.  What a shame.

I have no doubt you have analyzed the situation more or less correctly, Polly.  What I imagine is a textbook or its equivalent somewhere in the distant future written by a culture scholar explaining the paradox of American education in the comparatively wealthy, literate, and democratic 21st century, an era in which education is, at least in theory, open to all.  Someday, I suspect, we as a culture will regret this overall turn in our collective collegiate history.

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2019, 08:45:30 AM
Tulsa is nuking their biochem M.S. as well as their chem M.S. and Ph.D.  What a shame.

I have no doubt you have analyzed the situation more or less correctly, Polly.  What I imagine is a textbook or its equivalent somewhere in the distant future written by a culture scholar explaining the paradox of American education in the comparatively wealthy, literate, and democratic 21st century, an era in which education is, at least in theory, open to all.  Someday, I suspect, we as a culture will regret this overall turn in our collective collegiate history.

I'm watching our own system turning itself inside out because of a crazy new funding formula. We are cancelling classes because students don't actually major in these classes - just taking them as gen eds. (Interthreaduality). We are investing in "new" programs while not addressing the impacted programs that are highly popular but "too expensive" to run.

Everyone wants to be a transformational leader, because being a competent manager is, I dunno, boring?

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 09, 2019, 09:06:37 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2019, 08:45:30 AM
Tulsa is nuking their biochem M.S. as well as their chem M.S. and Ph.D.  What a shame.

I have no doubt you have analyzed the situation more or less correctly, Polly.  What I imagine is a textbook or its equivalent somewhere in the distant future written by a culture scholar explaining the paradox of American education in the comparatively wealthy, literate, and democratic 21st century, an era in which education is, at least in theory, open to all.  Someday, I suspect, we as a culture will regret this overall turn in our collective collegiate history.

I'm watching our own system turning itself inside out because of a crazy new funding formula. We are cancelling classes because students don't actually major in these classes - just taking them as gen eds. (Interthreaduality). We are investing in "new" programs while not addressing the impacted programs that are highly popular but "too expensive" to run.

Everyone wants to be a transformational leader, because being a competent manager is, I dunno, boring?

It's because managerial competence is a rarity and easy to evaluate, whereas claims of being a "transformational leader" will always be believed by some, until it's too late. Recent personal example: our last provost was fired after four years of doing untold damage, and he was immediately hired by another university to be provost, where he lasted two years before getting fired. I'm sure he's on his way to yet another provost position somewhere else.

Quote from: spork on November 09, 2019, 09:27:00 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 09, 2019, 09:06:37 AM

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 09, 2019, 08:45:30 AM
Tulsa is nuking their biochem M.S. as well as their chem M.S. and Ph.D.  What a shame.

I have no doubt you have analyzed the situation more or less correctly, Polly.  What I imagine is a textbook or its equivalent somewhere in the distant future written by a culture scholar explaining the paradox of American education in the comparatively wealthy, literate, and democratic 21st century, an era in which education is, at least in theory, open to all.  Someday, I suspect, we as a culture will regret this overall turn in our collective collegiate history.

I'm watching our own system turning itself inside out because of a crazy new funding formula. We are cancelling classes because students don't actually major in these classes - just taking them as gen eds. (Interthreaduality). We are investing in "new" programs while not addressing the impacted programs that are highly popular but "too expensive" to run.

Everyone wants to be a transformational leader, because being a competent manager is, I dunno, boring?

It's because managerial competence is a rarity and easy to evaluate, whereas claims of being a "transformational leader" will always be believed by some, until it's too late. Recent personal example: our last provost was fired after four years of doing untold damage, and he was immediately hired by another university to be provost, where he lasted two years before getting fired. I'm sure he's on his way to yet another provost position somewhere else.

Because getting fired is proof that one is just too Transformational for the planet.

The Transformiest Tramsformer who ever Transformed.

Some of this seems perfectly sensible. There are way too many MA programs in history. The ones that are well designed to fill particular niches, like public history, or secondary education, make sense. Many of the others are just designed to generate money and are a bad deal for students. Similarly, there are lots of places with PHD programs that shouldn't really have them. What polly said about STEM is true for the humanities too. If you're Tulsa and you have a humanities PhD program, you need to be able to have some sort of specialty or concentration that will draw good students.

The cuts to undergraduate majors and whole departments are much more troubling. Some of it could be reasonable. There's nothing inherently terrible about a school deciding that a particular specialized discipline or department no longer makes much sense. Maybe it makes more sense for Tulsa to say "look, we just aren't that strong in music performance, other places in our region have programs with stronger reputations and we just aren't attracting the best students. Let's just focus on music education where we do pretty well." The problem, of course, is that obviously this is all happening in an environment of crisis. The point is not to figure out which majors make sense, or how best to serve students, but to axe the budget and probably to fulfill various ideological agendas. You can see this in the massive cutting of language programs, classics and philosophy. That isn't about rationalizing programs, it is about a retreat from the liberal arts.

Some of these cuts make sense to me from a purely pragmatic standpoint, though there are some I will admit to not understanding. Why, for example, are they killing joint degree programs in the College of Business? It seems to me like a properly structured joint degree program shouldn't require much in the way of extra overheard. (If I'm wrong about this, someone please correct me. I'm genuinely curious).

One of my former employers will likely have some significant program cuts in 5-10 years. It's in an area with a declining population, and the programs that are there aren't doing enough to adapt to the changing realities of the situation. Some of it is the result of bureaucratic red tape, but's also due to faculty being unrealistic. (Just as an example, two of my former colleagues--both tenured before the internet was even a thing--scream bloody murder about the department offering any online classes, and the dean has gone along with their heckler's veto. The result is that students are simply voting with their feet and taking classes elsewhere, while the department's numbers continue to shrink).  Even my current place, which has good overall FTEs, isn't realistic either. There's a sustained push here to create MORE graduate programs in the humanities and social sciences that are theoretical rather than applied. God only knows why.

Quote from: pepsi_alum on November 09, 2019, 03:11:40 PM
(Just as an example, two of my former colleagues--both tenured before the internet was even a thing--scream bloody murder about the department offering any online classes, and the dean has gone along with their heckler's veto. The result is that students are simply voting with their feet and taking classes elsewhere, while the department's numbers continue to shrink). 

What is really the argument for online courses except that they are "the future?" Is there actually evidence that offering courses online provides real benefits for most students? I know the argument is that it increases access for students with jobs and busy lives, but often those are the very people who will do better if they have to come to class twice a week and stay connected to their schooling.

Perhaps, my perspective is skewed because teaching a course online seems awful to me. It takes away the part I like the most about teaching, interacting and engaging with students in a dynamic setting, and replaces them with the parts of the job I dislike, grading and fiddling with CMS software.

Quote from: Caracal on November 10, 2019, 12:19:17 PM

Quote from: pepsi_alum on November 09, 2019, 03:11:40 PM
(Just as an example, two of my former colleagues--both tenured before the internet was even a thing--scream bloody murder about the department offering any online classes, and the dean has gone along with their heckler's veto. The result is that students are simply voting with their feet and taking classes elsewhere, while the department's numbers continue to shrink). 

What is really the argument for online courses except that they are "the future?" Is there actually evidence that offering courses online provides real benefits for most students? I know the argument is that it increases access for students with jobs and busy lives, but often those are the very people who will do better if they have to come to class twice a week and stay connected to their schooling.

Perhaps, my perspective is skewed because teaching a course online seems awful to me. It takes away the part I like the most about teaching, interacting and engaging with students in a dynamic setting, and replaces them with the parts of the job I dislike, grading and fiddling with CMS software.

At our CC the online classes book up the fastest because students think they will be easier and less time-consuming than face-to-face classes.

As it turns out, the barriers to successfully completing the face-to-face classes are the same as those to completing online classes. Unblocked time to review the material and participate in online discussions. Someone to watch your kids while you do the class. Whatever-it-is to log in even when you are tired, just finished work, didn't sleep well to show up anyway. And the factors for success - relationship with faculty, meeting other students, learning from other students... just isn't there.

So, they have the highest failure rates.

Several of our Board members agreed to take a class at the college. Of course, they signed up for an online class, and the collective college response was "That's not really taking a class..."

I will say, very selfishly, that I don't miss the blank looks of incomprehension when I ask students to respond to a reading which they clearly did not read before class.  I don't miss the unmuffled yawns, texting, and Amazon shopping sprees that I either have to ignore or police.  If there are tears, I don't see them over email.  And I don't miss the airborne toxic events associated with deep-fried fast food when students bring lunch to class---that I either need to ignore or police while I lecture or distribute exercises.

Plus, now that I work a 5/5, I am very relieved when I teach online and can have the whole Blackboard page set up before the semester starts and just let it run.

All that said, online classes are a joke and not really good education at all.  Perhaps the future will produce better and easier-to-use technology, but for now online classes should be done away with.

Many online classes may be a joke, but I don't think the ones I teach are.  I do my best to ensure that they're pretty darn rigorous. 

Quote from: Hegemony on November 10, 2019, 11:09:18 PM
Many online classes may be a joke, but I don't think the ones I teach are.  I do my best to ensure that they're pretty darn rigorous.

I don't mean to imply that the people who teach online are doing anything wrong or that an online course can't be useful. We all have to work within the constraints of systems. I teach some courses that have formats that I don't think are ideal for students. The job is still to do the best you can. I'm sure a good online course is more useful to many students than a crummy in face class.

I think it's a mistake to compare online classes to face-to-face classes. Or rather, online classes aren't likely to ever be "better" than a decent face-to-face class. What they should be compared to, and what they can be better than, is the "face-to-face class you aren't able to attend".

Way back in the 80's, when "correspondence" courses involved mailing cassette tapes and/or vides, and mailed (i.e. "snail-mail") assignments and so on, they were useful to people who weren't able to be on campus. For example:

• Students in a co-op placement in another city who wanted/needed to pick up a course during their work term
• Students who needed a course to graduate but couldn't fit anything in their schedule
• Students who needed to retake a course they failed but which didn't fit in their schedule

The high drop-out rate of online courses reflects that fact that they require more self-discipline than regular courses, but when they're the only option available, they are valuable.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2019, 05:55:10 AM
I think it's a mistake to compare online classes to face-to-face classes. Or rather, online classes aren't likely to ever be "better" than a decent face-to-face class. What they should be compared to, and what they can be better than, is the "face-to-face class you aren't able to attend".

Way back in the 80's, when "correspondence" courses involved mailing cassette tapes and/or vides, and mailed (i.e. "snail-mail") assignments and so on, they were useful to people who weren't able to be on campus. For example:

• Students in a co-op placement in another city who wanted/needed to pick up a course during their work term
• Students who needed a course to graduate but couldn't fit anything in their schedule
• Students who needed to retake a course they failed but which didn't fit in their schedule

The high drop-out rate of online courses reflects that fact that they require more self-discipline than regular courses, but when they're the only option available, they are valuable.

I agree with this. What isn't so good is if many students are taking an online course instead of a face to face course they'd sooner not attend, rather than the one they can't. It also isn't great if departments are offering a lot of online courses just to appeal to students who don't like coming to campus. There's one department at my school that offers over half their courses, including most intro courses, online. That doesn't seem great.

 Witchita State is cutting their gen eds  (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/11/wichita-states-faculty-senate-thinks-less-more-when-it-comes-gen-ed?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=0b4d3cfbaa-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-0b4d3cfbaa-198141857&mc_cid=0b4d3cfbaa&mc_eid=4b1f11d364) from 42 to 33.

Gen Ed in their world does include composition, public speaking and math which sounds more like general college requirements than the random history or philosophy class some of y'all are complaining about.

Perhaps you think this...

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2019, 05:19:00 PM
All that said, online classes are a joke and not really good education at all.

because you do this...

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2019, 05:19:00 PM
I teach online and can have the whole Blackboard page set up before the semester starts and just let it run.

If you aren't engaging students in the online environment, then why would you expect the same level of learning?  "Letting it run" seems to be the equivalent of telling the face-to-face students to simply read the book and show up for exams.

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 11, 2019, 07:54:11 AM
Witchita State is cutting their gen eds  (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/11/wichita-states-faculty-senate-thinks-less-more-when-it-comes-gen-ed?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=0b4d3cfbaa-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-0b4d3cfbaa-198141857&mc_cid=0b4d3cfbaa&mc_eid=4b1f11d364) from 42 to 33.

Gen Ed in their world does include composition, public speaking and math which sounds more like general college requirements than the random history or philosophy class some of y'all are complaining about.

Read the whole article.  The take-one-course-from-each-field is exactly the random courses we dislike and constitute the other 20+ credits still in gen ed.  One college-level math class is completely inadequate unless it's a course after calculus III.  Freshman comp and rhetoric are generally something which college-ready folks will AP/IB/dual credit or otherwise skip.

Quote from: polly_mer on November 11, 2019, 04:21:01 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 11, 2019, 07:54:11 AM
Witchita State is cutting their gen eds  (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/11/wichita-states-faculty-senate-thinks-less-more-when-it-comes-gen-ed?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=0b4d3cfbaa-DNU_2019_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-0b4d3cfbaa-198141857&mc_cid=0b4d3cfbaa&mc_eid=4b1f11d364) from 42 to 33.

Gen Ed in their world does include composition, public speaking and math which sounds more like general college requirements than the random history or philosophy class some of y'all are complaining about.

Read the whole article.  The take-one-course-from-each-field is exactly the random courses we dislike and constitute the other 20+ credits still in gen ed.  One college-level math class is completely inadequate unless it's a course after calculus III.  Freshman comp and rhetoric are generally something which college-ready folks will AP/IB/dual credit or otherwise skip.

Who is we? I had a lot of choices for gen eds in college and was still pretty intentional in the ones I chose.

And I would like to think most students take a similar approach. "From List A of 27 classes, which one would you like to choose?" Yes, perhaps the most convenient class may win, still, in my experience with most students is that they read the list, find an intriguing title and try to learn more before finding a way to fit it in.

Quote from: wwwdotcom on November 11, 2019, 03:44:30 PM
Perhaps you think this...

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2019, 05:19:00 PM
All that said, online classes are a joke and not really good education at all.

because you do this...

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 10, 2019, 05:19:00 PM
I teach online and can have the whole Blackboard page set up before the semester starts and just let it run.

If you aren't engaging students in the online environment, then why would you expect the same level of learning?  "Letting it run" seems to be the equivalent of telling the face-to-face students to simply read the book and show up for exams.

A bit too literal, my friend. 

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 11, 2019, 05:17:36 PM
And I would like to think most students take a similar approach. "From List A of 27 classes, which one would you like to choose?" Yes, perhaps the most convenient class may win, still, in my experience with most students is that they read the list, find an intriguing title and try to learn more before finding a way to fit it in.

That's the argument for having a bunch of elective slots that fit nicely with a solid major core for people who want a more freeform education or the true liberal arts education of 40 credits major, 40 credits general education, and 40 credits electives.  Some places do have a general education program that is designed to be a major and a purposefully selected minor as a way to give a good education.  However, that's seldom pushed by the people who are worried about their teaching jobs that are supplemental to the fields that generally come in at about 130 credits.

That pick-from-a-list-of-27-courses is not at all the argument for "All educated people need to have been exposed to these 6/8/10 categories of knowing about the world so we can claim we teach all those soft skills. Therefore, each student must take one class from each of these M discipline lists that also meet the N categories of knowing about the world yet won't give anyone much of anything who doesn't already have a pretty good K-12 background."

Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements. 

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 05:27:45 AM
Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements.

Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 05:36:50 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 05:27:45 AM
Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements.

Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Ideally, a course getting on the list requires a form/proposal explaining how the course meets the general education requirements to be on list X and a faculty committee reviews the proposal and may even require the proposing faculty member to respond to questions in person or in writing to the committee's satisfaction before putting the course on the list.

Even more ideally, any substantial changes to the course then must go through the faculty committee and/or every course is reviewed on a schedule (not more than 5 years and three is better) to ensure that the course as it is being taught still meets the requirement to be on the list for one of the N ways of knowing or soft skills practice.

A good institution that values education will have processes to ensure that the standards are being upheld, although that means a lot of discussion regarding the trade-offs in academic freedom (teach your course as you like...) and shared governance (...as long as the students who pass the course are meeting all the stated learning outcomes).

It's much easier to keep the standards high when people buy into the institution and view their responsibilities as contributing their piece to a learning community in which the goal is student success (at least for the students who try) and the general education N ways of knowing are really being supported by everyone.

It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM
It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

Be fair, Polly.  That is sometimes but not always the case.  You certainly do sound like you have it in for the adjuncts simply because they are adjuncts.  Stay calm.

However, you have once again provided a great rational for why we need to all work toward FT hires, be they long-term NTT or TT.  Good job.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 05:36:50 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 05:27:45 AM
Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements.

Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Marshy, do you work in higher ed? You have never heard of a Curriculum Committee?

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 05:27:45 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 11, 2019, 05:17:36 PM
And I would like to think most students take a similar approach. "From List A of 27 classes, which one would you like to choose?" Yes, perhaps the most convenient class may win, still, in my experience with most students is that they read the list, find an intriguing title and try to learn more before finding a way to fit it in.

That's the argument for having a bunch of elective slots that fit nicely with a solid major core for people who want a more freeform education or the true liberal arts education of 40 credits major, 40 credits general education, and 40 credits electives.  Some places do have a general education program that is designed to be a major and a purposefully selected minor as a way to give a good education.  However, that's seldom pushed by the people who are worried about their teaching jobs that are supplemental to the fields that generally come in at about 130 credits.

That pick-from-a-list-of-27-courses is not at all the argument for "All educated people need to have been exposed to these 6/8/10 categories of knowing about the world so we can claim we teach all those soft skills. Therefore, each student must take one class from each of these M discipline lists that also meet the N categories of knowing about the world yet won't give anyone much of anything who doesn't already have a pretty good K-12 background."

Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements.

If there is a large institution with many degrees and certificates, with majors ranging from Art to Business to Zoology, then there are many ways a student can be interested in History, for example.

At our CC we have transfer AA's and are looking at making Certificates that both (1) meet Gen Ed requirements; and (2) round out the student's major interest. 

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 12, 2019, 06:48:18 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 05:36:50 AM
Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Marshy, do you work in higher ed? You have never heard of a Curriculum Committee?

Sure, but "academic freedom" usually means that instructors have a fair bit of leeway in how they teach a course. As Polly said:

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM

Ideally, a course getting on the list requires a form/proposal explaining how the course meets the general education requirements to be on list X and a faculty committee reviews the proposal and may even require the proposing faculty member to respond to questions in person or in writing to the committee's satisfaction before putting the course on the list.

Even more ideally, any substantial changes to the course then must go through the faculty committee and/or every course is reviewed on a schedule (not more than 5 years and three is better) to ensure that the course as it is being taught still meets the requirement to be on the list for one of the N ways of knowing or soft skills practice.
.
.
.
It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

Given the kind of work that would have to be done by a department to maintain rigourous requirements for one of these courses, I'd guess that in many places they just get someone to teach it and as long as there is no student uprising, don't examine too closely how it gets done.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 07:02:44 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on November 12, 2019, 06:48:18 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 05:36:50 AM
Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Marshy, do you work in higher ed? You have never heard of a Curriculum Committee?

Sure, but "academic freedom" usually means that instructors have a fair bit of leeway in how they teach a course. As Polly said:

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM

Ideally, a course getting on the list requires a form/proposal explaining how the course meets the general education requirements to be on list X and a faculty committee reviews the proposal and may even require the proposing faculty member to respond to questions in person or in writing to the committee's satisfaction before putting the course on the list.

Even more ideally, any substantial changes to the course then must go through the faculty committee and/or every course is reviewed on a schedule (not more than 5 years and three is better) to ensure that the course as it is being taught still meets the requirement to be on the list for one of the N ways of knowing or soft skills practice.
.
.
.
It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

Given the kind of work that would have to be done by a department to maintain rigourous requirements for one of these courses, I'd guess that in many places they just get someone to teach it and as long as there is no student uprising, don't examine too closely how it gets done.

Maybe, though my experience is that 99% of people are actually professional and care about doing a good job.

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 11, 2019, 05:55:10 AM
I think it's a mistake to compare online classes to face-to-face classes. Or rather, online classes aren't likely to ever be "better" than a decent face-to-face class. What they should be compared to, and what they can be better than, is the "face-to-face class you aren't able to attend".

Way back in the 80's, when "correspondence" courses involved mailing cassette tapes and/or vides, and mailed (i.e. "snail-mail") assignments and so on, they were useful to people who weren't able to be on campus. For example:

• Students in a co-op placement in another city who wanted/needed to pick up a course during their work term
• Students who needed a course to graduate but couldn't fit anything in their schedule
• Students who needed to retake a course they failed but which didn't fit in their schedule

The high drop-out rate of online courses reflects that fact that they require more self-discipline than regular courses, but when they're the only option available, they are valuable.

Also, one sometimes needs a degree that simply isn't offered locally.  My professional MLS degree is all online through an out-of-state institution.  If you're a librarian in our state who needs to earn a professional degree you HAVE to go online, because we have no accredited MLS programs in our state.  The online MLS programs have been a great boon.

My experience of online education has left me feeling that it's a less-than-ideal way to take courses or earn a degree.  But for mature, self-disciplined students it can work well enough, as long as the school and the instructors are maintaining good standards.

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride in it, which is why I find this personally offensive.

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 11:04:27 AM


This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation.

Yes, I'm sure Polly will tell me that too, but it is pretty clear that when they talk about adjuncts in these broad terms, the adjunct they have in mind is this "bad, desperate adjunct." If you push back and point out that plenty of people teaching part time don't fit this image, then you're told you must be a good adjunct. The solution is never to actually selectively hire people on full time contracts and then evaluate them in systematic ways to determine whether those contracts should be renewed. The existence of adjuncts is always cited as a reason to stop teaching courses. It isn't very pleasant.

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

I can't say I've seen a lot of adjuncts that are lazy, but (i) all they're paid for is being a warm body in front of the class, and they shouldn't be expected to go above and beyond, because that's not why they're getting paid, and (ii) some are incompetent - as in truly having no idea what they were doing. I even know one adjunct that curved grades down if the exam scores were too high. As you might expect, there were a lot of students fulfilling a gen ed requirement that expressed anger after watching their grade drop from an A to a C.

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse.

Ya'know, Polly is a bit tender about being assigned viewpoints she does not adhere to, but this is her commentary elsewhere:

Quote from: polly_mer on October 31, 2019, 04:46:54 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on October 30, 2019, 09:10:54 PM
There are no problems in academe today that cannot be quickly solved by each of us individually.

Underprepared students who don't actually want to learn?

Underprepared students who do want to learn but are functioning at a third-grade level?

Deferred maintenance such that the classrooms are unsafe with no Internet access and completely inadequate climate control?

Lack of professors in fields where students dearly want to study, but few qualified professionals want to teach?

Prohibitive opportunity cost for people who would be better served taking one class at a time for a decade, but the structure is set up for full-time students living on campus for only 4 years?

Sure, some problems can be solved by individuals choosing to do something other than adjunct for peanuts.  Other problems will require concerted efforts that have nothing to do with adjuncts.

I cannot imagine where such dire ideas come from.  I've taught at a number of places, and even the least impressive are not this bad.  Polly either had a very bad experience as a professor, student, and/or administrator; she is simply contrarian; or she is lost in a STEMy glory-daze of some kind.  She def has it in for the adjuncts----why is not clear except that it has something to do with the humanities.  Nevertheless she is obviously fascinated with academia and the faults she sees in its stars.  She used to make me mad too, but I suspect there is more to this than simply an examination of academia.

I think you would be surprised at conditions that are frequently found at low- to medium-tier colleges and universities -- declining admissions standards, increasing tuition discounts, missed enrollment targets, faculty without proper credentials, deferred maintenance, etc.

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 12:50:45 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 11:04:27 AM


This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation.

Yes, I'm sure Polly will tell me that too, but it is pretty clear that when they talk about adjuncts in these broad terms, the adjunct they have in mind is this "bad, desperate adjunct." If you push back and point out that plenty of people teaching part time don't fit this image, then you're told you must be a good adjunct. The solution is never to actually selectively hire people on full time contracts and then evaluate them in systematic ways to determine whether those contracts should be renewed. The existence of adjuncts is always cited as a reason to stop teaching courses. It isn't very pleasant.

Well, if a person is both incensed about the press coverage of the lives of lowest paid adjuncts and simultaneously is on a mission from God to crush adjunct collective bargaining rights, they are their own problem.

You don't have to talk about or display a person who sells his blood to make the rent or lives in his car to call attention to the fact that higher education has created a class of migrant worker positions.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 11:04:27 AM

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

So what. You're still just an adjunct. Get used to it.
And don't you live in a country with socialized medical care?

It's a bifurcation fallacy to suggest that those of us who do need to take any low-paid adjunct gig we can get to keep the wolves at bay are therefore by definition going to be subpar 'warm bodies' who would at best just be going through the motions.  I'm one of those wolves at the door adjuncts, but I'm trying damn hard despite the low pay that necessitates my continued retail work, etc.  But Polly, for all her strengths, stubbornly refuses to accept the reality that lucrative non academic opportunities for humanities PhDs are substantially fewer than those for STEMers, and people like me would and do vastly prefer any teaching opportunities to just more hours behind the register.

Quote from: tuxthepenguin on November 12, 2019, 01:55:15 PM

I can't say I've seen a lot of adjuncts that are lazy, but (i) all they're paid for is being a warm body in front of the class, and they shouldn't be expected to go above and beyond, because that's not why they're getting paid, and (ii) some are incompetent - as in truly having no idea what they were doing. I even know one adjunct that curved grades down if the exam scores were too high. As you might expect, there were a lot of students fulfilling a gen ed requirement that expressed anger after watching their grade drop from an A to a C.

Agree on both points. I don't try to skimp on the core aspects of my job. My students shouldn't get a crummy class because I'm not being paid enough and it would just depress me to not try to do a good job. But, yeah, I'm not doing extra things outside my class unless I actually want to. I'm certainly not going to voluntarily attend meetings about goals for gen-ed classes or whatever.

And I've certainly heard things about some other adjuncts that don't sound good. I used to have someone next door to me and some of the conversations he had on his phone about students and with students were....bizarre. Of course, there are plenty of bad full time faculty too, and I think most adjuncts are reasonable people. But if you're in charge of hiring someone and you're going to pay them by the course with no security, it isn't really possible to do much more than talk with them for ten minutes. It also is not really possible to rigorously evaluate performance. I get one classroom visit a year and then an evaluation based on that and my syllabus. Everyone is very nice about the whole thing, but realistically all that is being evaluated is that I'm a vaguely reasonable person teaching a vaguely reasonable college class. It isn't a system that is well designed to get rid of people who shouldn't be teaching.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 12, 2019, 06:28:18 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 12, 2019, 11:04:27 AM

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

So what. You're still just an adjunct. Get used to it.

I'm not sure what you mean; I am used to it. It fits well with my day job and my interests nicely.

Quote
And don't you live in a country with socialized medical care?

I think you are assuming that anyone not enamoured of unions must be a "libertarian-get-rid-of government" type. I'm a centrist. Universal medical coverage is a great thing, as is universal education, and I don't mind taxes going to support all kinds of services. Mainly I find most unions' apocalyptic over-the-top rhetoric and dramatic posturing as foolish and unproductive. We don't have to say the sky is falling to realize that an umbrella is a good thing in certain situations.

Incidentally, here's a union organization (https://www.clac.ca/About-us/What-makes-us-different) that I'd be happy to be represented by. From their web page:

Quote
What Makes Us Different?
Our approach is truly modern

We believe in cooperation, not confrontation. We work to make your workplace a better place—so that you and your coworkers can grow both as a workplace community and as individuals.

It's why we seek to balance individual and collective interests when we negotiate. It's why we only strike as a last resort. It's why we don't tell our members where to work, or our signatory employers who they can hire. It's why we don't force anyone to join us, or fine them when they leave. It's why we use your dues money to represent and support you—not politicians or political parties.

All of that sounds great to me.

Quote from: Caracal on November 13, 2019, 03:21:24 AM

And I've certainly heard things about some other adjuncts that don't sound good. I used to have someone next door to me and some of the conversations he had on his phone about students and with students were....bizarre. Of course, there are plenty of bad full time faculty too, and I think most adjuncts are reasonable people. But if you're in charge of hiring someone and you're going to pay them by the course with no security, it isn't really possible to do much more than talk with them for ten minutes. It also is not really possible to rigorously evaluate performance. I get one classroom visit a year and then an evaluation based on that and my syllabus. Everyone is very nice about the whole thing, but realistically all that is being evaluated is that I'm a vaguely reasonable person teaching a vaguely reasonable college class. It isn't a system that is well designed to get rid of people who shouldn't be teaching.

It isn't that for full-time faculty either, so that's no surprise.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2019, 05:08:50 AM

Quote
And don't you live in a country with socialized medical care?

I think you are assuming that anyone not enamoured of unions must be a "libertarian-get-rid-of government" type. I'm a centrist. Universal medical coverage is a great thing, as is universal education, and I don't mind taxes going to support all kinds of services. Mainly I find most unions' apocalyptic over-the-top rhetoric and dramatic posturing as foolish and unproductive. We don't have to say the sky is falling to realize that an umbrella is a good thing in certain situations.

You missed the point. What is obvious is that you don't mind being the recipient of universal medical coverage, while seeing it as a sign of your own responsible choices; then you cast aspersion at someone whose government does not provide that benefit because they have difficulties.

Quote
This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 13, 2019, 05:29:48 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2019, 05:08:50 AM

Quote
And don't you live in a country with socialized medical care?

I think you are assuming that anyone not enamoured of unions must be a "libertarian-get-rid-of government" type. I'm a centrist. Universal medical coverage is a great thing, as is universal education, and I don't mind taxes going to support all kinds of services. Mainly I find most unions' apocalyptic over-the-top rhetoric and dramatic posturing as foolish and unproductive. We don't have to say the sky is falling to realize that an umbrella is a good thing in certain situations.

You missed the point. What is obvious is that you don't mind being the recipient of universal medical coverage, while seeing it as a sign of your own responsible choices; then you cast aspersion at someone whose government does not provide that benefit because they have difficulties.

1. My understanding is that in the US, full-time workers are entitled to health care, and so getting a full-time job outside academia is the best route for people to get that coverage.

2. Even here, where everyone has health coverage, a bunch of part-time jobs doesn't take the place of a full-time job.

3. As I've said in numerous posts, I support things like pro-rated benefits for part-time workers so that employers are not incentivized to break up full-time positions into part-time ones to avoid having to pay benefits. Again, this is true with or without universal healthcare.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2019, 05:45:06 AM


1. My understanding is that in the US, full-time workers are entitled to health care, and so getting a full-time job outside academia is the best route for people to get that coverage.
2. Even here, where everyone has health coverage, a bunch of part-time jobs doesn't take the place of a full-time job.

I've said this before, but the personal and the institutional get hopelessly mixed up in these discussions and I can't help feeling like it is mostly by design. I assume adjuncts are as capable as anyone else of understanding and navigating the absurdly complicated US healthcare system. They also are capable of figuring out their own financial situation. I think it is fair to say that people who are adjunct teaching aren't usually trying to maximize their earning power, but that's true of lots of other people as well.

I wish there were actual surveys of adjuncts, because as it is, we really can only go on anecdotal evidence, but based on that I don't see a lot of evidence that most adjuncts are actually in particularly dire financial straits. I have a spouse with a decent paying job and a young kid. My income is supplementary and spouse's job provides healthcare for all of us. I think a decent number of adjuncts are in similar situations. Other people are making different sorts of trade-offs. I sort of admire people like Kay who are willing to work a retail job part time just because they really want to teach. I don't think I could do that, but it isn't inherently nuts. I'm sure Kay is a reasonable person who can figure out how to make this work financially and would probably eventually figure something else out if it became apparent that it wasn't going to work anymore. We're big kids and can take care of ourselves.

But, just because we are ok, doesn't mean that employing large numbers of adjuncts is some wonderful strategy for colleges, or is a reasonable and fair way for non-profit institutions to operate. Among other things, it is just a terrible way to try to attract and retain good instructors. The logic is basically that it doesn't matter, that adjuncts are all "interchangeable cogs" as Poly says. Of course, that isn't true. Teaching is a skilled, professional job and if you don't compensate people well, both monetarily and in other ways, you aren't going to consistently keep good people around or get the best out of them.

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

The administrators on this forum, the old CHE forum,  and beyond already know this. They don't care. They are looking for people to blame for myriad shortcomings in today's learning outcomes. Otherwise they are getting rich off a system that isn't well designed to work, and everybody's saying 'why?' Their jobs self-select for...let's just say the kind of people we've been hearing from.

Quote from: mahagonny on November 13, 2019, 08:48:03 AM

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

The administrators on this forum, the old CHE forum,  and beyond already know this. They don't care. They are looking for people to blame for myriad shortcomings in today's learning outcomes. Otherwise they are getting rich off a system that isn't well designed to work, and everybody's saying 'why?' Their jobs self-select for...let's just say the kind of people we've been hearing from.

I am an administrator on this forum. Speak for yourself. Getting rich? That's a laugh. I spend most of my time writing proposals and worrying about being able to scrounge up enough funding to pay my own salary to support my family. Sound familiar?

Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on November 13, 2019, 09:25:24 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on November 13, 2019, 08:48:03 AM

Quote from: Caracal on November 12, 2019, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: polly_mer on November 12, 2019, 06:17:07 AM


It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

The administrators on this forum, the old CHE forum,  and beyond already know this. They don't care. They are looking for people to blame for myriad shortcomings in today's learning outcomes. Otherwise they are getting rich off a system that isn't well designed to work, and everybody's saying 'why?' Their jobs self-select for...let's just say the kind of people we've been hearing from.

I am an administrator on this forum. Speak for yourself. Getting rich? That's a laugh. I spend most of my time writing proposals and worrying about being able to scrounge up enough funding to pay my own salary to support my family. Sound familiar?

Impressive that you can make such an admission. Struggling to keep the wolf from the door is a badge of shame, aren't we finding out.

New info on U Tulsa: free for now link from Twitter
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-a-radical-restructuring/247542?key=j_DIeWIUtJsVs9ToXQRavvw0c41GIvaC_bMShKC7q3CIfksUHOaWQt7YnJcyva3WdktaRU15OVRpTDRRQS15OXFyVER2ZWRCc0g4ajRPUEY3bDJhZnFURjZGSQ

Quote from: polly_mer on November 15, 2019, 06:40:29 PM
New info on U Tulsa: free for now link from Twitter
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-a-radical-restructuring/247542?key=j_DIeWIUtJsVs9ToXQRavvw0c41GIvaC_bMShKC7q3CIfksUHOaWQt7YnJcyva3WdktaRU15OVRpTDRRQS15OXFyVER2ZWRCc0g4ajRPUEY3bDJhZnFURjZGSQ

I took a quick look at U. of Tulsa's Form 990s. Something is weird. Pre-recession FY 2008 it had positive net revenue of $103 million off total expenses of $193 million. In FY 2009, it had negative net revenue of $117 million off total expenses of $203 million. So basically a $200 million swing, with $160 million of that caused by the stock market crash (change in investment income from one year to the next).

Since then its annual net revenue has been positive except for 2012 and 2016. Total expenses have climbed to more than $300 million. Salaries and benefits are about 40% of expenses. Since 2012, regardless of whether the budget has been in the black, contributions have comprised 20-27% of annual revenue. Is this money coming from trusts? It's not recorded on the Form 990s as investment income.

A lot of money flows in, a lot of money flows out. But not in what looks like (to me, at least) the usual pattern.

Does the required independent audit provide additional information?  https://35ht6t2ynx0p1ztf961h81r1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/utulsa-audit-report-2017-18.pdf

I see sales of educational services as well as conversions from restricted to unrestricted and distributions from beneficial interest in funds held
by others.  The "beneficial interest in funds held by others" translates to trusts.

However, I also found interesting this note:

Quote
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of The University of Tulsa, The Gilcrease Museum Management Trust (the Trust) and The Oak Company (collectively, the University). The Oak Company is currently inactive, i.e., no activity in 2018 and 2017, but has been used in the past to purchase property. Effective July 1, 2008, The University of Tulsa formed the Trust and entered into a Management Agreement with The City of Tulsa and The Board of Trustees of the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art to manage and operate the Gilcrease Museum. The University has agreed that it will incorporate fundraising for the endowment and operations of the Gilcrease Museum into its fundraising efforts and will separately account for such funds and manage the investment of such funds within the University's policies. The Trust is consolidated due to The University of Tulsa's control and economic interest in it. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Other parts of the audit report are also interesting in the watching the train wreck kinda way.  The discount rate is not huge, but  https://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/oklahoma/university-of-tulsa/ indicates few full-pay students even at the highest income level.


Their net cash used in operating activities is less of a loss in 2018 (only $9M), but that still seems bad to me.  That figure includes:

    * increase in net assets that is only half as big in 2018 as in 2017.  It's a positive number, but it's still alarming to watch it go down that fast in one year.

    * negative $40M in net realized and unrealized gains on investments (an improvement from the negative $60M in 2017)

    * negative $20M in change in fair value of beneficial interest in funds held by others (an improvement from negative $35M in 2017)


An April 2019 article published around the time of the first announcement of the huge cuts to the academic programs states

Quote
But it became clear some years ago that TU was in financial trouble. Faculty have had no raises since 2015. That same year, President Steadman Upham (whose compensation in 2014 exceeded $1.2 million) informed the campus community that the university was providing athletics with a $9 million annual subsidy. The total deficit in 2016 was $26 million. For nine months in 2016–2017, the university ceased to contribute to faculty retirement accounts—effectively, a 9 percent cut in pay. In September 2017, 5 percent of the nonfaculty workforce was laid off. In December 2017, Moody's downgraded $89 million of TU's parity revenue bonds and $57 million of student-housing revenue bonds. Around the same time, it was revealed that TU had for years been running a structural deficit of about $16 million. Athletics accounted for most of the total loss; TU's law school and Tulsa's Gilcrease Museum, which the university has managed since 2008, made up much of the rest.

...

At his first meeting with TU faculty in late 2016, by contrast, Clancy [new TU president] announced that he was turning the ship around: we would now focus on recruiting first-generation college students and offering them job-ready programs. This is the sort of modest goal a public college of local stature might set for itself, not the best private university in the region. And such students cannot possibly afford TU's tuition, just raised 3 percent to $41,698 for 2019–2020. (Little wonder that Oklahoma's public universities are now considering competing with TU in Tulsa, news that caused a former trustee to tell me "we're fucked.") Clancy hopes to plug the structural deficit and raise scholarship funds through a $500 million capital campaign—but how many first-generation college students know to look beyond the sticker price for financial aid? Still more implausibly, Clancy plans to continue to market TU as a private university of national significance.

Reference: https://www.city-journal.org/university-of-tulsa

There are some additional interesting side notes in that article:

Quote
Incoming Honors students, half of whom are enrolled in the engineering college, read the Iliad in the summer before they matriculate; in their first semester, they read the Odyssey along with Greek tragedy, comedy, history, and philosophy. They go on to study classic books from the medieval period to the present.

...
[but]
Between 2012 and 2017, Dutton [Honors program director] increased the size of the program fourfold, from 65 to 255 enrolled students—but the yearly budget for Honors decreased by 70 percent over the same period. This meant that the program could no longer host visiting speakers, support dinner or lunch conversations between students and faculty, or even pay for snacks at shared events; Dutton took to baking cookies and purchasing refreshments on her own dime. More than 400 students applied for admission to Honors this year. Levit nevertheless slashed its budget, effectively reducing the number of incoming Honors students in the fall of 2019 by 50 percent.

Reference:https://www.city-journal.org/university-of-tulsa

255 students divided by 4 cohorts is 65 students per year.  Thus, the increase appears to be the result of having the first cohort be joined by one more cohort every year to result in the expected one-cohort-for-each-admission-year-spanning-four-years-to-graduation.  Phasing out the program seems reasonable if the goal is to switch to serving needier students in specific majors.

The author of the April article writes:

Quote
There will be no assistantships for graduate students entering English and anthropology in the fall of 2019. Arts and Sciences will become a service college. All programs will be combined into four divisions, including one called Humanities and Social Justice. The default course load for all professors at TU will shift from 3/2 to 4/4. Yet somehow, TU found money to announce the creation of a new office, the vice-provost for research—little of which will be accomplished with such heavy teaching obligations.

Reference:https://www.city-journal.org/university-of-tulsa

Other sources indicate that TU is a research university with an emphasis on undergraduate experiential learning, which seems to play well with the idea that the national prominence will be in certain research areas, not primarily classroom-based undergraduate education.  That seems to indicate that few people doing significant research will have a 4/4 load.  Instead, perhaps the current 100 part-time faculty (https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-tulsa/academic-life/faculty-composition/) will be reduced to fewer as a result of less research-active faculty members teaching more without buying out of their increased load.  After all, if the graduate programs have been eliminated, then it's hard to remain research active in fields where graduate assistants do much of the day-to-day heavy lifting.

I am hugely amused at how the following paragraph is set up to be a negative for Tulsa and TU:

Quote
The facts illuminate TU's radical overhaul. Clancy's priorities dovetail with GKFF's areas of focus: early childhood education, delivering health care to indigent families, and making Tulsa more vibrant and economically robust. Key parts of TU's strategic plan could just as well have been written by GKFF: "Who will lead improvements in our K-12 education systems? Who will guide the growing number of first generation students to go to college and help them succeed in college? Who will champion health equity? Who will assist in improving our police relations and criminal justice system? Who will lead Tulsa's efforts to develop, recruit, and retain young, creative talent? . . . The faculty, staff, students and graduates of the University of Tulsa will." The new TU will serve the same social and economic mission as the Kaiser Foundation, and Clancy is evidently banking on substantial GKFF funding. Why shouldn't he? In 2008, after all, he secured a $50 million grant from Kaiser to establish the University of Oklahoma College of Community Medicine at OU–Tulsa. 

Reference:https://www.city-journal.org/university-of-tulsa

My favorite comment on https://www.city-journal.org/university-of-tulsa is

QuoteThe position presented is actually, if the public can't be sold on your church, then your church will remain empty.

There is no value in being right if you suck at communication.

I am telling you nobody believes "critical thinking" and they are very probably right - not to.

Poster Otherway replying to poster FtzWW

Quote
1. My understanding is that in the US, full-time workers are entitled to health care, and so getting a full-time job outside academia is the best route for people to get that coverage.

Just to note that this is erroneous.  In many (but definitely not all) full-time jobs, workers receive health insurance as part of their compensation package.  There is no entitlement; it is at the whim of the employer, and smaller employers frequently cannot afford insurance for their employees, and many larger employers, like Wal-Mart, either do not provide it or provide bare-bones coverage that leaves most things uncovered. Even the premium insurance does not cover every expense.  There is usually a deductible: for instance, you pay the first $3000 or the first $5000 in expenses — and this can be levied on multiple categories, for instance, you pay the first $3000 in doctor's visits, and if you are hospitalized you pay the first $3000 in hospitalization charges.  There is also often a co-pay: for instance, the insurance pays 80% and you pay 20% of every expense (in addition to the deductible).  The insurance company may also disallow certain expenses.  For instance, if your doctor tells you to get a $2000 scan, you go ahead, but the insurance company may declare that that scan was unnecessary, and so refuse to pay that $2000.  There was the recent case of a woman whose company disallowed nearly a million dollars of her expenses for complications in childbirth. And so on.  So having insurance is not the same as covering comprehensive healthcare. Many of the medical bankruptcies that happen in the U.S. are for people who have health insurance. The seriously ill ones who don't have health insurance often don't go bankrupt because people won't give them healthcare in the first place.  They just die.  The key is that the health insurance companies are for-profit companies, so their incentive is to disallow claims. The bureaucracy and the profit motive means that Americans pay around twice as much for healthcare, per capita, as people in other developed countries.

The ACA requires employers with more than 50 full-time employees, which of course includes universities, to provide health insurance to people who work 30 hours or more per week, basically i.e. 75% of full-time.  This covers less than half of our adjuncts; and as I say, even the ones who have health insurance still have a great deal to pay out of pocket, especially for any serious illness.

Quote from: Hegemony on November 18, 2019, 07:36:57 AM

The ACA requires employers with more than 50 full-time employees, which of course includes universities, to provide health insurance to people who work 30 hours or more per week, basically i.e. 75% of full-time.  This covers less than half of our adjuncts; and as I say, even the ones who have health insurance still have a great deal to pay out of pocket, especially for any serious illness.

As someone said, "Breaking Bad" was a truly American show.

Virtually anywhere else in the world:

"You have cancer."

"Oh"

"Your treatment starts next Tuesday."

"OK"

THE END

Quote from: Caracal on November 10, 2019, 12:19:17 PM

Quote from: pepsi_alum on November 09, 2019, 03:11:40 PM
(Just as an example, two of my former colleagues--both tenured before the internet was even a thing--scream bloody murder about the department offering any online classes, and the dean has gone along with their heckler's veto. The result is that students are simply voting with their feet and taking classes elsewhere, while the department's numbers continue to shrink). 

What is really the argument for online courses except that they are "the future?" Is there actually evidence that offering courses online provides real benefits for most students? I know the argument is that it increases access for students with jobs and busy lives, but often those are the very people who will do better if they have to come to class twice a week and stay connected to their schooling.

Perhaps, my perspective is skewed because teaching a course online seems awful to me. It takes away the part I like the most about teaching, interacting and engaging with students in a dynamic setting, and replaces them with the parts of the job I dislike, grading and fiddling with CMS software.

I know I'm late, but I just wanted to reply here that I agree online classes aren't always the "right" answer and that we should be concerned with student success rates in those classes. But in the case I mentioned upthread, what happened is that a few senior faculty members are blocking online classes even when there's a specific and demonstrable rationale for offering them. Two quick examples: (1) my former colleagues blocked the department from offering in an online interdisciplinary degree aimed at nontraditional students working in a specific professional field, and (2) my former colleagues insist that summer courses must be offered in-person rather than online, even though undergraduate students at that university pretty much only take summer courses online anymore. What's happened is that students figured out they could get the equivalent class online at a local community college and automatically transfer it in. As a result, my old department at Former U no longer offers any summer courses whatsoever, because the in-person classes don't make minimum enrollment numbers. Thus nearby CC gets the extra revenue instead. 

Quote from: pepsi_alum on November 30, 2019, 09:32:47 AM

Quote from: Caracal on November 10, 2019, 12:19:17 PM

Quote from: pepsi_alum on November 09, 2019, 03:11:40 PM
(Just as an example, two of my former colleagues--both tenured before the internet was even a thing--scream bloody murder about the department offering any online classes, and the dean has gone along with their heckler's veto. The result is that students are simply voting with their feet and taking classes elsewhere, while the department's numbers continue to shrink). 

What is really the argument for online courses except that they are "the future?" Is there actually evidence that offering courses online provides real benefits for most students? I know the argument is that it increases access for students with jobs and busy lives, but often those are the very people who will do better if they have to come to class twice a week and stay connected to their schooling.

Perhaps, my perspective is skewed because teaching a course online seems awful to me. It takes away the part I like the most about teaching, interacting and engaging with students in a dynamic setting, and replaces them with the parts of the job I dislike, grading and fiddling with CMS software.

[. . .]

my old department at Former U no longer offers any summer courses whatsoever, because the in-person classes don't make minimum enrollment numbers. Thus nearby CC gets the extra revenue instead.

I have no idea what U. of Tulsa is doing with online instruction in its arts and sciences programs, but pepsi_alum describes the university I currently work at. Meanwhile one of my previous employers invested in undergraduate online education about a decade ago and increased its FTE enrollment by about 40 percent. Every rigorously designed study of online education I have come across shows that student performance is the same in online and F2F versions of courses once college preparedness/readiness (often measured via college GPA) is accounted for.

If students at your institution happily transfer in credits earned from summer online CC courses to knock out arts and sciences gen ed requirements, that signals that students regard those courses as interchangeable commodities.

Maybe U. of Tulsa saw some of this among its own students and decided to focus its resources on academic majors that had strong enrollments, thinking it could reduce opportunity costs by outsourcing some of its gen eds and killing upper-level courses needed for certain majors. The programs being eliminated (both undergrad and grad) affect only 6 percent of the university's current students. Sounds like a decision was made to stop trying to be all things to all people.