"It's time to prioritize what students want and need over what we want to teach"

[mahagonny]

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

I advocate for unions doing what unions have long done, that is their legitimate business. Fair, transparent evaluation of work done.

I can't recall hearing you specify how you think this should work, especially with regard for choosing the best person to teach a course based on the quality of their work to date. My experience is that unions value seniority. Period.

Our union has worked with administration to agree on a student evaluation of teaching, and the questions asked. Seniority should have some weight. That way instructors are better able to predict what their workload will more likely be in the near future and plan for it.

No, my position is that people shouldn't buy a motorcycle and then complain that it doesn't have the cargo space of a minivan. (Or buy a minivan, and then complain it doesn't have the acceleration of a motorcycle.)

Our union doesn't pry into the private lives of its members.

[ciao_yall]

but it seems implausible that humanities degrees are just as good for the job market, on the basis of many conversations with humanities majors and faculty that think the job market is terrible.

Yes, and a lot of this is the result of pretty systematic attempts by politicians to argue that humanities degrees are worthless. Once an idea sticks, you get a confirmation bias. I also wonder if part of it is about what faculty see and don't see. I remember years ago someone wrote on here about how terrible they felt seeing former students working at the grocery store after they graduated. It might be true that because a humanities major doesn't have quite the same clear track as other majors do, that humanities majors might take a little longer to find jobs and might initially work at fill in jobs. A year or two later, these people have probably gotten a job and their professors don't see them anymore, aren't serving as job references and don't know that things ended up fine.

It's terrible for PhD's who want a tenure-track job in the humanities.

It's great for someone who can read, write, communicate, understands a professional environment.

My niece has been working in retail since she graduated with a BA in (something fun) and realllllyyyyyyy wants to work (at a place that does that fun stuff). Those jobs are competitive, even for people with Master's degrees. But she still works in retail and applies to jobs in hoping for a break, internship, something.

Meanwhile when you mention to her that there are great careers in retail and her company where she works shifts folding jeans has a well-regarded management training program and there are good salaries to be made... well, she sniffs.

[marshwiggle]

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

I advocate for unions doing what unions have long done, that is their legitimate business. Fair, transparent evaluation of work done.

I can't recall hearing you specify how you think this should work, especially with regard for choosing the best person to teach a course based on the quality of their work to date. My experience is that unions value seniority. Period.

Our union has worked with administration to agree on a student evaluation of teaching, and the questions asked.

Does that evaluation actually have quantifiable weight in hiring? For instance, can a person with less seniority but better evaluations be hired over someone with weaker evaluations but more seniority?

[mahagonny]

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

I advocate for unions doing what unions have long done, that is their legitimate business. Fair, transparent evaluation of work done.

I can't recall hearing you specify how you think this should work, especially with regard for choosing the best person to teach a course based on the quality of their work to date. My experience is that unions value seniority. Period.

Our union has worked with administration to agree on a student evaluation of teaching, and the questions asked.

Does that evaluation actually have quantifiable weight in hiring? For instance, can a person with less seniority but better evaluations be hired over someone with weaker evaluations but more seniority?

Define 'better evaluation' if you can please (I admit, it's not easy). There is at least one tenure committee experienced forumite who says 'I like to see a few negative comments and evaluations, signifying that the professor is not inflating grades' or some such.

[marshwiggle]

Except, I believe, for Mahagonny, who doesn't seem to advocate for that. (Although I honestly I'm not clear on why.)

I advocate for unions doing what unions have long done, that is their legitimate business. Fair, transparent evaluation of work done.

I can't recall hearing you specify how you think this should work, especially with regard for choosing the best person to teach a course based on the quality of their work to date. My experience is that unions value seniority. Period.

Our union has worked with administration to agree on a student evaluation of teaching, and the questions asked.

Does that evaluation actually have quantifiable weight in hiring? For instance, can a person with less seniority but better evaluations be hired over someone with weaker evaluations but more seniority?

Define 'better evaluation' if you can please (I admit, it's not easy). There is at least one tenure committee experienced forumite who says 'I like to see a few negative comments and evaluations, signifying that the professor is not inflating grades' or some such.

What's the point of having evaluations at all if you can't distinguish between a "good" one and a "bad" one????

[mahagonny]

What's the point of having evaluations at all if you can't distinguish between a "good" one and a "bad" one????

Probably in our case, to have the option to set the minimum numerical score requirement for continued employment higher to  punish adjuncts for unionizing. But I do not read minds. The administration implemented them as one point.

[marshwiggle]

What's the point of having evaluations at all if you can't distinguish between a "good" one and a "bad" one????

Probably in our case, to have the option to set the minimum numerical score requirement for continued employment higher to  punish adjuncts for unionizing. But I do not read minds. The administration implemented them as one point.

I thought your union agreed on it. What was the purpose for them?

[Wahoo Redux]

People who are angry, good enough writers, and who possess enough social capital to bring attention to the situation will get media attention for their situation far more than people are mostly satisfied with their lot and feel no need to go to the press.  A physicist or chemist who didn't get the desired faculty job or R&D job tends to cry for a bit and then take some other middle-class job.  A part-time faculty member who is quite sure that the many part-time jobs could be consolidated into fewer, but better, full-time jobs will keep advocating for a change in status through media exposure, especially now that everyone and the dog can have an online platform.

Back to this, are we?

Well, they could and they should be.  Everyone would benefit.

I didn't say that was a wrong perception; I stated that people will continue to make that push.

I'm now favoring cutting the general education requirements and eliminating most of those courses and the concomitant jobs as being irrelevant to what most students want and need.  That's a different position than insisting the demand really exists because we can see all those courses on the schedule being taught by ones and twos instead of as consolidated fours.

The point of teaching is for students to learn, not for faculty to have jobs.  Fewer students means fewer teaching jobs.

The point of research is for faculty to have jobs doing research.  Even then, the question remains regarding how many individuals we can support in each area and why one specific individual should be supported over any other specific individual in the pool.  Society has plenty of needs beyond research for the sake of research and resources are limited.

Alright.  I think I see where this is headed. 

I will disagree about gen eds, admitting as I go that I automatically value the broader educational / liberal arts and always have (even as a not-so-brainy undergrad), and that I have a stake in the game. 

You know that there are plenty of employment-centric schools which focus on the perception that they define "what students want and need."  Most are in big trouble with the federal government and accreditors right now.  Want to skip those unnecessary liberal arts?  Become a Phoenix!  Sing a Cappela!  Get a shingle from the Pignuckle Business School next door to the Shoe Carnival off I-95.

That'll show'em!

[mahagonny]

What's the point of having evaluations at all if you can't distinguish between a "good" one and a "bad" one????

Probably in our case, to have the option to set the minimum numerical score requirement for continued employment higher to  punish adjuncts for unionizing. But I do not read minds. The administration implemented them as one point.

I thought your union agreed on it. What was the purpose for them?

I'm not a bargaining team member. Just  a union member. Individual adjunct faculty I have talked to have expressed

1. Student evaluations are reliable
2. They're very flawed and shouldn't be used
3. They are useful when interpreted correctly.

However, our administration does nothing to inform us of what their interpretation is. All they do is return them many months later.

My best guess is the union bargaining team took the temperature of the provost, et al and determined that they really, really like student evaluations and the most efficacious way to proceed would be to settle for having some input into how they are implemented. But I could also see one or two faculty potentially saying,'sure! Bring it on! I win when student evaluations are looked at.'

Let's keep in mind that no student evaluations of faculty performance and no observing of your classroom teaching/syllabi/grading by a third party would not mean there is no evaluating going on. The instructor is evaluating himself.

[marshwiggle]

What's the point of having evaluations at all if you can't distinguish between a "good" one and a "bad" one????

Probably in our case, to have the option to set the minimum numerical score requirement for continued employment higher to  punish adjuncts for unionizing. But I do not read minds. The administration implemented them as one point.

I thought your union agreed on it. What was the purpose for them?

I'm not a bargaining team member. Just  a union member. Individual adjunct faculty I have talked to have expressed

1. Student evaluations are reliable
2. They're very flawed and shouldn't be used
3. They are useful when interpreted correctly.

However, our administration does nothing to inform us of what their interpretation is. All they do is return them many months later.

My best guess is the union bargaining team took the temperature of the provost, et al and determined that they really, really like student evaluations and the most efficacious way to proceed would be to settle for having some input into how they are implemented. But I could also see one or two faculty potentially saying,'sure! Bring it on! I win when student evaluations are looked at.'

Let's keep in mind that no student evaluations of faculty performance and no observing of your classroom teaching/syllabi/grading by a third party would not mean there is no evaluating going on. The instructor is evaluating himself.

So do these qualify as "fair, transparent evaluation of work done" as you mentioned above?

[mahagonny]

What's the point of having evaluations at all if you can't distinguish between a "good" one and a "bad" one????

Probably in our case, to have the option to set the minimum numerical score requirement for continued employment higher to  punish adjuncts for unionizing. But I do not read minds. The administration implemented them as one point.

I thought your union agreed on it. What was the purpose for them?

I'm not a bargaining team member. Just  a union member. Individual adjunct faculty I have talked to have expressed

1. Student evaluations are reliable
2. They're very flawed and shouldn't be used
3. They are useful when interpreted correctly.

However, our administration does nothing to inform us of what their interpretation is. All they do is return them many months later.

My best guess is the union bargaining team took the temperature of the provost, et al and determined that they really, really like student evaluations and the most efficacious way to proceed would be to settle for having some input into how they are implemented. But I could also see one or two faculty potentially saying,'sure! Bring it on! I win when student evaluations are looked at.'

Let's keep in mind that no student evaluations of faculty performance and no observing of your classroom teaching/syllabi/grading by a third party would not mean there is no evaluating going on. The instructor is evaluating himself.

So do these qualify as "fair, transparent evaluation of work done" as you mentioned above?

If they ask me how I think things are going, I will tell them.

[kaysixteen]

Maybe she doesn't want to become a retail manager.  Granted they do make more than the clock punchers who spend their time folding jeans, but the job just ain't that great nonetheless.

[ciao_yall]

Maybe she doesn't want to become a retail manager.  Granted they do make more than the clock punchers who spend their time folding jeans, but the job just ain't that great nonetheless.

Fair enough. Still, at some point her identity will shift from almost-doing-fun-thing-while-folding-jeans-to-make-a-few-bucks to being oldest-jeans-folder-in-the-shop.

[spork]

I request that discussion of unionization be moved to another thread. Create one if need be.

Maybe she doesn't want to become a retail manager.  Granted they do make more than the clock punchers who spend their time folding jeans, but the job just ain't that great nonetheless.

Fair enough. Still, at some point her identity will shift from almost-doing-fun-thing-while-folding-jeans-to-make-a-few-bucks to being oldest-jeans-folder-in-the-shop.

Many departments at universities have adjuncts who fit this description.

I'm now favoring cutting the general education requirements and eliminating most of those courses and the concomitant jobs as being irrelevant to what most students want and need.  That's a different position than insisting the demand really exists because we can see all those courses on the schedule being taught by ones and twos instead of as consolidated fours.

The point of teaching is for students to learn, not for faculty to have jobs.  Fewer students means fewer teaching jobs.

[. . . ]

Agree wholeheartedly with this. From where I sit -- medium- to low-tier non-profit university -- it's obvious that much of the curriculum exists solely to suck eight semesters worth of tuition from students who would be much better served learning basic to intermediate literacy and math skills at the K-12 level and then focusing on some area of interest and capability at the post-secondary level.

[mahagonny]

The point of teaching is for students to learn, not for faculty to have jobs.  Fewer students means fewer teaching jobs.

The point of research is for faculty to have jobs doing research.  Even then, the question remains regarding how many individuals we can support in each area and why one specific individual should be supported over any other specific individual in the pool.  Society has plenty of needs beyond research for the sake of research and resources are limited.

If I posted this it would be construed as a bitter attack against tenure.