and it begins again. . . - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 9, 2006

and it begins again. . .

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Sounds WURL CLASS. After this is instituted, there will two Universities and six teaching schools. It will be a nightmare managing this dichotomy. Who votes on tenure and promotion, does a teaching faculty vote on a research faculty’s tenure and promotion? Can a research faculty move into teaching faculty position without having research? Will there be defined salary differences since research faculty are more scarce? Will the category always be an elective one, or can the bad administrators move a research faculty into the teaching slot based on malice. How will SACS and college accrediting associations handle this? I am sure I have not exhausted the list.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

The only viable alternative to this policy is a true post tenure review policy in which unproductive members of the faculty are counseled as to how they can improve their productivity. Those who are unwilling to improve their productivity should then be terminated.

In many ways, USM desperately needs either a dual track system or a true post tenure review.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

What about students who need research mentors? They would not have any exposure to potential mentors by taking the mentor's class...

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Question wrote:

What about students who need research mentors? They would not have any exposure to potential mentors by taking the mentor's class...

The idea that USM has so many "research mentorship" opportunities (especially for undergraduate students) is ridiculous. Our undergrads are below the national average as a whole when it comes to ability, yet we insist on pretending that they can do some sort of research. Those that can do it will be identified in masters programs later on in life.

Graduate students would get exposure to mentors in their graduate courses, which would ostensibly be taught by research faculty.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Once again Thames is taking USM in the opposite direction from Ole Miss and Miss State and any other quality institutions of higher learning where so-called "research" faculty teach 2-2 loads or less in order to actually do research and mentor graduate and undergraduate students. This new policy is no improvement whatsoever as we all already teach a 3-3 load, even in PhD-granting departments, and now some of us will teach even more. Those in the wider community who think that we need to teach more expose their ignorance about higher education at world class research institutions. Remember, we are avaluated on teaching AND research AND service - more teaching means less of the other two, including all the "free" services the faculty provides the community at large (which faculty at state institutions should do but that will be nearly impossible under this new policy). Oh yeah, and under Thames we are now also evaluated according to our contributions to "economic development." This place is becoming ever more like the vocational school Thames envisions. What a frickin' joke. Can we make it through the last year of the tenure of this idiot savant?

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Angeline wrote:

Once again Thames is taking USM in the opposite direction from Ole Miss and Miss State and any other quality institutions of higher learning where so-called "research" faculty teach 2-2 loads or less in order to actually do research and mentor graduate and undergraduate students. This new policy is no improvement whatsoever as we all already teach a 3-3 load, even in PhD-granting departments, and now some of us will teach even more. Those in the wider community who think that we need to teach more expose their ignorance about higher education at world class research institutions. Remember, we are avaluated on teaching AND research AND service - more teaching means less of the other two, including all the "free" services the faculty provides the community at large (which faculty at state institutions should do but that will be nearly impossible under this new policy). Oh yeah, and under Thames we are now also evaluated according to our contributions to "economic development." This place is becoming ever more like the vocational school Thames envisions. What a frickin' joke. Can we make it through the last year of the tenure of this idiot savant?

I'm not sure you've read the policy correctly.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Summer teaching assignments are for instructional purposes only unless exceptions are approved by the provost.

While the whole proposal flies in the face of the notion of "research active," this point gives me some concern as well. Does that mean that faculty who receive a course credit in the summer for directing programs may not have such? If so, I will step down as director of training for my program as soon as this happens. . .it's not as if the work magically stops in the summer months.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

HEST wrote:
Tenured faculty approved for the teaching track must teach four classes (16 credit hours) per semester for fall and spring semesters. Research Track:

Faculty on the research track are expected to teach three courses a semester (12 credit hours or the equivalent contact hours) and maintain an active research agenda.

Full-time instructors are expected to teach eight courses (24 credit hours or the equivalent contact hours) in the academic year (fall and spring).

Perhaps I'm missing something or have been retired too long (no way) but are courses taught by instructors considered as 3 credit hours and courses taught by teaching and research track as 4 credit hours?

An inquiring, but puzzled, mime wants to know

Date: Mar 9, 2006

There is always a propensity to try to solve personnel problems by changing the system or structure while leaving the same incompetent administrators in place. On paper, the evaluation and reward structure at USM is not that different from most other universities. How they are administered is what separates well-run universities from USM. Any of the suggested changes will only make USM less competitive in the faculty market. The separate teacher-research track will be a magnet that attracts the slugs and will reduce the overall academic quality of the faculty. Under that plan, half of the faculty will be junior college level teachers. Which major universities use the two-track method? The post tenure review has been in place in some universities and I have yet to hear of a faculty member who was fired. I would welcome evidence to the contrary

Date: Mar 9, 2006

Cossack wrote:

There is always a propensity to try to solve personnel problems by changing the system or structure while leaving the same incompetent administrators in place. On paper, the evaluation and reward structure at USM is not that different from most other universities. How they are administered is what separates well-run universities from USM. Any of the suggested changes will only make USM less competitive in the faculty market. The separate teacher-research track will be a magnet that attracts the slugs and will reduce the overall academic quality of the faculty. Under that plan, half of the faculty will be junior college level teachers. Which major universities use the two-track method? The post tenure review has been in place in some universities and I have yet to hear of a faculty member who was fired. I would welcome evidence to the contrary

I fail to see how administrators are the problem. It seems to me that faculty governance lays the blame at the foot of faculty -- the university is run by faculty unless faculty become apathetic. If faculty don't want to institute a system that requires faculty to be accountable to their peers, then fine. The system we have now encourages deadwood. I suppose more deadwood with less administrator power is better than less deadwood with more administrator power.

Many quality schools (examples: North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Chicago, UCLA, Michigan, Berkeley) currently use a clinical track for fields other than medicine. Medicine has used this system for quite some time.

Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, North Carolina State, University of North Carolina, and many others currently have post tenure review processes. Many of these reviews are conducted by a faculty panel, not an administrator.

Date: Mar 9, 2006

HEST wrote:

Faculty Teaching Load Policy Draft #3 3/6/05 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for faculty teaching loads for tenure, tenure track, and instructor level positions and faculty holding administrative appointments. Policy • Faculty teaching assignments are the responsibility of the department chair in consultation with the faculty member and the dean. • Tenured faculty may elect to pursue a teaching track or a research track with approval from the department chair, dean, and provost. Tenure track faculty must be assigned to the research track. Teaching Track: Tenured faculty approved for the teaching track must teach four classes (16 credit hours) per semester for fall and spring semesters. Research Track: Faculty on the research track are expected to teach three courses a semester (12 credit hours or the equivalent contact hours) and maintain an active research agenda. An active research agenda is defined as initiating or conducting a project with specific outcomes. It is the responsibility of the department chair to monitor achievement of the outcomes. When a faculty member is awarded external grant funds for research, adjustments will be made in teaching responsibilities proportional to the level of funding received. • Full-time instructors are expected to teach eight courses (24 credit hours or the equivalent contact hours) in the academic year (fall and spring). • Summer teaching assignments are for instructional purposes only unless exceptions are approved by the provost. • Department chairs are expected to teach two classes per year. • Academic administrators above the chair level holding faculty rank are expected to teach one class per year. • Department chairs may elect to release faculty members from teaching for administrative duties, to develop a research proposal, or to work on a major service project with approval of the dean and provost.

This is easy to see - by having a "teaching track", you need less faculty. This is nothing more than a money issue. It is taking what we already do, and then putting faculty (either through their own choice, their lack of productivity, or through malice) into a 4-4 load, thus saving $$$s. If there was a true research track, then that would represent a 2-2. The administration is basically only adding more courses to teaching faculty.

I can not believe that the administration would make such a decision, with SFT a short-timer. How could they possibly implement such a system before he is gone, leaving the new Prez to deal with.

Oh well, still counting....

Count

Date: Mar 10, 2006

Counting the days wrote:

HEST wrote:
Faculty Teaching Load Policy Draft #3 3/6/05 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for faculty teaching loads for tenure, tenure track, and instructor level positions and faculty holding administrative appointments. Policy • Faculty teaching assignments are the responsibility of the department chair in consultation with the faculty member and the dean. • Tenured faculty may elect to pursue a teaching track or a research track with approval from the department chair, dean, and provost. Tenure track faculty must be assigned to the research track. Teaching Track: Tenured faculty approved for the teaching track must teach four classes (16 credit hours) per semester for fall and spring semesters. Research Track: Faculty on the research track are expected to teach three courses a semester (12 credit hours or the equivalent contact hours) and maintain an active research agenda. An active research agenda is defined as initiating or conducting a project with specific outcomes. It is the responsibility of the department chair to monitor achievement of the outcomes. When a faculty member is awarded external grant funds for research, adjustments will be made in teaching responsibilities proportional to the level of funding received. • Full-time instructors are expected to teach eight courses (24 credit hours or the equivalent contact hours) in the academic year (fall and spring). • Summer teaching assignments are for instructional purposes only unless exceptions are approved by the provost. • Department chairs are expected to teach two classes per year. • Academic administrators above the chair level holding faculty rank are expected to teach one class per year. • Department chairs may elect to release faculty members from teaching for administrative duties, to develop a research proposal, or to work on a major service project with approval of the dean and provost.

This is easy to see - by having a "teaching track", you need less faculty. This is nothing more than a money issue. It is taking what we already do, and then putting faculty (either through their own choice, their lack of productivity, or through malice) into a 4-4 load, thus saving $$$s. If there was a true research track, then that would represent a 2-2. The administration is basically only adding more courses to teaching faculty.
I can not believe that the administration would make such a decision, with SFT a short-timer. How could they possibly implement such a system before he is gone, leaving the new Prez to deal with.
Oh well, still counting....
Count

But while I would like to count the days, the administration is counting a$$e$ in classes and other $$$$ and not quality of education or mission, or assessment.

Policies like this will eventually put us in trouble with SACS. What IS our mission? How DO we address assessment?

Amy Young