This Won't Make SFT Happy - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 16, 2005

This Won't Make SFT Happy

Date: Aug 16, 2005

AND they snagged Tom Richardson!

Date: Aug 16, 2005

.Let's hope USM doesn't become known as "That place across town at the corner of Hardy and HWY 49.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Geo wrote:

.Let's hope USM doesn't become known as "That place across town at the corner of Hardy and HWY 49.

It already is.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Geo wrote:

.Let's hope USM doesn't become known as "That place across town at the corner of Hardy and HWY 49.

Or maybe "You can't miss it .... it's just down the street from Nick's Ice House."

Date: Aug 17, 2005

As chair of the English department and for much more money. Go Tom! I'm sure Dean Pood tried to get a counter offer, yeah right.

LVN wrote:

AND they snagged Tom Richardson!

Date: Aug 17, 2005

I had two moments with Tom Richardson, one was in a deli (McAllister's maybe?) where we exchanged pleasantries and the other was crossing a parking lot where we nodded greetings and conspiratorial looks. USM's loss, Carey's gain.

Date: Aug 17, 2005

Put it in perspective...

Date: Aug 17, 2005

RE: This Won't Make SFT Happy

Date: Aug 17, 2005

How does the work load compare at WCC? I've heard some of those folks are teaching a full 12 hours. That's slave labor for academia.

Date: Aug 17, 2005

As I understand it, they aren't expected to publish. If they do, great. WCC is proud. I don't know if they are rewarded financially. But their primary obligation is to the students.

Date: Aug 17, 2005

Music Patron wrote:

I don't know if they are rewarded financially. .

Oh, so WCC shares some qualities with USM!

Date: Aug 17, 2005

Hold on Nellie wrote:

How does the work load compare at WCC? I've heard some of those folks are teaching a full 12 hours. That's slave labor for academia.

12 hours of teaching is more like "sweated labor." "Slave labor", and I'm not sure that's a quantitative term, (ie. one denoting quantity) would be the standard teaching load at MGCCC: 15 hours regular, 18 and 21 not uncommon.

The real point waiting to be made here, however, is that faculty at sweatshop and plantation style colleges and junior colleges are not expected to publish, perform research, or do much to participate in the governance of the institution.

Of course, such institutions do not advertise the fact that their faculty have little opportunity to keep current. And the students whom they teach have nothing to compare their professors' disciplinary knowledge to anyhow. And having fewer instructors teach more courses is very, very good for the cash flow. That's the beauty of unsound academic labor practices: they're fiscally healthy and they deprive students of the critical thinking skills they need to evaluate the quality of their college education. It's the perfect scam. Victims of it tend to become constitutionally incapable of realizing they've been ripped off!

Until USM figures out a way to beat WC and the CC's in terms of quality, those places will always have the upper hand in terms of quantity. SFT and Co., however, have taken a lot of steps to diminish quality, not the least of which has been the gutting of the English department's senior faculty, and senior faculty generally.

Date: Aug 17, 2005

I have to agree with our plantation friend. What I find interesting is that SFT wants to basically play the volume game (FTEs) in academia, and yet also have a "wurl class" research institution. To date, no one (not even SFT) has been able to articulate how this was supposed to happen. It is still a mystery. You know why? Because it can't be done, outside of having a two tier faculty (like some Universities - clinical and research).

Because USM does not have that, we lose out BOTH ways - we can't execute as a "volume" degree mill like some schools, and we can't attract (or keep) research types. We have truly become mediocre, whipsawed on both ends.

I have been thinking lately - just what has this administration positively accomplished? I mean it - what has it positively done? It is easy to point to growth in certain areas, but controlling for overall (i.e. nationwide) growth, USM has basically been flat across the board for years now. We are standing still.

How can the growth at WCC be explained away by the USM administration? These are the same students who would have considered USM several years ago. They are not - Why? I would give my raise this year (well, it was $0) to see some data from WCC students about what they think about USM. How can the administration and the IHL, with a straight face, see tremendous growth at a private school basically down the street, and explain this away?

Oh well - Still counting.

Count

Date: Aug 18, 2005

Tier 4 again. This won't make SFT happy. Who's to blame this time? Must be Grimes? or Doty? or Mader (good to blame folks who are gone)? or maybe this board? or maybe Glamser?

Date: Aug 18, 2005

The course load is generally 27-30 hours per year, three trimesters. The financial rewards are getting much better. The working conditions are very pleasant. It is small, but the respect that faculty get is really nice. The students are the first and last consideration. Research and publishing are appreciated, but not demanded. Is it a comprehensive research institution--no. Is it a nice place to TEACH, yes. Students like the attention.