Office of Continuing Educaton-GONE? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 28, 2005

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Office of Continuing Educaton-GONE

Date: Feb 28, 2005

RE: RE: Office of Continuing Educaton-GONE?

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"I have to agree that seemingly major changes that affect curriculum and curriculum development have occurred without lots of input fromfaculty."

Amy - Considering what you say here, since the Academic Council is basically the voice of the faculty on academic matters, does it make sense to retain that body intact since it is evidently not consulted on major curriculum and curriculum development matters? Disbandment would, of course, put USM in violation of SACS principles because it would make the reality of no faculty involvement obvious.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Quote | ReplyRE: Limerick Thred

There once was a fifedom named Thames

That followed every IHL whim

Monkey see monkey do

They hadn't a clue

Of morality, In their "fun" jungle gym

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Mitch
"EPY has had many online offerings over the years. Some faculty teach almost all courses online."

Then you must be pleased as punch with this move toward the Phoenix model.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: thenextstateover
"Coming from me, Mitch, you might dismiss this - but where do your loyalties lie? You're a smart guy, but why are you so dismisssive of this move? My point is that you can't effectively tell the truth right now. You've got some good and bad bosses, and you're straddling the fence. Don't know if I blame you, but let's call a spade a shovel."

TNSO-

I respect your posts, TNSO. But my beliefs in this area precede the current admin, and go back to when the university started to get into the "on-line" degree fad, way back when. I, and a few colleagues, were called Luddites on USMtalk because we questioned how this would be implemented and assessed, and how it was not under local control (USMtalkers can be nuttier than anything even on this board). And, voila, here we are today with the present day headache. So, I like this move on principles that I have long held. Now, others have suggested that this move is problemmatic because of lack of consultation with certain academic bodies, lack of lead time, extra work load on all of us, and so forth. I don't disagree that this transition could have been done better, but it is not something worth ranting about (at least to me). Also, I think CE NEEDS to play an important role in university life. And I honestly don't know what this will be, but I do hope they continue to receive solid support for their activities. Now, Cossack may be a fan of ceding academic responsibility to outside entities, but I am not. An uncomfortable transition is worth it to do what many of us said should have been done years ago.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Luvin' it
"Then you must be pleased as punch with this move toward the Phoenix model. "

Nope. See my post above.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Mitch
"There have been many discussions with faculty and chairs"

Then what's the big deal? Why all of the discussion on this thread If faculty and chairs were properly consulted about this matter.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Have cake, eating it too
"Then what's the big deal? Why all of the discussion on this thread If faculty and chairs were properly consulted about this matter."

Because it could have been done better. For example, Amy says that AC and GC were not in the loop, and if information did not adequately flow to and from those bodies, then they have a legitimate beef. Even if curriculum is not directly affected (that is, the same content and delivery is used pre- and post-transition), there may be changes in the processes for approving courses, support for courses, and ensuring academic rigor which they need to be involved in developing. Or at least they need to know if such changes are in the works.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Folks who are sanguine are always those folks who are not getting the short end of the stick. On the issue of academic control, I did not suggest that academic control should be relinquished. I am not aware that Continuing Ed was usurping academic control. I never heard any faculty that were teaching courses online that indicated they did not have the same control over classes as in normal classes. Even if CE was infringing on academic control, there are better eays to handle it. Faculty set academic policy and Academic Council would have been the place to handle it. Finally, the biggest infringement on academics has been perpetrated by SFT and Ken Malone. Hopefully, those who are sanguine will turn their reasoning talents on the BIG SFT infringement. Indeed, I would like to get some control over academics in my college that has been usurped by the SFT mafia.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Mitch
" Cossack--I am a bit more sanguine about the change because I had a few days in DC to clear the head, and bone-heads like you and the change in CE here that WILL affect us big-time just ain't worth getting that riled up about. There are bigger fish to fry. But you feel free to rant your head off. "

Mitch, I read Cossack's posts, and agree with them or not, he never said anything that warranted the "bone-head" remark. As far as I know, Cossack isn't part of the Thames administration. At least (s)he can say that.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

big mid-year raises = sanguine

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Have cake, eating it too
"Then what's the big deal? Why all of the discussion on this thread If faculty and chairs were properly consulted about this matter."

We have not been consulted, we have been informed.

Mitch. I'm sympathetic with your point and I can see how absorbing this into your program might make sense. We don't do a lot of online in my program. I do know that other programs with large online componants might not be as comfortable aborbing it -- different kind of disicipline perhaps and maybe they don;t have anyone who can dedicate the time to doing the things that need to be done to maintain a department's online activity . . .

I do know that as an interim director I am also in charge of two MFA Programs (one my own discipline and one the one I am a caretaker for). I almost never get to meet with my students or monitor their work. The job of director has become so administrative (for me and my predecessorm which is one reason he left) that there literally is not time to run the grad program. Particuarly in smaller departments that are applied there simply don't have the manpower to dedicate anyone to being a paper pusher . . . I know I am simplifying because you have to do research. So that is why this serious lack of planning and consultation just ****es me off. I remember having an argument with Jay about why we could not hold off on putting the new core in place until we understood the implications of the changes the administration had institutted and how it would affect our teaching and assessement. So guess what? It is here and it is a joke.

We have a serious trend that is a problem if you are a teacher or a researcher. Administrators are not taking the load off us us -- they are adding more and more administrative tasks but not compensating us at the other end. And as they do -- we are less effective in the classroom. This is the big lie that somehow never seems to escape out to the streets. I can't speak for everyone, but I feel I am ripping off my students and I'm watching my faculty (even the two who have only been here two years) working through an exhaustion that simply is inhumane. I worry as I watch them work late and come in early that I am seeing the seeds of family discord being sown . . . and no one above the level of Dean seems to see it. How long can I keep faculty under these conditions?

But I'm in an intense discipline and maybe everyone isn't feeling the same pressure so I'll confine my concerns to my own area, I suppose.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Stephen, your (eloquent) story is very general. The thing is coming apart at the seams.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Professor Judd,

What you are describing is going on in many areas of the University, albeit perhaps not as severe as what you describe. It is a disequilibrium that cannot continue much longer. People just wear out trying to keep up quality and take on the extra tasks. SFT and protégées never take a break. Nothing makes them happier than destroying what exists and creating something new that must meet two criteria. One, it must result in making more faculty or employees miserable. Two, it must always yield perverse results. They also have a philosophy: if we did not create it, it cannot be world class.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Originally posted by: ste[hen judd
"We have not been consulted, we have been informed."

I was just going by what "Mitch" said: "There have been many discussions with faculty and chairs" Any reasonable person would assume from reading that sentence that those words imply consultation.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Having cake, eating it too
I was just going by what "Mitch" said: "There have been many discussions with faculty and chairs" Any reasonable person would assume from reading that sentence that those words imply consultation.

A "discussion" does imply a give-and-take. An "announcement" implies otherwise. "Mitch" did say "discussion." I assumed he meant just what he said.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: e-justice
"Stephen, your (eloquent) story is very general. The thing is coming apart at the seams."

If seams are ripping, I suggest placing a call to the Associate Provost, whose fashion merchandising background surely qualifies her to wield a needle and thread.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Along the lines of SJ's post above:

There are 120 hours in a 5-day work week. Of those, a minimum of approximately 45 hours are needed for basic personal survival activities (sleep, meals, hygiene, etc.), leaving 75 hours. Assuming that every individual also requires 2 hours per day of "personal" time, we are left with 65 hours of "work time."

I have read somewhere that our jobs as faculty are broken down as 50% teaching, 40% research, and 10% service. So, in a standard 40-hour week, one should spend 20 hours per week on teaching, 16 hours per week on research, and 4 hours per week on service.

However, I know many faculty in many disciplines who spend many more hours per week on one or more of these three areas. I have a colleague at another institution who chooses to spend 30 hours per week on research. When his department head found this out, the dept. head increased his service and teaching loads, saying that "If you can find extra time to do research, you can find time to do extra service and teaching." Administrators seem to want to control a faculty member's time and steer them to the areas that will benefit that administrator the most.

Now, back to USM:
Consider your solleagues at USM who spend 50, 60, 70, or even 80 hours per week on their jobs. Given the analysis above, you only have 65 hours in a work week that could be available for work activities, meaning that we're definitely dipping into "personal time" to get our stuff done (since 70 and 80 are both > 65). USM really isn't that different in many respects from other institutions -- higher-level administrators want to shift work down the chain until it reaches a settling point. However, at USM, our administrators still sell the public on the "day's work for a day's pay" mantra, insinuating that we're still getting off easy.

I know it wouldn't make a difference, but I would feel better if my overworked a$$ could read in the newspaper how faculty are doing a good job every once in a while, and I think that is what chaps people's hides the most. Most faculty are willing to give the extra effort, given that they get an "atta-boy" in a meaningful way.

On the other hand, I know some faculty who have decided to minimize USM time to save their personal lives from the havoc that this is causing, and I can't blame them for that either.

By the way, the use of the > symbol would have gotten me the outstanding thesis award for ED Research Methods at USM!

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: referee
"Mitch, I read Cossack's posts, and agree with them or not, he never said anything that warranted the "bone-head" remark. As far as I know, Cossack isn't part of the Thames administration. At least (s)he can say that."

Nice dig in the last part of your response. Read Cossack's dig in the last few sentences. Then read the dig by IDDAD. I really hate when a ref needs glasses. You, my idot friend, are a schmuck.

In the past few weeks I have seen faculty "leaders" screw other faculty royally behind their backs. I have seen breathtakingly vicious comments, back stabbing, and undermining of faculty by other faculty. I have seen hysterics in the absence of data. I have seen posturing and self-congratulatory smugness. The nice aspect of your mean-spirited post is that you have convinced me that you are among those who are part of the problem. Grow up and be part of the solution.

Cossack, ref, and IDDAD---I am no longer sanguine, and no longer have an interest in exchanging information at this site. However, I do love a street brawl. If any of you would care to meet me for a chat, it would be my pleasure. Come on by anytime (nah, you won't).

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Pood loves to tell the story about how the NC board (or legislature?) made NC faculty all document their work for a week--and never again complained about the "days work for a days pay." I started doing that last year (for months) and discovered I did work 80 hours some weeks--and I never even got down anywhere near 40. I suggest EVERYONE do it, and send the records to the IHL, especially to dumbKlumb.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Mitch
" Nice dig in the last part of your response. Read Cossack's dig in the last few sentences. Then read the dig by IDDAD . . . . . . .You, my idot friend, are a schmuck . . . . . . . I have seen breathtakingly vicious comments, back stabbing . . . . . . . The nice aspect of your mean-spirited post is that you have convinced me that you are among those who are part of the problem. Grow up and be part of the solution. Cossack, ref, and IDDAD---I am no longer sanguine . . . . . . . "

A school yard brawl on the playground right here at Hardy Street High? My mama was right about Ph.D.'s.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cajun Cutie
""

Not all of us CC, some of us had the good sense to direct our energies in positive ways.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Mitch
" Cossack--I am a bit more sanguine about the change because I had a few days in DC to clear the head, and bone-heads like you."

And I mistakenly thought COEP was the kinder, gentler college.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

If you remember, a majority of this board voted that it thought the CoEP had the largest pockets of pro-Thames people, outside of COST, at the university.

Date: Feb 28, 2005

Mitch, I don't think you really want to put out that kind of a challenge. From what I've seen of you, you'd be lucky if you got out of that fight with your dead animal skin...errrrr....hairdo intact. My money's on Cossack to beat you like a Wal-Mart pinata with a Louisville Slugger. And, Cossack's probably not the associate dean of the most pro-Thames college, schmuck. You've been had.

Date: Mar 1, 2005

I just read back through this thread, which started out with serious and thoughtful posts and deteriorated into something stupid and ugly. If you gentlemen will stop threatening and calling names and all that stuff you're doing, or in the immortal words of Sister Mary Elephant, SHUT UP!

Thank you.

I don't like Mitch Berman being called a collaborator. I also don't like Mitch Berman's refusal to listen to me when I pointed out that

1. CE IS NOT JUST ONLINE. THERE IS A LOT MORE TO CE THAN ONLINE.

2. THERE WAS ONLY ONE OTHER COMPUTER SYSTEM BESIDES PEOPLE SOFT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AND IT WAS CRAP TOO.

3. ONCE AGAIN THE THAMES ADMINISTRATION IS DESTROYING A PROGRAM THAT WORKED AND MADE MONEY, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T PERFECT., AND DESTROYING IT FOR NO GOOD REASON. AND WITHOUT DISCUSSING, ASKING, CONSULTING OR ANYTHING ELSE.

4. ONCE AGAIN THE THAMES ADMINISTRATION IS TREATING EMPLOYEES LIKE FURNITURE, AND THEN WONDERING WHY THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT HAPPY.

5. THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SEMESTER. THIS WAS A STUPID, STUPID WAY TO DO THIS.

6. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, CONTINUING EDUCATION IS NOT JUST ONLINE. NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT.

I am not going to post another word about this; I've been disgusted with the name-calling and other unkindness on this board, but this is a new low. And also for the record, I've been flamed, insulted, threatened, and called names worse than most of you, so have at. However I am not inviting anyone over for a fist fight, as I am an elderly woman and I might hurt you with my cane.

Date: Mar 1, 2005

LVN,

Thank you for bringing us back on task. BTW, I don't remember seeing you with a cane. (Yes, we have met.........)

Date: Mar 1, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: I've got a Master's Degree in ED Research Methods
" By the way, the use of the > symbol would have gotten me the outstanding thesis award for ED Research Methods at USM! "

LOL!

Date: Mar 1, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Alternate route
"Amy - Considering what you say here, since the Academic Council is basically the voice of the faculty on academic matters, does it make sense to retain that body intact since it is evidently not consulted on major curriculum and curriculum development matters? Disbandment would, of course, put USM in violation of SACS principles because it would make the reality of no faculty involvement obvious.

"

Alternate Route,

I believe (just my opinion) that if members of Academic Council disband themselves, it would be faculty, not the administration, that puts USM at risk for accreditation. I also believe that we are on probation and literally scrambling for reaffirmation because of all the things the administration has done over the last 2.5 to 3 years. I made a list of all the things that administration has done to jeopardize accreditation, and I am up to about 15 things.

I truly appreciate your frustration, AR. Most faculty I talk to feel that way. Many are spending nightes and weekends working on accreditation issues while SFT has fun.

I think we need to focus on trying to communicate to the IHL board and to the public all of the administrative moves that led us to this terrible situation. I agree we need relief, but faculty doing what they accuse administration of doing is just not the answer.

Amy Young