An elite DI set of assistant coach salaries

[marshwiggle]

Hmmmm... all the comments about judging 'high performer' status, or at least almost all, seem to have nothing to do with, ahem, actual teaching.   Hint, student evals are nigh onto worthless, and certainly can be gamed by a prof, and that some kid waxes eloquent about 'loving Dr. X', well... (more or less same problem is possible, even likely).

What can I say, kay.  There is some stock to student evals----we like to pretend there is not, but there is (problems noted---I can't imagine there is any need to enumerate them with the folks here who already know).  And sure, kid who loves "Dr. X" probably has a reason.

On that note, has anyone ever heard of a prof recognized as stellar by colleagues who all of the students hated? I submit that every prof that I've known who was recognized as outstanding by peers was also highly regarded by the best students.

Are you telling me that you have absolutely no idea who your best and worst faculty are?  Are you suggesting that there is no way to evaluate professors and instructors?   Is it possible that chairs and admin are so out-of-touch that they have no idea whatsoever about how their people are performing?

As I've noted before, it is ridiculously ironic to me that academics, aka researchers, who in all kinds of disciplines consider themselves experts at analyzing everything under (and including) the sun, consider their own work of teaching to be something absolutely incapable of any sort of objective analysis and evaluation. "Just trust me; I know what I'm doing."

[Wahoo Redux]

As I've noted before, it is ridiculously ironic to me that academics, aka researchers, who in all kinds of disciplines consider themselves experts at analyzing everything under (and including) the sun, consider their own work of teaching to be something absolutely incapable of any sort of objective analysis and evaluation. "Just trust me; I know what I'm doing."

Ad hom, strawman, and hyperbole, Marshy.  Keep the frustration under control.

Be careful of trying to confirm confirmation bias as well.

Intelligent, experienced people----which you are----understand that a complicated subject such as the effect of unions is not one thing or the other, but one thing AND another. 

For instance:

As I said, Solidarity was a great benefit to society. German unions, (and apparently Japanese unions, as dismalist noted), are very good for everyone, since they actually see everyone (labour AND management) as needing to work together for the good of the organization. The adversarial stance in North America, which views labour negotiations as a zero-sum game, often winds up with situations of people cutting off their noises to spite their faces. (Consider stories of how unions have gone on strike until they bankrupted the company

Agreed.  I do wish our union was not automatically adversarial.  We mistrust our admin primarily because they lack transparency and so frequently try to hide or deny the obvious bad news while doing things like resodding the football field and building indoor tennis courts right before layoffs.  We still need teachers; we just hire adjuncts.  So yeah, I just wish our union leaders could work a little better with our admin.  What is happening to our university is not admin's fault, although their responses to the demographic cliff, population shift, and rising costs has not been effective so far.  We have hired several new high-priced administrators while many of us lose our jobs.  It's just our union folk tend to reflexively work against the admin with fiery rhetoric and demands for things that cannot realistically be met.  Our union levels accusations without information; admin will not provide information.  Mistrust continues to grow.

RE: companies and bankruptcy.  I think you are referring to Hostess above?  The union is not the only reason that company went bankrupt.

See Forbes:

But who was ultimately to blame for the company failure? Here at Forbes, Leadership contributor Adam Hartung had a provocative piece on Sunday where he fingered management. In its most recent bankruptcy filing, writes Hartung, the company imposed "draconian cuts to wages and benefits." This was unrealistic and damaging, he says, "tantamount to management saying to those who sell wheat they expect to buy flour at 2/3 the market price." The company also kept trying to prop up its old business of obsolete products, failing to cook up more palatable foods with higher margins. Then it scapegoated the unions.

Maybe you know something Forbes does not? 

The union definitely had an effect, but it is not all at their feet.  Think, Marshy, don't just get mad and claw after confirmation bias.  Think, my brother!  Think!

I don't expect unions to be perfect, but I expect them to be honest. For faculty unions, if they really had the best interests of students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are.

I may be outing myself to anyone from my uni, but oh well.

Two years ago a student in an art history class filed a Title IX complaint against an art history professor.  Her charge was that, in showing slides of classical Greek sculpture, he included slides of naked "buttocks." She was offended and felt threatened.  No, kidding.  This is true.  Our president is a member of a very conservative Christian movement and, as we now know, looking to shed faculty.  I know that every Title IX complain must be investigated, but this should have been a no-brainer.  It was treated like a brainer and charges were filed.  God bless the union.  They fired up their lawyers.  The charges were quietly resolved and the art history prof still has his job.

Our admin hit hard on renegotiations sometime in the near past.  Because this is Googleable, I will remain vague.  What the admin wanted was frankly unfair, say whatever you will, and would have damaged the university irreparably.  We went on strike.  The students came out in droves to support and the local McClatchy Compass Project landed firmly on the side of the faculty and staff.  God bless the union.  We won.  Some of the plans our admin wanted to institute have gone forward anyway, of course----and their ideas do not seem to be working.

I do not know what "if they really had the best interests of students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are" really means in context.

Do you have examples?

[marshwiggle]

Agreed.  I do wish our union was not automatically adversarial.  We mistrust our admin primarily because they lack transparency and so frequently try to hide or deny the obvious bad news while doing things like resodding the football field and building indoor tennis courts right before layoffs.  We still need teachers; we just hire adjuncts.  So yeah, I just wish our union leaders could work a little better with our admin.  What is happening to our university is not admin's fault, although their responses to the demographic cliff, population shift, and rising costs has not been effective so far.  We have hired several new high-priced administrators while many of us lose our jobs.  It's just our union folk tend to reflexively work against the admin with fiery rhetoric and demands for things that cannot realistically be met.  Our union levels accusations without information; admin will not provide information.  Mistrust continues to grow.

RE: companies and bankruptcy.  I think you are referring to Hostess above?  The union is not the only reason that company went bankrupt.

I didn't have any specific example in mind. Over the decades I've seen it happen with several smaller companies. Generally the union tells employees that the company has big stashes of cash, so if they just hold out they'll win. Turns out it's a very competitive industry and the company is just making ends meet. So they go under, and then union executives are SHOCKED!, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! that what the company said about their finances was correct.

I do not know what "if they really had the best interests of students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are" really means in context.

Do you have examples?

Like my earlier one, where ALL They care about for who should teach a course is "seniority", EVEN WHEN that can mean someone who has never taught a specific course and whose performance has been mediocre will be chosen over someone who has experience with that specific course, and whose performance has been stellar. By any sane assessment about who is better for the students' education, they would choose the less "senior" person. (In the case of my colleague and I, I had never taught her courses, but the union would automatically pick me because I had more "seniority".)

[Wahoo Redux]

Hmmm.  Not a lot to go on there, Marshman, and a little vague.

Okay. 

[kaysixteen]

All your points are valid.   Up to a point-- we have to ask why students love Dr. X, and what might be different between his students and other students.

I get that it is generally doable for colleagues to, taken as a whole, evaluate the competence (though teaching competence is harder than competence in other areas of professor employment, to evaluate) of colleagues.   It is however much harder to evaluate one's own competence.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sure.  I have no idea what my own competence is.  My department has been very supportive but my dean does not seem to think I am worth holding on to (I doubt hu has ever seen my CV or my evals).

In my experience, the student who says "I love Dr. X" is not the only student to do so.  Platonic, respectful, appropriate "love" from students generated by inspired teaching and dedication generally comes in flocks.  Again, as checked out as I am, I have known who has the best teaching reputations and who has the worst teaching reputations in each department, from grad school to my current sinking ship.  And I have known who produces lots of good writing, which is a perfectly valid criteria for judging "high performers" in college.  I just don't think it would be that hard to decide who is good faculty and who is not in our insular little worlds.

[kaysixteen]

Ok, but you see my point.   If Prof. X has lots of students expressing love and admiration for him, his evals are glowing, etc., it may well be because he is a great teacher, etc., .... or, it may well be that he gives easy workloads and/or easy As.   This would be especially problematic at less-selective schools whose student bodies tend towards those who, ahem, less than fully priortize booklarnin and study.

[Wahoo Redux]

It's hypothetical, kay.  I was referring to the inspirational prof.