Post-tenure review - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 21, 2005

RE: Post-tenure review

Date: Jun 21, 2005

The opposition is because there is a lack of trust in the people in charge. The norm, at most universities, is for representative faculty groups to work with administration to develop an effective PTR policy. At USM, the process gets short-circuited from above because of petty vindictiveness and from below because of the knowledge that there will be petty vindictiveness.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Best Practices wrote:

From Casey Jones:

"A couple of questions to get this thread back on track:

1. Is there opposition to a post-tenure review process at USM?

2. If there is opposition, why is there opposition?"

BP Response:

The opposition is because there is a lack of trust in the people in charge. The norm, at most universities, is for representative faculty groups to work with administration to develop an effective PTR policy. At USM, the process gets short-circuited from above because of petty vindictiveness and from below because of the knowledge that there will be petty vindictiveness.

Clarifying for formatting reasons.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

BP,

Would this change if SFT were not president?

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Casey Jones wrote:

BP,

Would this change if SFT were not president?

I'm referring to the level of distrust in this previous question.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Perspective, Please wrote:

Ethics, Why should voters without children in schools vote for tax increases? . . . . systems such as that which you are proposing overlap into socialist ideology -- everyone pays for the common good. Why pay for something you won't use?

Perspective Please,

Your perspective is clearly the most warped perspective I have seen on this message board. A fundamental objective of government is to protect all of its its citizens, including those who are disadvantaged. My, you do seem to be a selfish little snot.

Conservative Republican Southerner

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Conservative Republican Southerner wrote:

Perspective Please,
Your perspective is clearly the most warped perspective I have seen on this message board. A fundamental objective of government is to protect all of its its citizens, including those who are disadvantaged. My, you do seem to be a selfish little snot.
Conservative Republican Southerner

And you seem totally incapable of making a counterargument without calling names, much as "Ethics" and others have done before you.

No one has offered any argument except "it just should be that way," which wouldn't fly on any other thread. It's amazing how "logic" and "facts" are necessary from trolls but anyone who toes the liberal USM prof party line can get away with no facts at all.

By the way, had it ever occurred to any of you that I am arguing for argument's sake? I have presented reasoned arguments and have gotten nothing but snide comments in return.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Perspective, Please:
While I'm hanging out waiting for the jury to decide where I'll spend the rest of my retirement, I thought I'd give you a word of encouragement. Just want to say--right on, brother. Don't let them education-loving, mescegenatin' communists get the last word. I didn't!
Eddie

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Casey Jones wrote:

Casey Jones wrote: BP, Would this change if SFT were not president? I'm referring to the level of distrust in this previous question.

I honestly don't know. There is a culture of distrust that I don't completely understand. I don't think Shelby Thames created it but he has grown it exponentially. This is a challenge for those who are preparing for life after Shelby. As an engineer, Casey Jones, I assume you are one of the people trying to avoid the train wreck. There are many. They need to find each other and work together.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Perspective, Please wrote:

... Now, you have butted into a discussion between a disgruntled, well-kept professor and myself. Be gone.

If you were referring to me, perspective please, I need to correct you here. I'm not bitter, as I stated previously, and I'm only disgruntled because I take on so many unethical people, like you. But as I said I'm having fun and USM has such an abundance of corrupt administrators to entertain my pastime.

How can I be "well-kept" when I said, "I'm happy to say that at least I have integrity, respect and the bag of chips."

In another post you said, "Again, you're in the middle of a discussion between a person with an agenda that is hidden to almost all except me. This agenda has nothing to do with SFT or the IHL directly. He is a disgruntled prof who is attempting to shape yet another thread into a way to further his personal agenda."

I have no agenda, but I just wanted to point out what I considered your unethical philosophy. And I have no connection to the CoB. How did anyone make a connection to the CoB anyway?

Date: Jun 21, 2005

BP wrote:

Best Practices wrote:

From Casey Jones: "A couple of questions to get this thread back on track:1. Is there opposition to a post-tenure review process at USM?2. If there is opposition, why is there opposition?"

BP Response: The opposition is because there is a lack of trust in the people in charge. The norm, at most universities, is for representative faculty groups to work with administration to develop an effective PTR policy. At USM, the process gets short-circuited from above because of petty vindictiveness and from below because of the knowledge that there will be petty vindictiveness. Clarifying for formatting reasons.

This would be a deviation amplifying loop?

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Alright, PersP, Post-Tenure Review:

Many universities have it. Typically, it looks something like this: A professor seems to have suddenly decelerated in his/her research. This gets picked up on around year 10 or 11, when the post tenure 5-years look weak. The professor goes through post-tenure review and this is pointed out. He/she is given a significant period of time (3-5 years) with annual reviews to demonstrate a significant change. Around year 15, he/she may not have improved enough, so the institution moves to phase 2 - retooling. The professor takes a year of sabbatical and learns either a new research area or advances in their present research area. Upon his/her return, he/she approaches the university for additional funds to upgrade a laboratory and get a grad student, then writes some equipment and redirectioning grants. Within another 5 years or so (past year 20) the results are known. If they are not strong enough, the professor is advised to improve, but he/she reaches 25 years and retires first.

While this may sound cynical, I am actually a strong supporter of this procedure. An amazing number of people DO get re-energized and improve performance significantly. People shouldn't just be left lost when they lose the vision.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Casey Jones wrote:

A couple of questions to get this thread back on track: 1. Is there opposition to a post-tenure review process at USM? 2. If there is opposition, why is there opposition?

Casey, As a member of Faculty Senate I never heard anyone speak out against having Post Tenure Review. There was a policy in place last summer, but the new deans were not aware of it. When asked how many faculty were performing unsatisfactorily, the deans reported any faculty who was rated unsatisfactory is one category of teaching research or service instead of an overall unsatisfactory rating. That is why, of the 28 faculty in the state rated that way, 20 were from USM.

The new PTR document makes all of this very clear so there is no problem now. I think faculty like to have a well-stated policy instead of getting by with “who you know” as Pre. P seems to wants things.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Post Tenure Review.....There was a policy in place last summer, but the new deans were not aware of it.

It seems to me that the administration takes its published policies seriously only when it is to the administration's benefit.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Perspective, Please wrote:

And you seem totally incapable of making a counterargument without calling names, much as "Ethics" and others have done before you. No one has offered any argument except "it just should be that way," which wouldn't fly on any other thread. It's amazing how "logic" and "facts" are necessary from trolls but anyone who toes the liberal USM prof party line can get away with no facts at all. By the way, had it ever occurred to any of you that I am arguing for argument's sake? I have presented reasoned arguments and have gotten nothing but snide comments in return.

Perspective, Please,

I never called you names, although I did call your philosophy names. I did present logic. I tried to point out to you that your system of ethics was too "short sighted" and neglected to take into account the common good. Another poster showed the connection between investing in education and the long-term benefit to the culture.

If you read back through the thread you will see I never engaged you on Post Tenure Review, but only your statements that I related to ethics, hence my name.

Please do not attribute my statements to anyone in CoB. I'm was never associated with the CoB and hate to see you blame a certain person there for remarks I have made here.

If we are through with the ethics discussion, I will let this thread get back to post tenure review.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Ethics wrote:

Perspective, Please, I never called you names, although I did call your philosophy names.

But "Perspective, Please" needs to understand that a person's name can't be dissociated from their philosophy. In other words, you can't behave one way and then hide behind the mask of a pretty name.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

"Ethics" (and whatever other pseudonyms you choose):

I'll give this one last shot. I'm arguing for argument's sake. I'm taking an unpopular (on this board) stance in hopes of generating some meaningful discussion. You may not safely assume that I actually believe what I'm arguing. While this may be a foreign concept to you, it should not be a foreign concept to anyone who has ever debated a side of an issue with which they did not identify. However, you're (assuming what you say is true -- which may be quite a stretch) not the only one who has taken some sort of personal offense at my comments.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Casey Jones wrote:
A couple of questions to get this thread back on track: 1. Is there opposition to a post-tenure review process at USM? 2. If there is opposition, why is there opposition?

Casey, As a member of Faculty Senate I never heard anyone speak out against having Post Tenure Review. There was a policy in place last summer, but the new deans were not aware of it. When asked how many faculty were performing unsatisfactorily, the deans reported any faculty who was rated unsatisfactory is one category of teaching research or service instead of an overall unsatisfactory rating. That is why, of the 28 faculty in the state rated that way, 20 were from USM.
The new PTR document makes all of this very clear so there is no problem now. I think faculty like to have a well-stated policy instead of getting by with “who you know” as Pre. P seems to wants things.

Actually, I am quite interested in the PTR portion of this thread and am trying to get it back on track after PersP and Ethics' attempt at derailing it.

I agree that policies need to be set out clearly in writing so that everyone knows the rules. However, what I am hearing from BP is that no post-tenure review policy is acceptable as long as the current administration is in place. Am I incorrect, BP?

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Perspective, Please wrote:

"Ethics" (and whatever other pseudonyms you choose): I'll give this one last shot. I'm arguing for argument's sake. I'm taking an unpopular (on this board) stance in hopes of generating some meaningful discussion. You may not safely assume that I actually believe what I'm arguing. While this may be a foreign concept to you, it should not be a foreign concept to anyone who has ever debated a side of an issue with which they did not identify. However, you're (assuming what you say is true -- which may be quite a stretch) not the only one who has taken some sort of personal offense at my comments.

Per. P., I try my best to address the ideas and issues. I do not care who is making the statements I address or if the person is representing themselves or others. I didn't take a "personal offense" at your comments. (I tend not to get personally involved--a fault of mine some say.)

You certainly succeeded in your "hopes of generating some meaningful discussion." The discussion was stimulating.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Well, Best P., I'm beginning to wonder if PerP and Ethics aren't the same person, and I'm also wondering what their purpose is. Good luck staying on track.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Casey Jones wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: Casey Jones wrote: A couple of questions to get this thread back on track: 1. Is there opposition to a post-tenure review process at USM? 2. If there is opposition, why is there opposition? Casey, As a member of Faculty Senate I never heard anyone speak out against having Post Tenure Review. There was a policy in place last summer, but the new deans were not aware of it. When asked how many faculty were performing unsatisfactorily, the deans reported any faculty who was rated unsatisfactory is one category of teaching research or service instead of an overall unsatisfactory rating. That is why, of the 28 faculty in the state rated that way, 20 were from USM. The new PTR document makes all of this very clear so there is no problem now. I think faculty like to have a well-stated policy instead of getting by with “who you know” as Pre. P seems to wants things. Actually, I am quite interested in the PTR portion of this thread and am trying to get it back on track after PersP and Ethics' attempt at derailing it. I agree that policies need to be set out clearly in writing so that everyone knows the rules. However, what I am hearing from BP is that no post-tenure review policy is acceptable as long as the current administration is in place. Am I incorrect, BP?

I agree with BP that there is no trust. TRUST, will be a major rebuilding effort for the next administration. That is one reason Faculty Senate wanted a document that was clear and avoids vague interpretation.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Casey Jones wrote:

Actually, I am quite interested in the PTR portion of this thread and am trying to get it back on track after PersP and Ethics' attempt at derailing it. I agree that policies need to be set out clearly in writing so that everyone knows the rules. However, what I am hearing from BP is that no post-tenure review policy is acceptable as long as the current administration is in place. Am I incorrect, BP?

I don't know if that is true either. There seems to be a concerted effort by many to do the right thing around the current administrative impediment. I believe that all legitimate voices on campus are in favor of some form of post-tenure review; those voices simply don't trust the Thames administration to apply it fairly. I am an "n of 1" so please gather the official positions of the university community.

Date: Jun 21, 2005

I guess what I'm getting at is how far down will changes in administrators have to occur before the process is satisfactory? There will probably always be one or two profs who think they're being treated unfairly, regardless of who does the evaluations. If Shelby Thames and his Dome group go, will that suffice, or will there need to be a clean slate of deans as well? Perhaps chairs also?

I'm really trying to get a sense of how long it will take before the "usual and customary" systems begin to work again at USM.

Also, I remember reading something a couple of weeks back that referenced online teaching evaluations. Has there been any indication with regard to these?

Date: Jun 21, 2005

Surely no one here here is suggesting that there should be no post-tenure review at USM until after SFT is gone. Surely no one here is suggesting that the 20 USM tenured profs who received unsatisfactory marks in any category (teaching, research, service) should be allowed to continue unchecked on their path to full retirement.

I hope these points will be clarified. Please remember that there are thousands of Mississippians out there who get job evaluations every year based on criteria they had no input in and by supervisors who may or may not value them as people or as workers. Can you put your responses in terms these thousands of workers will understand?

Date: Jun 22, 2005

WTF? wrote:

Surely no one here here is suggesting that there should be no post-tenure review at USM until after SFT is gone. Surely no one here is suggesting that the 20 USM tenured profs who received unsatisfactory marks in any category (teaching, research, service) should be allowed to continue unchecked on their path to full retirement. I hope these points will be clarified. Please remember that there are thousands of Mississippians out there who get job evaluations every year based on criteria they had no input in and by supervisors who may or may not value them as people or as workers. Can you put your responses in terms these thousands of workers will understand?

"Thousands of workers" in Mississippi don't have their evaulations played out publicly in a battle for external credibility (that it can't garner internally) by an inept administration.

Date: Jun 22, 2005

Red Herring wrote:

WTF? wrote:
Surely no one here here is suggesting that there should be no post-tenure review at USM until after SFT is gone. Surely no one here is suggesting that the 20 USM tenured profs who received unsatisfactory marks in any category (teaching, research, service) should be allowed to continue unchecked on their path to full retirement. I hope these points will be clarified. Please remember that there are thousands of Mississippians out there who get job evaluations every year based on criteria they had no input in and by supervisors who may or may not value them as people or as workers. Can you put your responses in terms these thousands of workers will understand?
"Thousands of workers" in Mississippi don't have their evaulations played out publicly in a battle for external credibility (that it can't garner internally) by an inept administration.

No, they just get fired. Gosh, embarassment is much worse than firing. [sarcasm alert]

Date: Jun 22, 2005

As has been pointed out more than once on this board, professors are hired nationally for very specialized tasks. They have usually moving across country at their own personal expense to take a position with a salary far below what similarly educated professionals make (doctors, lawyers, etc.) The available openings for what they do are few and far between, and usually at entry level. Being fired is not the same experience that it is for someone who can fairly easily find the same or similar employment--for the professor, being fired is catastrophic.

Date: Jun 22, 2005

Apples and oranges wrote:

As has been pointed out more than once on this board, professors are hired nationally for very specialized tasks. They have usually moving across country at their own personal expense to take a position with a salary far below what similarly educated professionals make (doctors, lawyers, etc.) The available openings for what they do are few and far between, and usually at entry level. Being fired is not the same experience that it is for someone who can fairly easily find the same or similar employment--for the professor, being fired is catastrophic.

That's not even what we're talking about.

Date: Jun 22, 2005

WTF? wrote:

Surely no one here here is suggesting that there should be no post-tenure review at USM until after SFT is gone. Surely no one here is suggesting that the 20 USM tenured profs who received unsatisfactory marks in any category (teaching, research, service) should be allowed to continue unchecked on their path to full retirement. I hope these points will be clarified. Please remember that there are thousands of Mississippians out there who get job evaluations every year based on criteria they had no input in and by supervisors who may or may not value them as people or as workers. Can you put your responses in terms these thousands of workers will understand?

Yes --- those thousands of workers are abused.

So instead of saying -- this is the way it works in the REAL world (although I can think of nothing more UNREALthan the CEO of a corporation who is paid 600 times what hios/her workers make), the problem isn't that professors are spoiled, the problem is that MOST workers are treated like an expendible resource.

Florida's first book (the Rise of the the Creative Class) does a pretty good job of underscoring how our view of workers as expendible distorts how we invest our material resources in ways that end up wasting the human resources we have in hand.

Date: Jun 22, 2005

Very good answer, Stephen. I agree that workers are too often viewed as expendable, though some professions or subsets of professions do not control the supply of workers into the market very well. Case in point: Ph.D.s in chemistry. The supply of Ph.D.s in chemistry outweighs the demand for such workers by such a wide margin that Ph.D.s in chemistry garner relatively low salaries and are treated (by people like SFT in particular) as expendable. "Offer 'em $25,000/yr. They'll be lucky to have a job." This, of course, is just pure luck for him, as economics is only one of many subjects in which SFT has little knowledge.

Back to my real point: How do you look one of those abused workers in the eye and say "I know you're getting screwed, but I should have a freebie because my boss is vindictive"?