Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[Ruralguy]

Yes, I am afraid too many people think "I'm not so afraid of my own death as long as I get the pleasure of seeing every one else die."
Plus, there's the usual sense that the administration is evil, and collaborators must be punished or at best, ignored.

[marshwiggle]

And her point was perfectly valid (although sometimes the mask would slip and a wee bit of STEMy chauvinism would peek through----her evals were not completely unbiased).

I simply felt that it was something we as a society, and we as academia, should try to combat----because many of those feet were walking away based on misinformation and stereotypes----but there is generally resignation on the subject of lib arts education.

I'd just like to point out that some of the reason for "STEMy chauvinism", especially from the TE part of STEM, is that changing *what gets taught and how it gets taught is not an option; it's essential for doing the job. So that tends to limit the sympathy available for people who complain about having to adapt over time. (And even in STEM, people have seen good programs cancelled for low enrollment, but you just have to roll with it. Arguing that somehow these programs (and/or courses) should be entitled to continue regardless is unrealistic.)


(*Probably about 90% of the technology I teach about didn't exist a couple of decades ago, let alone when I was a student. I've had to create labs for courses in areas where I never studied, as those areas were in their infancy back then. I've created courses that couldn't have existed a decade ago. And so on.)

[Wahoo Redux]

As I posted, STEMy chauvinism based on misinformation and stereotypes.  Well done, Marshy.

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE:The Unsustainable Rise in College Costs

[marshwiggle]

As I posted, STEMy chauvinism based on misinformation and stereotypes.  Well done, Marshy.

If you're implying that I think all humanities people are like that, or that no *STEM people are, you're mistaken. But in my experience whenever there is big upheaval, the loudest voices opposing it tend to be the people who have been the most resistant to any kind of change in better times.


(*I knew a computer science prof who didn't have a website for courses; i.e. everything was handed out on paper. There are dinosaurs in every field. He also walked out of a workshop for the department about creating learning objectives for courses.)

[downer]

IHE:The Unsustainable Rise in College Costs

I thought that was annoying. Plenty of good ideas, and the analysis was fair, so not terrible, but any article that says we need to "think outside the box" -- when people have been saying that for as long as I remember and still nothing much changes -- deserves some derision.

[mamselle]

I would say there is difference between the nature of the content in Humanities courses and those in the Sciences/STEM. The Humanities are quite often focused on what has happened in the past; when looking at what is occurring now, it's often through that lens, so that a kind of retrograde awareness of change is the norm, and personality types who like to take settled content as a basis from which to look at change would be attracted to that work. The future is not so much in their remit, and projecting too far forward is seen as unjustified extrapolation (and something of a time-waster, since we still haven't really caught up to understanding the past, ever, as fully as we might). And new findings often have to be evaluated carefully because there's more pressure to have a shiny, new 'take' on something, and revisionary history is fraught with issues of reliability and credibility, making the whole project more backwards-facing.

The Sciences/STEM, on the other hand, are most often looking at the future from what is known in the present as well as the past. Those who like to play with possibility and probability are more drawn to those projects, and expect to play catch-up every year just in order to stay on top of the newest findings and build on them. One re-drafts a course reflexively--one person I worked for had me maintain a set of files for each of the courses they were down to teach over a three-year cycle, with notes and articles added each time something new came up that they needed to add; they'd take those files home over the summer to re-work the syllabi for the upcoming year's courses as a matter of habit.

Having done my own work in the one, and done EA support work in the other, I'd also say they could cross-pollinate each other more than they do, but the very contentual differences may either draw individuals with one or the other proclivity towards that type of work, amplifying the difference, and leading to very different responses to the urgent need for change based on those typologies.

I don't think either is 'good' or 'bad,' except as they keep forward movement from happening when it is needed to keep a campus sustainable and open. I've seen avid humanities scholars (I'm sitting in our presentations now by medievalists who are doing cool stuff with digital learning and imaging, for example) and I've seen stodgy, dried-up scientists, just as much as I've seen the obverse of those two coins.

As in dance (my own go-to image) one must have both the balance to maintain a position, and the agility, grace, and fluidity to be able to move through that position to the next one.

Being nimble is the virtue in those cases.

M.

[Wahoo Redux]

I've tried to explain to some people.  It does not take.

[pgher]

I would say there is difference between the nature of the content in Humanities courses and those in the Sciences/STEM. The Humanities are quite often focused on what has happened in the past; when looking at what is occurring now, it's often through that lens, so that a kind of retrograde awareness of change is the norm, and personality types who like to take settled content as a basis from which to look at change would be attracted to that work. The future is not so much in their remit, and projecting too far forward is seen as unjustified extrapolation (and something of a time-waster, since we still haven't really caught up to understanding the past, ever, as fully as we might). And new findings often have to be evaluated carefully because there's more pressure to have a shiny, new 'take' on something, and revisionary history is fraught with issues of reliability and credibility, making the whole project more backwards-facing.

The Sciences/STEM, on the other hand, are most often looking at the future from what is known in the present as well as the past. Those who like to play with possibility and probability are more drawn to those projects, and expect to play catch-up every year just in order to stay on top of the newest findings and build on them. One re-drafts a course reflexively--one person I worked for had me maintain a set of files for each of the courses they were down to teach over a three-year cycle, with notes and articles added each time something new came up that they needed to add; they'd take those files home over the summer to re-work the syllabi for the upcoming year's courses as a matter of habit.

Having done my own work in the one, and done EA support work in the other, I'd also say they could cross-pollinate each other more than they do, but the very contentual differences may either draw individuals with one or the other proclivity towards that type of work, amplifying the difference, and leading to very different responses to the urgent need for change based on those typologies.

I don't think either is 'good' or 'bad,' except as they keep forward movement from happening when it is needed to keep a campus sustainable and open. I've seen avid humanities scholars (I'm sitting in our presentations now by medievalists who are doing cool stuff with digital learning and imaging, for example) and I've seen stodgy, dried-up scientists, just as much as I've seen the obverse of those two coins.

As in dance (my own go-to image) one must have both the balance to maintain a position, and the agility, grace, and fluidity to be able to move through that position to the next one.

Being nimble is the virtue in those cases.

M.

Well said. Especially the insight that different fields attract people with different attitudes and desires. I'm in engineering and hang around here to try to learn that other perspective. I may have the same nominal title as someone in literature or history, but we don't have the same job or see the world in the same way.

[apl68]

I would say there is difference between the nature of the content in Humanities courses and those in the Sciences/STEM. The Humanities are quite often focused on what has happened in the past; when looking at what is occurring now, it's often through that lens, so that a kind of retrograde awareness of change is the norm, and personality types who like to take settled content as a basis from which to look at change would be attracted to that work. The future is not so much in their remit, and projecting too far forward is seen as unjustified extrapolation (and something of a time-waster, since we still haven't really caught up to understanding the past, ever, as fully as we might). And new findings often have to be evaluated carefully because there's more pressure to have a shiny, new 'take' on something, and revisionary history is fraught with issues of reliability and credibility, making the whole project more backwards-facing.

The Sciences/STEM, on the other hand, are most often looking at the future from what is known in the present as well as the past. Those who like to play with possibility and probability are more drawn to those projects, and expect to play catch-up every year just in order to stay on top of the newest findings and build on them. One re-drafts a course reflexively--one person I worked for had me maintain a set of files for each of the courses they were down to teach over a three-year cycle, with notes and articles added each time something new came up that they needed to add; they'd take those files home over the summer to re-work the syllabi for the upcoming year's courses as a matter of habit.

Having done my own work in the one, and done EA support work in the other, I'd also say they could cross-pollinate each other more than they do, but the very contentual differences may either draw individuals with one or the other proclivity towards that type of work, amplifying the difference, and leading to very different responses to the urgent need for change based on those typologies.

I don't think either is 'good' or 'bad,' except as they keep forward movement from happening when it is needed to keep a campus sustainable and open. I've seen avid humanities scholars (I'm sitting in our presentations now by medievalists who are doing cool stuff with digital learning and imaging, for example) and I've seen stodgy, dried-up scientists, just as much as I've seen the obverse of those two coins.

As in dance (my own go-to image) one must have both the balance to maintain a position, and the agility, grace, and fluidity to be able to move through that position to the next one.

Being nimble is the virtue in those cases.

M.

Well said. Especially the insight that different fields attract people with different attitudes and desires. I'm in engineering and hang around here to try to learn that other perspective. I may have the same nominal title as someone in literature or history, but we don't have the same job or see the world in the same way.

Which is the whole point of having more than just a handful of fields of knowledge and disciplines represented and taught at an institution of higher learning!  But at many college campuses some of these different perspectives on the world are being squeezed out.  This represents a real loss.  No less of a loss just because you can't put a price tag on them to quantify their value.

[Ruralguy]

I don't criticize the value of any particular field, but when push comes to shove, what do you do if a discipline has literally zero interest and some of your faculty were only hired in the discipline that has zero students?

[secundem_artem]

During a sabbatical, I picked up a Master's degree in a more or less parallel field to what I was hired to do. This allows me to teach in 2 programs and gives me some flexibility in the event one of them crashes and burns.

My best suggestion is to be a specialist in 1 field and enough of a generalist in another that zero enrollment does not turn into a career death sentence.

[dismalist]

But at many college campuses some of these different perspectives on the world are being squeezed out.  This represents a real loss.  No less of a loss just because you can't put a price tag on them to quantify their value.

Alas, we can quantify their value: If students are willing to pay less than what is necessary to keep courses or a field alive -- it's negative!.

Letting such course and fields die is a solution, not a problem.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't criticize the value of any particular field, but when push comes to shove, what do you do if a discipline has literally zero interest and some of your faculty were only hired in the discipline that has zero students?

You have two choices.

The obvious and most logical choice is to eliminate the moribund program.  And I have never seen anyone argue that we should let dead limbs just hang on the tree.  In the end, we will probably have to just cut Italian, Latin, medieval history, and a great many English literature classes.

We could also work to recruit students for and promote those programs, we could actually learn about these disciplines rather than make ignorant blanket statements, and we could stop with the hyperbole about job placement disasters.

[lightning]

During a sabbatical, I picked up a Master's degree in a more or less parallel field to what I was hired to do. This allows me to teach in 2 programs and gives me some flexibility in the event one of them crashes and burns.

My best suggestion is to be a specialist in 1 field and enough of a generalist in another that zero enrollment does not turn into a career death sentence.

Your university allows for moving tenured/senior faculty between academic units without the approval of the faculty to whom you would join? (or mandates it in a hypothetical retrenchment as long as the faculty member in question holds minimum qualifications?)