claim: students will not party because they want to do the right thing

[Bonnie]

Where I work, some of the full time faculty are now used to teaching through zoom, and they don't care how much money the school loses. You can see this by following the discussions on social media. The students' misbehaving is an excuse to stay home, not commute and take it easy. You can also tell some of them wouldn't shy away from a lawsuit against the school if the opportunity came along. They expect that eventually things will get back to normal and they'll have a job. All they're going to lose is some prep time. Others (part-timers) have lost prep time, income, and may lose employment altogether.

Sounds like a shitty place to work if that's a large percentage of your full time faculty. Where I work, full time faculty are working their asses off. Still learning technology, spending more time on prep, spending more time supporting students, missing being in the classroom, missing being with their colleagues, extremely concerned about the financial well being of the institution, worried about decreased scholarly productivity, spending more time on internal service, and generally being good eggs. And in several cases I know of, full time faculty spent unpaid time this summer to build online shells of courses for part time faculty to use this semester.

Oh, my goodness....unpaid time to shore up the functioning of the institution that will provide comfortably for them for all of their natural life. Wow. Give them an award.

Are you always an ass? You posted a rant about the privileged yet non contributing full time faculty. I posted a counter. I posted about full time faculty doing their jobs, doing their jobs well, and contributing unpaid labor. And you found a reason to dismiss that work. What is your problem?

My problem, both of ours actually, is I'm not as impressed with your story as you expected. Especially given that these full time instructors are typically getting paid more for the same type of work, and not more per hour by a matter of addition, but more my a matter of multiplication.

I have read enough of your posts that I certainly didn't expect you to be impressed. But I offered a counter story because people should offer counters to the shit you post. Yes my tenure track colleagues and I are paid more than full time NTTs at my institution. That does not mean that work we do should be dismissed.

[mahagonny]

Where I work, some of the full time faculty are now used to teaching through zoom, and they don't care how much money the school loses. You can see this by following the discussions on social media. The students' misbehaving is an excuse to stay home, not commute and take it easy. You can also tell some of them wouldn't shy away from a lawsuit against the school if the opportunity came along. They expect that eventually things will get back to normal and they'll have a job. All they're going to lose is some prep time. Others (part-timers) have lost prep time, income, and may lose employment altogether.

Sounds like a shitty place to work if that's a large percentage of your full time faculty. Where I work, full time faculty are working their asses off. Still learning technology, spending more time on prep, spending more time supporting students, missing being in the classroom, missing being with their colleagues, extremely concerned about the financial well being of the institution, worried about decreased scholarly productivity, spending more time on internal service, and generally being good eggs. And in several cases I know of, full time faculty spent unpaid time this summer to build online shells of courses for part time faculty to use this semester.

Oh, my goodness....unpaid time to shore up the functioning of the institution that will provide comfortably for them for all of their natural life. Wow. Give them an award.

Are you always an ass? You posted a rant about the privileged yet non contributing full time faculty. I posted a counter. I posted about full time faculty doing their jobs, doing their jobs well, and contributing unpaid labor. And you found a reason to dismiss that work. What is your problem?

My problem, both of ours actually, is I'm not as impressed with your story as you expected. Especially given that these full time instructors are typically getting paid more for the same type of work, and not more per hour by a matter of addition, but more my a matter of multiplication.

I have read enough of your posts that I certainly didn't expect you to be impressed. But I offered a counter story because people should offer counters to the shit you post. Yes my tenure track colleagues and I are paid more than full time NTTs at my institution. That does not mean that work we do should be dismissed.

Fine, do that. And to counter the stuff you post I note that faculty nearing the retirement date who are mostly thinking of what will be easier for them, and not the long term health of the college, and certainly not the part timers whose names they don't even know, is not an uncommon presence, and no one thinks it is.
Long as you asked 'what is your problem:' specifically right now, my college was planning to have students on campus and a hybrid teaching situation, which would have meant more tuition received, and in my opinion, a better learning experience for students. But they decided at the last minute to go totally online. And the faculty union was busy, meanwhile, ranting about how the college administrators don't care how many people die, they just want to make money. Which means, reading between the lines, should anyone get sick they would be itching to sue the school, because they believe college administrators are nothing but evil bastards who should be fought and opposed. Not all of us believe things like that, and if you did, there would be no efficacious course of action anyway, except avoiding them. They want to make money, and so do I. Neither of us wants people to die, but neither of us has ever worked in a risk free environment, so it's a matter of calculation and priorities, not black and white right and wrong.
And so I don't appreciate their (the union) taking such and extreme position, one reason being that I was prepared to be on campus and another, that the loss of tuition money does not affect all faculty the same way. Down the road, I mean. and the school will be weaker with fewer part time faculty, because that means less talent, total, and fewer course offerings.
And by the way this school does not have a tenure track. I should have included that.

[Bonnie]

Where I work, some of the full time faculty are now used to teaching through zoom, and they don't care how much money the school loses. You can see this by following the discussions on social media. The students' misbehaving is an excuse to stay home, not commute and take it easy. You can also tell some of them wouldn't shy away from a lawsuit against the school if the opportunity came along. They expect that eventually things will get back to normal and they'll have a job. All they're going to lose is some prep time. Others (part-timers) have lost prep time, income, and may lose employment altogether.

Sounds like a shitty place to work if that's a large percentage of your full time faculty. Where I work, full time faculty are working their asses off. Still learning technology, spending more time on prep, spending more time supporting students, missing being in the classroom, missing being with their colleagues, extremely concerned about the financial well being of the institution, worried about decreased scholarly productivity, spending more time on internal service, and generally being good eggs. And in several cases I know of, full time faculty spent unpaid time this summer to build online shells of courses for part time faculty to use this semester.

Oh, my goodness....unpaid time to shore up the functioning of the institution that will provide comfortably for them for all of their natural life. Wow. Give them an award.

Are you always an ass? You posted a rant about the privileged yet non contributing full time faculty. I posted a counter. I posted about full time faculty doing their jobs, doing their jobs well, and contributing unpaid labor. And you found a reason to dismiss that work. What is your problem?

My problem, both of ours actually, is I'm not as impressed with your story as you expected. Especially given that these full time instructors are typically getting paid more for the same type of work, and not more per hour by a matter of addition, but more my a matter of multiplication.

I have read enough of your posts that I certainly didn't expect you to be impressed. But I offered a counter story because people should offer counters to the shit you post. Yes my tenure track colleagues and I are paid more than full time NTTs at my institution. That does not mean that work we do should be dismissed.

Fine, do that. And to counter the stuff you post I note that faculty nearing the retirement date who are mostly thinking of what will be easier for them, and not the long term health of the college, and certainly not the part timers whose names they don't even know, is not an uncommon presence, and no one thinks it is.
Long as you asked 'what is your problem:' specifically right now, my college was planning to have students on campus and a hybrid teaching situation, which would have meant more tuition received, and in my opinion, a better learning experience for students. But they decided at the last minute to go totally online. And the faculty union was busy, meanwhile, ranting about how the college administrators don't care how many people die, they just want to make money. Which means, reading between the lines, should anyone get sick they would be itching to sue the school, because they believe college administrators are nothing but evil bastards who should be fought and opposed. Not all of us believe things like that, and if you did, there would be no efficacious course of action anyway, except avoiding them. They want to make money, and so do I. Neither of us wants people to die, but neither of us has ever worked in a risk free environment, so it's a matter of calculation and priorities, not black and white right and wrong.
And so I don't appreciate their (the union) taking such and extreme position, one reason being that I was prepared to be on campus and another, that the loss of tuition money does not affect all faculty the same way. Down the road, I mean. and the school will be weaker with fewer part time faculty, because that means less talent, total, and fewer course offerings.
And by the way this school does not have a tenure track. I should have included that.

We have then I think a key difference. You are comparing FT NTT and PT NTT on your campus. I am comparing TT and FT NTT, with a splash of PT NTT ( a splash in my department, more than a splash in others on campus, I recognize). Our NTTs are unionized, our TTs are not. I have NTTs in my department with less than half the years I have but higher salaries than me, though most NTTs have much lower salaries than I have.  We have full professors with salaries in the 60s in some departments. So while they are paid better than NTTs, it's not exactly a windfall. Full time NTTs do have a good bit of job security and job stability here. They tend to leave us for other opportunities rather than be cut (or have a semester with no or reduced load).

I don't think my admin is evil. I think they are overpaid and incompetent. An assoc professor recently got a promotion to assistant provost  three people down from provost, and is now making more than double what she made on faculty. That's a problem for all faculty, FT, PT, TT, NTT. I wish this was the only example the last five years on my campus. I also wish this person was competent to perform the job that was created for them.

I'm close to retirement. I am working my ass off to improve curriculum, improve recruitment, improve retention, improve completion. I am not alone among my close to retirement FT faculty colleagues. So while old timers who don't give a fuck are not uncommon, I'd argue that old timers who do indeed give a fuck and give up their own professional growth to serve the institution are not, in my experience, uncommon either.

My biggest concern with your posts in this thread was the dismissal of FT faculty work because PT faculty have it worse. I simply do not understand that mindset.

None of this is to say that higher ed doesn't have problems to address in how it treats PT and/or NTT faculty. I just don't think we need to denigrate the work of FT TT faculty every time we discuss those problems.

[mahagonny]

Are you always an ass?

No.

My biggest concern with your posts in this thread was the dismissal of FT faculty work because PT faculty have it worse. I simply do not understand that mindset.

None of this is to say that higher ed doesn't have problems to address in how it treats PT and/or NTT faculty. I just don't think we need to denigrate the work of FT TT faculty every time we discuss those problems.

All right. I'll give that some serious thought, since you're asking me nicely. And I see the logic.
I have a proposal for you. If it's not too much to ask, and also if I can get you to see the reason, think twice about this way of entering a discussion:

Sounds like a shitty place to work if that's a large percentage of your full time faculty.

Here's why: as you pointed out, higher education has serious deficiencies and problems in how it deals with faculty. So much so that many of the jobs come with advice that you should quit and forget about having a career, as prompted by your decision to take that job. In plain English, some of the time some of the higher ed employers are looking for suckers. So a statement like 'your school must be a shitty place to work....' despite that I know you did not mean it that way can be construed as a way of rubbing it in. 'You're one of the ones who can't dodge toxicity.' It touches a nerve. These kinds of overtones can be a bad omen and give the wrong people currency in the discussions.

[pgher]

I find it really difficult to understand anyone who says they don't understand the "rules". We've been at this since January (March in the US).  You'd have to have been hiding under a rock to not "know" the rules.  You can disagree and/or flout the rules, but by now, you sure as heck know them.

What rules exactly? There aren't "rules" so much as a series of general principles that most of us try to follow, while balancing various tradeoffs. The problem is that everyone assumes that however they are doing this must be the correct way and doesn't account for the ways in which these tradeoffs vary by circumstances.

Most of us know that indoor spaces are risky and have been trying to avoid spending prolonged time in them as much as possible. Easy enough for me. We don't have people in our house and don't go inside anyone else's house. That becomes a lot more complicated if you're living in a tiny room with someone else and another 20 people on your floor alone.

Similarly, wearing a mask in indoor or crowded spaces is a lot easier if you can count on not running into anyone other than family on your way to and from the shower.

College students like all of us need to interact with people. They are away from home, some for the first time, in spaces specifically set up to avoid physical distancing. We shouldn't condemn them for not always making the perfect choices in a very difficult situation.

No, but we should make plans based on what they are actually likely to do, not on their good intentions. So bringing students back on campus because they will "try" to act responsibly is ridiculous when experience indicates that their attempts will fall far short of what is needed to prevent outbreaks.

The goal is not to pat them on the head and say we trust them; it's to try and keep everyone safe. Even if that means impicitly admitting that compliance is not likely to be sufficient.

Agreed. I think it's ridiculous to think, "Oh, of course young people living on their own for the first time will act perfectly responsibly. All of them, all of the time. None of them will drink alcohol and do dumb stuff."

It's also ridiculous to think we all know the "rules" and fail to follow them out of apathy or ill will. First off, the rules themselves keep changing--mask! no mask! mask part of the time! 6 feet! 10 feet! less than 6' is OK with a mask! no, it's not! Secondly, I follow the rules pretty diligently, but recognize that I live a pretty privileged life. I live in a house, not a dorm or apartment with 1000 of my closest friends. My work can be done on a computer, not in a commercial kitchen or other retail establishment.

[Bonnie]

Are you always an ass?

No.

My biggest concern with your posts in this thread was the dismissal of FT faculty work because PT faculty have it worse. I simply do not understand that mindset.

None of this is to say that higher ed doesn't have problems to address in how it treats PT and/or NTT faculty. I just don't think we need to denigrate the work of FT TT faculty every time we discuss those problems.

All right. I'll give that some serious thought, since you're asking me nicely. And I see the logic.
I have a proposal for you. If it's not too much to ask, and also if I can get you to see the reason, think twice about this way of entering a discussion:

Sounds like a shitty place to work if that's a large percentage of your full time faculty.

Here's why: as you pointed out, higher education has serious deficiencies and problems in how it deals with faculty. So much so that many of the jobs come with advice that you should quit and forget about having a career, as prompted by your decision to take that job. In plain English, some of the time some of the higher ed employers are looking for suckers. So a statement like 'your school must be a shitty place to work....' despite that I know you did not mean it that way can be construed as a way of rubbing it in. 'You're one of the ones who can't dodge toxicity.' It touches a nerve. These kinds of overtones can be a bad omen and give the wrong people currency in the discussions.

Critique accepted. I meant it more as a dis of what I saw as your negativity (which also probably wasn't fair), but I think your interpretation is a very fair one.

[kaysixteen]

WRT the idea of a blanket ban on on-campus booze, on pain of expulsion.   If you are going to do that, best you make certain you apply it consistently, all the time.   And best you not expel my kid who's been caught with a brewski, when you go soft on the kid of that rich alumnus.

Now I am not in favor of such a policy in the first place, and, indeed, confess to growing rather nonplussed with the tendency, as one poster above alluded to, to create prison-like policies on campus this year.   It might have been possible a/o acceptable to do that in 1955, when the legal age was 21 and most schools openly had in loco parentis parietal rules, backed solidly by parents and a culture that would still have accepted such an atmosphere on campus, esp during a crisis such as a pandemic.  But outside of a few boarding school alumni, most college kids today are not going to accept these policies... at least not for long.  Sooner or later, likely sooner, as the stress of the semester develops, weather worsens, etc., many of these kids are going to go from resenting the quasi-incarceration policies, to actively rejecting them and rebelling against them.  And I am not sure how many of us would argue with them, or would have done differently at that age ourselves.  And if mass covid infections leading perhaps even to college student deaths occur, this will get much much worse.

[polly_mer]

It's also ridiculous to think we all know the "rules" and fail to follow them out of apathy or ill will. First off, the rules themselves keep changing--mask! no mask! mask part of the time! 6 feet! 10 feet! less than 6' is OK with a mask! no, it's not!

You're reading bad sources who are at best out-of-date and possibly trying to show confusion in the worst cases if you think the rules keep changing in random ways. 

There was one brief period in late February/early March when people were told to leave the real PPE masks for medical professionals and other essential workers because most people should just stay home.

The guidelines were soon amended to 'wear a face covering when outside your home and stay at least six feet away from other people.  Please continue to stay home as much as possible.'

When places reopened and normal people threw caution to the wind, the effects of large numbers of people gathering were clear and most places in the US shut back down.

Scientists did research and pointed out that droplets and aerosols can travel much farther than the six feet that was the result of a handful of studies in the 1940s.  The aerosols can also linger in still, low humidity air, like measles does, so distance alone from the people you can see isn't enough to limit exposure.

There's also surface transmission in high traffic areas so washing hands and refraining from touching one's face is recommended because you can't keep high touch areas clean enough.

Thus, the rules remain: 

* Assume you are infected and must follow all the rules all the time, regardless of how you physically feel today.

* Stay 'home' as much as possible.  Home is the dorm room, not the dorm building.

* Wear a face covering when you are out in 'public', especially indoors or gatherings outside.  "Public" is people with whom you wouldn't share a plate, bed, or bathroom with the door open.

* Stay as far away from other people not in your bubble as possible, minimum six feet, more than ten feet is better.

* Limit your time to short periods (10-15 minutes) close to individuals (yes, six to ten feet is close) outside your bubble even with masks.

* Wash your hands frequently and stop touching your face.

I would also expect a college to put up signs with the rules as well as circulating email.  Claims of not knowing the rules on campus are not credible.

[mahagonny]

Speaking for myself, i would have been happy to comply with a ban on alcohol on campus. When I was a student the legal drinking age was 18 which was a good thing in that we were able to go hear great musicians in liquor serving establishments. Didn't require us to drink. But I wasn't drinking for a different reason: doctor's orders, because of medicine I was prescribed. I'm pretty good at taking orders from authority. It's interesting how some rules streamline your life and make it easier. Fewer decisions. In this case, money and energy saved. Of course, not drinking means less sex, but also less calamity that comes with promiscuity. But this is just me I guess. I didn't feel imprisoned.

[dr_codex]

WRT the idea of a blanket ban on on-campus booze, on pain of expulsion.   If you are going to do that, best you make certain you apply it consistently, all the time.   And best you not expel my kid who's been caught with a brewski, when you go soft on the kid of that rich alumnus.

Now I am not in favor of such a policy in the first place, and, indeed, confess to growing rather nonplussed with the tendency, as one poster above alluded to, to create prison-like policies on campus this year.   It might have been possible a/o acceptable to do that in 1955, when the legal age was 21 and most schools openly had in loco parentis parietal rules, backed solidly by parents and a culture that would still have accepted such an atmosphere on campus, esp during a crisis such as a pandemic.  But outside of a few boarding school alumni, most college kids today are not going to accept these policies... at least not for long.  Sooner or later, likely sooner, as the stress of the semester develops, weather worsens, etc., many of these kids are going to go from resenting the quasi-incarceration policies, to actively rejecting them and rebelling against them.  And I am not sure how many of us would argue with them, or would have done differently at that age ourselves.  And if mass covid infections leading perhaps even to college student deaths occur, this will get much much worse.

I teach at a dry campus, inside a very wet city. The only events with booze are hosted by the administration, and they are rare. Most of the students are also subject to random drug testing. (Nobody's ever tried that on the Faculty and Administration, although that might be revealing.)

Does it stop all students from drinking? Well, no. There's probably a small part of the student body that abstains only because of the prohibition. Many of them find creative ways to get around the rules, as anybody with even a passing familiarity with the history of the 18th Amendment could predict.

My takeaways:
1. You might be surprised at the number of dry campuses. It's enough of a draw that most of the various rating guides have a list. E.g. https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=stone-cold-sober-schools Some other places have "sober dorm" choices. With the exception of some faith-based institutions, most of these places do it to meet demand.

2. Changing behavior by fiat doesn't usually stop that behavior, at least not all at once. How effective have laws about underage drinking been? Let's ask the CDC! https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm Note, too, that these numbers are self-reported, and almost certainly under-report.

[pgher]

It's also ridiculous to think we all know the "rules" and fail to follow them out of apathy or ill will. First off, the rules themselves keep changing--mask! no mask! mask part of the time! 6 feet! 10 feet! less than 6' is OK with a mask! no, it's not!

You're reading bad sources who are at best out-of-date and possibly trying to show confusion in the worst cases if you think the rules keep changing in random ways. 

Actually, I'm not. I do know the science and the proper rules, and have been tracking things carefully. How many young people do, especially in states with Republican governors who are wishy-washy? Misinformation spreads quickly.

Around here, we have schoolteachers who don't believe in the value of masks. We have university staff who don't. What hope do we have for 20-year-olds?

[waterboy]

I repeat.  They know the rules, they're choosing to ignore them.  Blame fall entirely on them for outbreaks resulting from this behavior.

[Cheerful]

Thus, the rules remain: 

* Assume you are infected and must follow all the rules all the time, regardless of how you physically feel today.
* Stay 'home' as much as possible.  Home is the dorm room, not the dorm building.
* Wear a face covering when you are out in 'public', especially indoors or gatherings outside.  "Public" is people with whom you wouldn't share a plate, bed, or bathroom with the door open.
* Stay as far away from other people not in your bubble as possible, minimum six feet, more than ten feet is better.
* Limit your time to short periods (10-15 minutes) close to individuals (yes, six to ten feet is close) outside your bubble even with masks.
* Wash your hands frequently and stop touching your face.
I would also expect a college to put up signs with the rules as well as circulating email.  Claims of not knowing the rules on campus are not credible.

I repeat.  They know the rules, they're choosing to ignore them.  Blame fall entirely on them for outbreaks resulting from this behavior.

+1  The rules are not complex.  As phi-rabbit and others noted upthread, the fault rests with paying customers (parents and their precious snowflakes who want to pretend the virus doesn't exist and won't be denied the "college experience") and greedy, immoral university leaders.  I'll add some state and local officials to this list.

[Cheerful]

How many young people do, especially in states with Republican governors who are wishy-washy? Misinformation spreads quickly.

CA is shutting off water and power to houses repeatedly hosting big parties.  NY has been fining bars for months.  Partying in MI.  In all three states, many people are ignoring the rules.  All three have Dem governors.

[Caracal]

You're reading bad sources who are at best out-of-date and possibly trying to show confusion in the worst cases if you think the rules keep changing in random ways. 


* Stay 'home' as much as possible.  Home is the dorm room, not the dorm building.



I would also expect a college to put up signs with the rules as well as circulating email.  Claims of not knowing the rules on campus are not credible.

Ironically, Poly writes these things but leaves out critical pieces of information and herself shows that she actually can't absorb new pieces of information and adapt to circumstances. For months, the epidemiologists who study risk and messaging have been pointing out that just telling people to "stay home" is impractical and counterproductive when you're dealing with something that is not going away anytime soon.

This is a really good example of the problem. There's a huge failure in empathy in telling college students to stay in their tiny rooms as much as possible. It won't happen, because that's not tenable for most people. All you're going to do is drive people into covert and more dangerous gatherings. Better to have students spend more time outside where it is much safer and/or find ways to have pods.

Of course, the larger problem is that this is all incredibly difficult in settings that are designed to increase interaction and trying to reopen colleges in places with high infection rates was never going to work.