SACS Checks USM Web - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 22, 2005

SACS Checks USM Web

Date: Jul 22, 2005

Last time I checked, my bio is still on the website. There is no link to it, but it is there. SACS should be careful--the website is probably littered with ghosts of USM's past.

Date: Jul 23, 2005

former faculty member wrote:

Last time I checked, my bio is still on the website. There is no link to it, but it is there. SACS should be careful--the website is probably littered with ghosts of USM's past.

I'm also slightly out of joint about the way in which the need to show SACs that websites are up to date is also being used to pull in content not required by SACs (i.e. "Bragging Points,)

I'm not against this mind you . . . . just that I have noticed that the SACs excuse is being used to for other purposes besides simply verifying that we have been keeping up with SACs requirements and there are sometimes items of specificity that seem entirely unSACslike.

Date: Jul 23, 2005

I know of at least one Ph.D.-granting dept. that has only two remaining full-time faculty (of its original strength) excluding any new hires (unknown if the dean has approved or if they have accepted and will actually show up), but still has departed and retired faculty listed on its page (not to mention a bogus "professor of practice" - whatever the heck that means). This could be very interesting!

Date: Jul 23, 2005

lurker--i bet you mean administration of justice. the whole point of the web "freeze" is to get these things accurate.

Date: Jul 24, 2005

Actually, we have the Professor of Practice designation here at Vanderbilt over in Peabody College (education). I think it is a non-tenure track designation (more of a focus on teaching instead of research?).

Anyway, my point is that it's not a "bogus" designation, just a different one.

Truth

Date: Jul 24, 2005

Reporter wrote:

Every University department and unit must now review their Web site content to assure it is accurate, up to date, and complete.

This sounds like closing the barn door after the horse has left the gate.

Date: Jul 24, 2005

truth4usm/AH wrote:

Actually, we have the Professor of Practice designation here at Vanderbilt over in Peabody College (education). I think it is a non-tenure track designation (more of a focus on teaching instead of research?).

Anyway, my point is that it's not a "bogus" designation, just a different one.

Truth

I refer to this designation as bogus where the person has not earned the rank referenced by the title. Before entering the academy I did not have a full appreciation for the distinction between Asst., Assoc and full professor. I don't object to the title "... of practice" but, rather, think that the appropriate rank should be assigned. With an understanding that these are typically non-tenure track positions, what should it matter then if the person is designated as "Assistant Professor of Practice." This was discussed several months back on another thread. I for one am insulted that someone would be freely given this title without attention to academic accomplishments. Just my two cents. Maybe I'm easliy offended these days - but then again, who isn't a little on edge with all that we've had to endure. In fact, I hate to disagree with you Truth, even if only in the slightest amount as is the case here, because I truly admire your tenacity and courage on this board and in other forums.

Date: Jul 24, 2005

I think I may have mentioned this at some point many moons ago, but when I was at Duke they were SO protective of academic titles (would that possibly be "titlelogy"?) that those of us who had terminal degrees in the arts had a whole different nomenclature. We were called "Fellows". At that time there was no designation for seniority, but I was on a committee chaired by Dr. Robert Ward (who had a legitimate doctorate and an academic title was also a nationally recognized composer, chiefly of operas (The Crucible -- yes that one -- and Claudia LeGare are the two I remember) that made several proposals for how to handle creating titles for artists that were parallel to academic titles. Anyway I don't think they ever settled the issue, or at least didn't when I took my leave in 1987. Anybody been there more recently?

Before we got the title of Fellows (with the associated "Institute of the Arts") we were simply called Artists in Residence and our pay was terrible. After the formation of the Institute and title change, my salary went drastically up . . . in the final tw years my raises were almost 2-1/2 times what I started with . . . .

Date: Jul 24, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

We were called "Fellows".

Stephen, did those with the title "Fellow" have a tenure track appointment?

Date: Jul 24, 2005

Titelist wrote:

stephen judd wrote: We were called "Fellows". Stephen, did those with the title "Fellow" have a tenure track appointment?

An excellent and most perceptive question. At that time . . . no. But that was yet another part of the discussion.

The complication was that, particularly in theatre and music, there were academics with academic titles who were perhaps not the best artists, but were got all of the benfits (such as there were) of calling themselves artists. They of course, had title and tenurablility. Then there were the people (usually younger since schools producing terminal degrees were really beginning to crank folks out at that point) who were the degreed artists, who were often much better artists . . . but of course weren't scholars and hence had neither title nor tenurability. And, at least in the first five years I was there, nothing in the way of comparable pay.

For instance, since theatre started in the English Department (although it had separated by the time I got there) some of the older faculty had degrees in English (Dramatic Theory for instance), but little to no formal training in the practice. Yet those folks possessed titles, a good paycheck (well-deserved I might ass, in most cases) and tenure.

Duke at that time was still trying to figure out exactly what it wanted to be in the academic firmament . . .

Date: Jul 24, 2005

Umm . . . I hope this doesn't qualify as a Freudian slip:

"well-deserved I might ass."

Of course, I meant "add" -- I think.

Date: Jul 24, 2005

Professors of Practice, Clinical Professors, et al:

One of the things I always liked about the "old" USM was the balance between teaching and research. In my college, a bad hire in terms of teaching was quietly told to find work elsewhere. However, the system was symmetric, a great teacher that couldn't publish got told the same thing. My loose impression was that this also was happening in other colleges. The growing use of teachers (call it what you will) by schools obsessed with their research rankings is an open admission that they are failing miserably at their primary mission: the teaching of undergraduates. It's funny, in a sad sort of way, to watch places like Harvard, Chicago, and NYU wrestle with this. It may also portend the end of max research and undergraduates be damned culture that has set in at most highly rated research institutions. The "old" USM was starting to pull in some student refugees from the undergraduate hellholes that places like LSU and Georgia have become based on cheap out-of-state tuition (thank you UM) and decent teaching. Too bad those days are long gone. With a few more good years and some decent marketing (don't like Ohio State and can't get into Miami of Ohio, come south young person) we might even have had a shot at that magic 20K.