U Tulsa to cut 40% of academic programming: CHE article

[ciao_yall]

Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements.

Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Marshy, do you work in higher ed? You have never heard of a Curriculum Committee?

[ciao_yall]

And I would like to think most students take a similar approach. "From List A of 27 classes, which one would you like to choose?" Yes, perhaps the most convenient class may win, still, in my experience with most students is that they read the list, find an intriguing title and try to learn more before finding a way to fit it in.

That's the argument for having a bunch of elective slots that fit nicely with a solid major core for people who want a more freeform education or the true liberal arts education of 40 credits major, 40 credits general education, and 40 credits electives.  Some places do have a general education program that is designed to be a major and a purposefully selected minor as a way to give a good education.  However, that's seldom pushed by the people who are worried about their teaching jobs that are supplemental to the fields that generally come in at about 130 credits.

That pick-from-a-list-of-27-courses is not at all the argument for "All educated people need to have been exposed to these 6/8/10 categories of knowing about the world so we can claim we teach all those soft skills. Therefore, each student must take one class from each of these M discipline lists that also meet the N categories of knowing about the world yet won't give anyone much of anything who doesn't already have a pretty good K-12 background."

Also, the idea that there would be 27 courses that meet one of the M of N requirements indicates having a huge school or really lax requirements.

If there is a large institution with many degrees and certificates, with majors ranging from Art to Business to Zoology, then there are many ways a student can be interested in History, for example.

At our CC we have transfer AA's and are looking at making Certificates that both (1) meet Gen Ed requirements; and (2) round out the student's major interest. 

[marshwiggle]

Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Marshy, do you work in higher ed? You have never heard of a Curriculum Committee?

Sure, but "academic freedom" usually means that instructors have a fair bit of leeway in how they teach a course. As Polly said:

Ideally, a course getting on the list requires a form/proposal explaining how the course meets the general education requirements to be on list X and a faculty committee reviews the proposal and may even require the proposing faculty member to respond to questions in person or in writing to the committee's satisfaction before putting the course on the list.

Even more ideally, any substantial changes to the course then must go through the faculty committee and/or every course is reviewed on a schedule (not more than 5 years and three is better) to ensure that the course as it is being taught still meets the requirement to be on the list for one of the N ways of knowing or soft skills practice.
.
.
.
It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

Given the kind of work that would have to be done by a department to maintain rigourous requirements for one of these courses, I'd guess that in many places they just get someone to teach it and as long as there is no student uprising, don't examine too closely how it gets done.

[ciao_yall]

Since I have no experience of this, I'm curious. Do institutions have concrete requirements for what it takes to get on "the list"? For instance, "students will write at least one 2000 word essay and do an oral presentation in each of these courses". That way it would support the idea of developing communication skills, etc. If any course could be taught with autograded assignments and a multiple choice final and still meet the requirements then the whole "soft skills" thing is bogus.

Marshy, do you work in higher ed? You have never heard of a Curriculum Committee?

Sure, but "academic freedom" usually means that instructors have a fair bit of leeway in how they teach a course. As Polly said:

Ideally, a course getting on the list requires a form/proposal explaining how the course meets the general education requirements to be on list X and a faculty committee reviews the proposal and may even require the proposing faculty member to respond to questions in person or in writing to the committee's satisfaction before putting the course on the list.

Even more ideally, any substantial changes to the course then must go through the faculty committee and/or every course is reviewed on a schedule (not more than 5 years and three is better) to ensure that the course as it is being taught still meets the requirement to be on the list for one of the N ways of knowing or soft skills practice.
.
.
.
It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

Given the kind of work that would have to be done by a department to maintain rigourous requirements for one of these courses, I'd guess that in many places they just get someone to teach it and as long as there is no student uprising, don't examine too closely how it gets done.

Maybe, though my experience is that 99% of people are actually professional and care about doing a good job.

[Caracal]

It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

[apl68]

I think it's a mistake to compare online classes to face-to-face classes. Or rather, online classes aren't likely to ever be "better" than a decent face-to-face class. What they should be compared to, and what they can be better than, is the "face-to-face class you aren't able to attend".

Way back in the 80's, when "correspondence" courses involved mailing cassette tapes and/or vides, and mailed (i.e. "snail-mail") assignments and so on, they were useful to people who weren't able to be on campus. For example:

• Students in a co-op placement in another city who wanted/needed to pick up a course during their work term
• Students who needed a course to graduate but couldn't fit anything in their schedule
• Students who needed to retake a course they failed but which didn't fit in their schedule

The high drop-out rate of online courses reflects that fact that they require more self-discipline than regular courses, but when they're the only option available, they are valuable.

Also, one sometimes needs a degree that simply isn't offered locally.  My professional MLS degree is all online through an out-of-state institution.  If you're a librarian in our state who needs to earn a professional degree you HAVE to go online, because we have no accredited MLS programs in our state.  The online MLS programs have been a great boon.

My experience of online education has left me feeling that it's a less-than-ideal way to take courses or earn a degree.  But for mature, self-disciplined students it can work well enough, as long as the school and the instructors are maintaining good standards.

[marshwiggle]

It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride in it, which is why I find this personally offensive.

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

[Caracal]

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation.

Yes, I'm sure Polly will tell me that too, but it is pretty clear that when they talk about adjuncts in these broad terms, the adjunct they have in mind is this "bad, desperate adjunct." If you push back and point out that plenty of people teaching part time don't fit this image, then you're told you must be a good adjunct. The solution is never to actually selectively hire people on full time contracts and then evaluate them in systematic ways to determine whether those contracts should be renewed. The existence of adjuncts is always cited as a reason to stop teaching courses. It isn't very pleasant.

[tuxthepenguin]

It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse. I'm not working as an adjunct to try to keep the wolves at bay, if I was in desperate financial straits, I'd go get a job that paid better. I like my job and I take pride it in, which is why I find this personally offensive.

Would I do a better job if the conditions of my employment allowed me to work more closely with other faculty in a more permanent capacity. Yes it would, but you can express that sentiment without using insulting language about other academics. I appreciate the work you've done on this forum and sometimes you have interesting things to say, but this is just uncalled for and I'm not interested in participating in more discussions with you when you can't seem to manage to treat others with respect and professional courtesy.

I can't say I've seen a lot of adjuncts that are lazy, but (i) all they're paid for is being a warm body in front of the class, and they shouldn't be expected to go above and beyond, because that's not why they're getting paid, and (ii) some are incompetent - as in truly having no idea what they were doing. I even know one adjunct that curved grades down if the exam scores were too high. As you might expect, there were a lot of students fulfilling a gen ed requirement that expressed anger after watching their grade drop from an A to a C.

[Wahoo Redux]

It's pretty easy to let standards slip when the staffing is done term-by-term with the armies of whomever is willing to accept a pittance to keep the wolves at bay outside their personal abode this month.  Handing someone a syllabus for Course 18 in Area D and hoping for the best out of an interchangeable cog is not nearly the same as having people who have personal ownership of their courses with strong motivation to do their best to support students to learn and grow as part of a shared learning endeavor.

I actually had to stop myself from using writing a short profane phrase after reading this garbage. This really is not civil discourse and it doesn't promote civil discourse.

Ya'know, Polly is a bit tender about being assigned viewpoints she does not adhere to, but this is her commentary elsewhere:

There are no problems in academe today that cannot be quickly solved by each of us individually.

Underprepared students who don't actually want to learn?

Underprepared students who do want to learn but are functioning at a third-grade level?

Deferred maintenance such that the classrooms are unsafe with no Internet access and completely inadequate climate control?

Lack of professors in fields where students dearly want to study, but few qualified professionals want to teach?

Prohibitive opportunity cost for people who would be better served taking one class at a time for a decade, but the structure is set up for full-time students living on campus for only 4 years?

Sure, some problems can be solved by individuals choosing to do something other than adjunct for peanuts.  Other problems will require concerted efforts that have nothing to do with adjuncts.

I cannot imagine where such dire ideas come from.  I've taught at a number of places, and even the least impressive are not this bad.  Polly either had a very bad experience as a professor, student, and/or administrator; she is simply contrarian; or she is lost in a STEMy glory-daze of some kind.  She def has it in for the adjuncts----why is not clear except that it has something to do with the humanities.  Nevertheless she is obviously fascinated with academia and the faults she sees in its stars.  She used to make me mad too, but I suspect there is more to this than simply an examination of academia.

[spork]

I think you would be surprised at conditions that are frequently found at low- to medium-tier colleges and universities -- declining admissions standards, increasing tuition discounts, missed enrollment targets, faculty without proper credentials, deferred maintenance, etc.

[mahagonny]

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation.

Yes, I'm sure Polly will tell me that too, but it is pretty clear that when they talk about adjuncts in these broad terms, the adjunct they have in mind is this "bad, desperate adjunct." If you push back and point out that plenty of people teaching part time don't fit this image, then you're told you must be a good adjunct. The solution is never to actually selectively hire people on full time contracts and then evaluate them in systematic ways to determine whether those contracts should be renewed. The existence of adjuncts is always cited as a reason to stop teaching courses. It isn't very pleasant.

Well, if a person is both incensed about the press coverage of the lives of lowest paid adjuncts and simultaneously is on a mission from God to crush adjunct collective bargaining rights, they are their own problem.

You don't have to talk about or display a person who sells his blood to make the rent or lives in his car to call attention to the fact that higher education has created a class of migrant worker positions.

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

So what. You're still just an adjunct. Get used to it.
And don't you live in a country with socialized medical care?

[kaysixteen]

It's a bifurcation fallacy to suggest that those of us who do need to take any low-paid adjunct gig we can get to keep the wolves at bay are therefore by definition going to be subpar 'warm bodies' who would at best just be going through the motions.  I'm one of those wolves at the door adjuncts, but I'm trying damn hard despite the low pay that necessitates my continued retail work, etc.  But Polly, for all her strengths, stubbornly refuses to accept the reality that lucrative non academic opportunities for humanities PhDs are substantially fewer than those for STEMers, and people like me would and do vastly prefer any teaching opportunities to just more hours behind the register.

[Caracal]

I can't say I've seen a lot of adjuncts that are lazy, but (i) all they're paid for is being a warm body in front of the class, and they shouldn't be expected to go above and beyond, because that's not why they're getting paid, and (ii) some are incompetent - as in truly having no idea what they were doing. I even know one adjunct that curved grades down if the exam scores were too high. As you might expect, there were a lot of students fulfilling a gen ed requirement that expressed anger after watching their grade drop from an A to a C.

Agree on both points. I don't try to skimp on the core aspects of my job. My students shouldn't get a crummy class because I'm not being paid enough and it would just depress me to not try to do a good job. But, yeah, I'm not doing extra things outside my class unless I actually want to. I'm certainly not going to voluntarily attend meetings about goals for gen-ed classes or whatever.

And I've certainly heard things about some other adjuncts that don't sound good. I used to have someone next door to me and some of the conversations he had on his phone about students and with students were....bizarre. Of course, there are plenty of bad full time faculty too, and I think most adjuncts are reasonable people. But if you're in charge of hiring someone and you're going to pay them by the course with no security, it isn't really possible to do much more than talk with them for ten minutes. It also is not really possible to rigorously evaluate performance. I get one classroom visit a year and then an evaluation based on that and my syllabus. Everyone is very nice about the whole thing, but realistically all that is being evaluated is that I'm a vaguely reasonable person teaching a vaguely reasonable college class. It isn't a system that is well designed to get rid of people who shouldn't be teaching.

[marshwiggle]

This is what I would see as evidence you're NOT the kind of person Polly is speaking about. Lots of us who teach part-time take pride in our work, as you do, but the media chooses to report the endless stories of people basically grabbing any course available and talking about how they can't afford medication, etc. because of their situation. (That kind of desperation is even expressed on here from time to time.) The problem is that the desperate people skew the whole discussion so it's basically impossible to have rational discussions about how the system can be reasonably improved since their personal situations would need a miracle to fix.

So what. You're still just an adjunct. Get used to it.

I'm not sure what you mean; I am used to it. It fits well with my day job and my interests nicely.

And don't you live in a country with socialized medical care?

I think you are assuming that anyone not enamoured of unions must be a "libertarian-get-rid-of government" type. I'm a centrist. Universal medical coverage is a great thing, as is universal education, and I don't mind taxes going to support all kinds of services. Mainly I find most unions' apocalyptic over-the-top rhetoric and dramatic posturing as foolish and unproductive. We don't have to say the sky is falling to realize that an umbrella is a good thing in certain situations.

Incidentally, here's a union organization that I'd be happy to be represented by. From their web page:

What Makes Us Different?
Our approach is truly modern

We believe in cooperation, not confrontation. We work to make your workplace a better place—so that you and your coworkers can grow both as a workplace community and as individuals.

It's why we seek to balance individual and collective interests when we negotiate. It's why we only strike as a last resort. It's why we don't tell our members where to work, or our signatory employers who they can hire. It's why we don't force anyone to join us, or fine them when they leave. It's why we use your dues money to represent and support you—not politicians or political parties.

All of that sounds great to me.

And I've certainly heard things about some other adjuncts that don't sound good. I used to have someone next door to me and some of the conversations he had on his phone about students and with students were....bizarre. Of course, there are plenty of bad full time faculty too, and I think most adjuncts are reasonable people. But if you're in charge of hiring someone and you're going to pay them by the course with no security, it isn't really possible to do much more than talk with them for ten minutes. It also is not really possible to rigorously evaluate performance. I get one classroom visit a year and then an evaluation based on that and my syllabus. Everyone is very nice about the whole thing, but realistically all that is being evaluated is that I'm a vaguely reasonable person teaching a vaguely reasonable college class. It isn't a system that is well designed to get rid of people who shouldn't be teaching.

It isn't that for full-time faculty either, so that's no surprise.