Dealing With Politics in Higher Ed!

[polly_mer]

For example, more full-time jobs in fields where majors are dropping with questionable value added by having non-majors take one gen ed course in the field is probably not the right action for the institution as a whole, even if all the people currently in contingent positions would really prefer full-time jobs.

I need an extra brain to wrap around this sentence. Or maybe the sense not to try.

* Many people who are currently contingent would prefer to have full-time, long-term contracts or TT positions.

* Most of those people are currently employed in fields where majors are declining so the contingent job is teaching in the gen ed program.

* The value added to the students in taking one gen ed class in <history|literature|philosophy|etc> is marginal.  Knowing <history|literature|philosophy|etc> is important, but the evidence for one one-off class really contributing to one's knowledge in any area is low.

* In many institutions, other majors are restricting enrollment because they don't have enough professors.  Limiting enrollment means students who aren't coming to the institution at all to study anything.

* Thus, often the best thing to do for the institution is cut the general education program to what can be offered by full-time folks and divert the rest of the resources to hiring full-time faculty in majors that are currently turning away students through lack of capacity.

What people want (good full-time academic jobs in their fields) is a mismatch for what's good for the long-term survival of the institution (enrolling students who want to study a valuable something else other than what the current contingent army is teaching).  Yeah, maybe the institution is no longer a university and probably that's ok if the goal is education that people want and people will vote with their money and feet for a different education.  One could argue that relying on an army of adjuncts who are too overworked to do the job also means not having a university as a community of teachers and learners together.

[mahagonny]

For example, more full-time jobs in fields where majors are dropping with questionable value added by having non-majors take one gen ed course in the field is probably not the right action for the institution as a whole, even if all the people currently in contingent positions would really prefer full-time jobs.

I need an extra brain to wrap around this sentence. Or maybe the sense not to try.

* Many people who are currently contingent would prefer to have full-time, long-term contracts or TT positions.

* Most of those people are currently employed in fields where majors are declining so the contingent job is teaching in the gen ed program.

* The value added to the students in taking one gen ed class in <history|literature|philosophy|etc> is marginal.  Knowing <history|literature|philosophy|etc> is important, but the evidence for one one-off class really contributing to one's knowledge in any area is low.

* In many institutions, other majors are restricting enrollment because they don't have enough professors.  Limiting enrollment means students who aren't coming to the institution at all to study anything.

* Thus, often the best thing to do for the institution is cut the general education program to what can be offered by full-time folks and divert the rest of the resources to hiring full-time faculty in majors that are currently turning away students through lack of capacity.

What people want (good full-time academic jobs in their fields) is a mismatch for what's good for the long-term survival of the institution (enrolling students who want to study a valuable something else other than what the current contingent army is teaching).  Yeah, maybe the institution is no longer a university and probably that's ok if the goal is education that people want and people will vote with their money and feet for a different education.  One could argue that relying on an army of adjuncts who are too overworked to do the job also means not having a university as a community of teachers and learners together.

OK, now I understand. I was probably tired when I read it yesterday.
More and more your posts point to the issues of how does an institution or department find the flexibility to adapt to abrupt change. Accordingly, it easily poses the question 'why is there tenure.' Especially in those instances where a lot of money is already tied up in maintaining a tenured person who's teaching non-majors doing the 'one-off' that does not appear to be essential to their success. Particularly when the part timers who would like to be more integrated into the department and have the time to do so are not welcome at meetings.