and the fun keeps coming. . . - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 1, 2006

and the fun keeps coming. . .

Date: Jun 1, 2006

HEST wrote:

So, the administration sends out a memo late yesterday changing the "rules" for minimum class enrollments for summer classes. It's now 12 for a grad class to make and 15 for undergrad classes. Justifications (to be approved by the Dome) for any courses not meeting the criteria were due today. Nice advanced notice. Oh, and for all those programs who couldn't hire faculty and now have to offer some classes in the summer to ensure that some students can graduate on time (or be eligible to apply for internships in the case of some doctoral programs)? That's not a sufficient justification -- faculty just need to tighten their collective belts and teach more during the regular academic year. Apparently the administration is requiring faculty/staff with university-issued cell phones to turn them in as well. And they're asking for phones that they don't even pay for -- for example, our school psychology clinic phone (which is used to keep in contact with the clinic director for supervision purposes) that our clinic pays for through the revenue we generate, not the "university." Anyone else beginning to think we can expect these impromtu policy changes and annoyances that keep us from our actual work (because we're responding to ridiculous requests) for the next 50 weeks? Let's just count a few since early May: Redistribution of Work Study & Assistantships Removal of tuition waivers for students going on internship, effective Fall 06 Firing of DeCasal and moving NCATE office Moving of Office of Educational Field Experiences (?) Changing Minimum class enrollments after the semester has started Others?

You behaviorists! You have repressed:

The raise mess and crazy requests for info

Screwy T&P decisions that required additional work from the relevant parties

Outsourcing of Physical Plant (stock up on lightbulbs!)

Date: Jun 1, 2006

HEST wrote:

So, the administration sends out a memo late yesterday changing the "rules" for minimum class enrollments for summer classes. It's now 12 for a grad class to make and 15 for undergrad classes. Justifications (to be approved by the Dome) for any courses not meeting the criteria were due today. ...

And this policy applies to the CoST? I don't think so!

Date: Jun 1, 2006

Freud wrote:

You behaviorists! You have repressed:

Repressed? I do not have that word in my (sub)vocal behavioral repetorie (nor can I engage in correct spelling behavior). . . working on saliency most likely. . .

Date: Jun 1, 2006

Joker wrote:

HEST wrote:
So, the administration sends out a memo late yesterday changing the "rules" for minimum class enrollments for summer classes. It's now 12 for a grad class to make and 15 for undergrad classes. Justifications (to be approved by the Dome) for any courses not meeting the criteria were due today. ...
And this policy applies to the CoST? I don't think so!

I would like someone with more access to enrollment numbers than I apparently have to find that information. . .

Date: Jun 1, 2006

any faculty member has access to the enrollment numbers by simply going into soar and looking at enrollment in departments. it's not easy, but it can be done. i don't think , however, the numbers address the issue. the issue is whether rationales had to be written for low enrolling courses.

Date: Jun 1, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

any faculty member has access to the enrollment numbers by simply going into soar and looking at enrollment in departments. it's not easy, but it can be done. i don't think , however, the numbers address the issue. the issue is whether rationales had to be written for low enrolling courses.

CoST Rationale: You have been sending us all the resources. Why stop now? We promise you grant $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Date: Jun 1, 2006

i guess i could address some of hest's issues line-by-line, but i'll avoid doing that. needless to say, some of her points were not announced after the first of may. maybe she should talk to her chair about the first two items. in at least one case, he was informed in january there were issues. if she received the notice about enrollment numbers on wednesday, then i have a difficult time understanding why i talked with a faculty member on early a.m. tuesday who knew about the numbers issue and i understand some faculty senate members knew the week before.

i think it's fine this board gets used as a sounding board, but i wish some would distort less in their comments.

Date: Jun 1, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

i guess i could address some of hest's issues line-by-line, but i'll avoid doing that. needless to say, some of her points were not announced after the first of may. maybe she should talk to her chair about the first two items. in at least one case, he was informed in january there were issues. if she received the notice about enrollment numbers on wednesday, then i have a difficult time understanding why i talked with a faculty member on early a.m. tuesday who knew about the numbers issue and i understand some faculty senate members knew the week before. i think it's fine this board gets used as a sounding board, but i wish some would distort less in their comments.

My chair got the official notice only within the past few days. It has been in the air --- but never made clear whether or not justifications would be needed or whether new numbers would be forthcoming and what they might be. I can testify to this since I know he sent numerous emails and requests for clarification to the dean CCd to the folks up top about what the numbers would be and when would be get them . . . it was very frustrating we now find ourselves in Week one of Southern Arena Theatre and having to write justifications . . .

Date: Jun 1, 2006

i agree that the numbers issue should have been addressed earlier--question, have any classes been cancelled simply because of the 12/15 limit?

Date: Jun 1, 2006

This issue is less notable for being yet another ham-fisted directive from the Dome, but rather another example of complete disregard for the way university governance (or any non-micro-managing management works). The highest this issue should ever go is a Dean's Office, perhaps only a department chair. The Dome does not trust the deans it hired nor the chairs that the deans have put in place. They micro-manage in the extreme and wonder why everyone hates them so passionately. As Neil McMillen said "What university administration declares war on its own faculty?"

Date: Jun 1, 2006

angeline--i taught in a university system in another state where such issues were dictated by the state governing board. i'd like to think it rested with the dean, but when a board says these are your minimum class sizes, whew!

Date: Jun 2, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

i guess i could address some of hest's issues line-by-line, but i'll avoid doing that. needless to say, some of her points were not announced after the first of may. maybe she should talk to her chair about the first two items. in at least one case, he was informed in january there were issues. if she received the notice about enrollment numbers on wednesday, then i have a difficult time understanding why i talked with a faculty member on early a.m. tuesday who knew about the numbers issue and i understand some faculty senate members knew the week before.

i think it's fine this board gets used as a sounding board, but i wish some would distort less in their comments.

Good grief. . .SCM. . . There was no intent to distort on my part. I was simply stating when I received the information -- and that's when I received the information. Whether or not my chair shared the information in a timely manner may be an issue up for debate (I don't think it is as he keeps us in the loop pretty well in my opinion), though.

Nor am I opposed to someone providing clarification when information was distributed. As I said I was going on my recollection. And, yes, some information (e.g., the assistantship/work study) was "floated" out to the university community earlier than late April/early May -- but as Stephen mentioned, there's often no clarification that these things WILL happen and what will be involved. Then suddenly there's a new policy in place with a heap of work to do in a short turn-around time. And even more importantly, as Angeline noted -- the final decisions come down with virtually no faculty input (or in some cases in direct oppostion to faculty input).

Date: Jun 2, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

angeline--i taught in a university system in another state where such issues were dictated by the state governing board. i'd like to think it rested with the dean, but when a board says these are your minimum class sizes, whew!

SCM - that would be all well and good if such mandated policy was actually adhered to. What we have here is a selective enforcement of the policy based on written justification for exceptions to be determined by . . . none other than the under-qualified associate provost Cynthia Moore. Do you trust her to make a good decision on anything that affects teaching? This is one of the major problems with this Administration - selective adherence to IHL-mandated policies, used largely to help their "friends" and punish their "enemies" - see the Psychology department for an example of the latter policy.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

this enrollment policy has been around for years, well before the thames administration, and in olden times was selectively enforced by deans. the longer i'm here i realize the more things never change.

Date: Jun 2, 2006

The enrollment policy may be selectively enforced, but that doesn't mean it's a bad policy. For quite some time, summer teaching schedules across the university have been created with a broad range of offerings and classes that (generally) barely met the minimum enrollment. This allowed summer instructors to have smaller classes.

We can no longer afford to have classes of 8 or 10 students offered in the summer, especially when those courses are offered in the fall or spring. I know of plenty of faculty who get full summer pay for teaching 30-40 students. Of course, I also know those who have 3 classes of 40+ each. The small-class loading is killing the university -- there's no reason those students cannot enroll for a more consolidated section other than the fact that they want to graduate early (which is not a concern of mine, nor should it be a concern of USM's), graduate with a double major (ditto), or graduate on time when they have not stayed on track to do so (ditto again).

Constant carping about changes in policies simply makes faculty look petty. scm is correct -- selective enforcement has been going on for years. Perhaps now selective enforcement is hitting areas that heretofore were immunized from such behavior. Apparently, there's not going to be any free and easy summer teaching with small classes and broad offerings.