Faculty Spread Sheet - do you measure up? - USM Forum -- Message Board

LVN · Status: Offline

Faculty Spread Sheet - do you measure up?

Cossack · Status: Offline

It would not take long to create a spreadsheet of the value added of the administrators at USM. The entries would mostly be large negative numbers, the sum of all combined would also be a negative number.

Joe Olmi · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

I don't have "first-hand" knowledge, but I have pretty reliable second-hand knowledge, that a spread sheet has been created which rates faculty as to their "profitability" to the university. The details are unclear, though this apparently comes out of the Dome. As far as I know, faculty are rated on such items as grant money, credit hour production, etc. and a dollar figure arrived at as to whether you are making money for the university or costing the university money. If this is true, it completely overlooks the intrinsic value of say, the theatre program, which has never been a big money maker, but is important in generating community support and interest. I guess a professor whose work enhanced the prestige of the University, but who does not teach a lot of students or pull in grants, is not "pulling his weight" no matter how many excellent students he attracts to USM. I would like to know the truth of this situation. Anyone with firsthand knowledge who is reluctant to post can private message me and I will post it for you. This is something the entire university community should know about. -- Edited by LVN at 19:41, 2006-08-26

-- Edited by LVN at 19:43, 2006-08-26

I would also like to know if this is true, but feel pretty sure we never will (unless by "accident"). In my heart of hearts I certainly hope such is not the case, but would not bet the $16 dollars in my pocket on it, much less anything of greater value. Better yet, would our administrators have the professional decency or integrity to admit such? Hopefully, this is now not the measuring stick against which our "worth" is determined? Again, I hope this is not the case.

-- Edited by Joe Olmi at 23:17, 2006-08-26

Godless Liberal · Status: Offline

Joe:

I have seen one of the spreadsheets making the rounds, and it is as described. SCH hour generation has a cash value associated with it, and this is summed along with such factors as external funding. If, in the last column to the right, you "cost" the university money according to this scheme, your total is in parantheses. At least one dean informed his folks that the President expects every faculty to be a money maker this year within this framework. Pretty nuts, huh?

So what to do? Distribute larger sections around within a department as best as possible? The dumb thing about this is that it emphasizes accounting at the individual level at the expense of the department level, and can potentially produce no difference in productivity at the department level (and can in fact harm programs by not allocating tasks to the best qualified faculty in the unit). Worse yet, some slug teaching a few larger sections from yellow notes and not generating funding or scholarship, can look better than a highly productive scholar serving as a co-investigator on multiple grants (Co-Is are not granted credit by this admin in this scheme), and teaching a couple of super but small grad and undergrad classes.

Dumb and dumber.

As a buddy said recently, "Time to run this business like a university."

Keep your eyes open for the next scheduled AAUP meeting.

USM Sympathizer · Status: Offline

Well, this would appear to qualify as the latest Next Stupid Thing. It's nice to see that Shelby hasn't lost his touch in his final year -- at least he is consistent.

It would be great to see an accounting of his own costs/benefits to USM. He has certainly cost the school big-time in its reputation in the eyes of the rest of academe. Wait until word of this latest bit of idiocy gets around!

Incredulous · Status: Offline

You can't make this stuff up. If there was ever any question that the pretenders in charge of the university have no clue as to what a university is all about, this removes all doubt. To guarantee a "profit" under this perverse system, all you have to do is hire people with local degrees who can't find work anywhere else at the lowest possible salary and offer only disciplines and programs that can support large classes. You must also run off any faculty who are accomplished enough to have earned a high salary. Oh, wait, we're already going down that road.

LVN · Status: Offline

I was privately sent some additional information:

The way it was described to me is that the following formula is used to determine an individual faculty member's productivity. Faculty can then be grouped and assessed within their respective units and the units compared across the university.

Individual salary plus benefits + (credit hour production x tuition revenue/credit hour) + grants = individual faculty productivity

I'm still unclear about what it is they are measuring. If you teach a few graduate students who then go on to become professors, doctors or scientists, then you're less productive than if you teach a mob of freshmen?

This may be the oddest thing they've come up with yet.

qwerty · Status: Offline

As if there weren't enough reasons to hit the job market with energy and determination.......

Emma · Status: Offline

My dismay goes out to each and every one of you. Joe, you are a class act who deserves much better in all situations (others do too but Joe is one of the few who signs by his own name).

Mississippi's agenda is one strange brew. I always go back and thing of MacThames and wonder who'd be cast in a takeoff on that Shakesperian play.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

I was privately sent some additional information:

The way it was described to me is that the following formula is used to determine an individual faculty member's productivity. Faculty can then be grouped and assessed within their respective units and the units compared across the university.

Individual salary plus benefits + (credit hour production x tuition revenue/credit hour) + grants = individual faculty productivity

I'm still unclear about what it is they are measuring. If you teach a few graduate students who then go on to become professors, doctors or scientists, then you're less productive than if you teach a mob of freshmen?

This may be the oddest thing they've come up with yet.

LVN, your formula surprised me. I thought that salary and benefits were to be considered a cost to the university, so that tuition $ + grant $ was input and salary was subtracted as cost. However, your formula implies they are looking at all the ways money is brought to the university by faculty. The institution obtains funds from the state for salaries, from the students tuition and other sources through grants.

Actually I'm somewhat pleased since previously they were only considering grant money and only rewarding that activity. Again I notice that obtaining money for endowments, the usual work for presidents, is not even considered.

LVN · Status: Offline

It's not MY formula!! Good grief!

OK, I was sent a correction:

Individual Faculty Production = Grants + (Credit hour production x tuition revenue/credit hour) - Individual salary plus benefits

-- Edited by LVN at 16:21, 2006-08-27

Joe Olmi · Status: Offline

LeftASAP wrote:

LVN wrote:

I was privately sent some additional information:

The way it was described to me is that the following formula is used to determine an individual faculty member's productivity. Faculty can then be grouped and assessed within their respective units and the units compared across the university.

Individual salary plus benefits + (credit hour production x tuition revenue/credit hour) + grants = individual faculty productivity

I'm still unclear about what it is they are measuring. If you teach a few graduate students who then go on to become professors, doctors or scientists, then you're less productive than if you teach a mob of freshmen?

This may be the oddest thing they've come up with yet.

LVN, your formula surprised me. I thought that salary and benefits were to be considered a cost to the university, so that tuition $ + grant $ was input and salary was subtracted as cost. However, your formula implies they are looking at all the ways money is brought to the university by faculty. The institution obtains funds from the state for salaries, from the students tuition and other sources through grants.

Actually I'm somewhat pleased since previously they were only considering grant money and only rewarding that activity. Again I notice that obtaining money for endowments, the usual work for presidents, is not even considered.

Emma,

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate them. Left, I think we need to be even more specific. In my case I was told that grant money is considered only if there are indirects. Have others also been told such?

Joe Olmi · Status: Offline

P. S. If anyone has access to the spread sheet, please post my "value."

Greg OBrien · Status: Offline

Department chairs were asked to compile this information on faculty members as long as two weeks ago, so ask yours for a copy of your ranking. Naturally, as all truly world class institutions of higher learning strive to create smaller classes for higher quality educational experiences, USM under Thames moves in the opposite direction (with the notable exception of Polymer Science, it would seem). Never has there been an attempt by this Administration to assess QUALITY of teaching, QUALITY of research, or QUALITY of service (think of the FAR, for example). One must conclude by now that they don't care about it. Only quantity and dollars matter to them. I think that it is beyond time to call this effort what it most appears to be: an attempt to change USM from an institution of higher learning to one where public resources (state tax money, etc.) are used to create private wealth for a few allowed to be in the loop. It really seems to be nothing more, nothing less. Is it what the state of Mississippi wants? As we impatiently await our next president the answer matters.

Godless Liberal · Status: Offline

Greg OBrien wrote:

Department chairs were asked to compile this information on faculty members as long as two weeks ago, so ask yours for a copy of your ranking. Naturally, as all truly world class institutions of higher learning strive to create smaller classes for higher quality educational experiences, USM under Thames moves in the opposite direction (with the notable exception of Polymer Science, it would seem). Never has there been an attempt by this Administration to assess QUALITY of teaching, QUALITY of research, or QUALITY of service (think of the FAR, for example). One must conclude by now that they don't care about it. Only quantity and dollars matter to them. I think that it is beyond time to call this effort what it most appears to be: an attempt to change USM from an institution of higher learning to one where public resources (state tax money, etc.) are used to create private wealth for a few allowed to be in the loop. It really seems to be nothing more, nothing less. Is it what the state of Mississippi wants? As we impatiently await our next president the answer matters.

Greg:

What we now see is an attempt to finally negate the faculty evaluation system as laid out in the handbook--and for no good purpose except to intimidate faculty. This productivity "rubric" represents both poor management and leadership. It has the potential for being extraordinarily devisive and to provide cover to eliminate programs that do not meet a set of criteria that has been cut from whole cloth. I find it breathtaking that Drs. Exline and Grimes would either support or accept this highly flawed procedure this close to the end. I think some public comment from both is warranted and should be demanded by the faculty.

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

Assume away the flawed premise of looking at faculty "profitibility" and you still have a formula full of holes. LeftASAP notes that neither state monies for salaries nor development funds are allocated as "revenue" across the teaching lines. Also key is that no costs seem to be associated with the grants, unless of course they are looking at net grant "revenue" but I don't think they are. Godless Liberal seems to hit the nail on the head with the concern that this is really a way to target out of favor programs. It seems to reek of an attempt to legitimize otherwise indefensible decisions and, at the same time, to bolster those programs in favor by stacking the numbers.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

I've been following this very interesting discussion.

Those of you who are on the faculty, please contact your faculty senator and urge that he/she speak up both at the senate meeting and also to his/her chair and dean concerning this issue. After all, that is one of the things a senator (especially a tenured senator) can and should do. In fact, rally your faculty (senior faculty) to be vocal about their discontent concerning this practice.

I am quite sure this will come up for discussion at the senate.

And of course . . . support you local AAUP chapter by coming to the meeting on September 12 and getting involved.

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

let me ask a naive question--if greg is correct, then what is the purpose of this? raises are finalized.

Incredulous · Status: Offline

Godless Liberal wrote:

Greg:

I find it breathtaking that Drs. Exline and Grimes would either support or accept this highly flawed procedure this close to the end. I think some public comment from both is warranted and should be demanded by the faculty.

Are you kidding? It is most likely that it's their idea. Given its bush league design, that is not hard to believe. This reminds me of that first flawed drug and alcohol policy that was so quickly withdrawn. Some USM ideas are so poorly thought out that only a handful of administrators could come up with them.

LVN · Status: Offline

I actually saw one of these, no names or department included, just the numbers. In the one I saw, a highly paid person with a graduate load was a "loss" while the lowest paid person on the sheet, with a huge undergrad load, was a "gain." This just makes me want to hit my head on the desk or something.

I don't know for sure (though I have a clue) whose brainchild this was, but it definitely seems to be someone with absolutely zero understanding of higher education.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

While I agree with other posters that this is terrible management policy, I recall that Myron Henry several times tried to point out to the administration that they were not giving proper credit to teaching. The administration would hold up as their ideal examples of faculty to be those with research grants who supervised grad students, did very little classroom teaching and especially those who got the MIDAS money. Myron tried to get them to realize that faculty teaching heavy loads were bringing in as much or more money to the university. The spread sheet can make that clear. It is the use of this information that is the threat to academia in this state.

Frank Glamser · Status: Offline

Myron was also careful to stress the department as the unit of analysis when evaluating the use of resources.

Joe Olmi · Status: Offline

stephen judd wrote:

I've been following this very interesting discussion.

Those of you who are on the faculty, please contact your faculty senator and urge that he/she speak up both at the senate meeting and also to his/her chair and dean concerning this issue. After all, that is one of the things a senator (especially a tenured senator) can and should do. In fact, rally your faculty (senior faculty) to be vocal about their discontent concerning this practice.

I am quite sure this will come up for discussion at the senate.

And of course . . . support you local AAUP chapter by coming to the meeting on September 12 and getting involved.

Stephen and others,

How are deans and chairs using this "value" spreadsheet? Are they being asked to defend their management decisions to the Dome in light of this measurement standard? Has the Dean's Council or the Council of Chairs responded? Did the "spreadsheet" come up in discussions in the Cabinet meetings?

Maureen · Status: Offline

Folks, please stop and take a deep breath. I worked in the Dome when Lucas and Huffman were running the show and Huffman did this kind of junk on a daily basis. He loved plugging stuff into spreadsheets and "running the numbers". At one point he had a spreadsheet created to "rank" applications for the Aubrey Lucas Grants. He wanted to quantify the applications when they varied from computer assisted vision to an opera. Is what is going on now a bad idea - absolutely; but it is not the first time that is has been done nor will it be the last. This bunch just is so stupid that they got caught.

And as far as a Senator being able to do anything about this - not all Senators have the job security of tenure so there is a disparent ability of folks to turn to their representative in the Faculty Senate.

Curmudgeon · Status: Offline

At least when Huffman did it the variables usually made some kind of sense. He usually knew what he was doing, even if you didn't like it. This crew is like a bunch of ducks. Every day it's a whole new world.

Interested onlooker · Status: Offline

Curmudgeon wrote:

At least when Huffman did it the variables usually made some kind of sense. He usually knew what he was doing, even if you didn't like it. This crew is like a bunch of ducks. Every day it's a whole new world.

And he had deans who, for the most more, were independent.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Maureen,

I think the context is all here. This administration announced from day one in action and word that it did not think faculty work hard enough -- or they don't apply themselves to the right tasks.

In addition, we know almost nothing about the formula by which these numbers were derived. A number of faculty members I have talked with have been puzzled about how their numbers received from grants were obtained, since they did not seem to correspond to what the faculty member knew.

I agree with you about tenured senators: that was why I tried to emphasize the obligations of senior, tenured professors and senators in my earlier post. (Quote below)

After all, that is one of the things a senator (especially a tenured senator) can and should do. In fact, rally your faculty (senior faculty) to be vocal about their discontent concerning this practice.

Ciao.

oldtimer · Status: Offline

Maureen wrote:

Folks, please stop and take a deep breath. I worked in the Dome when Lucas and Huffman were running the show and Huffman did this kind of junk on a daily basis. He loved plugging stuff into spreadsheets and "running the numbers". At one point he had a spreadsheet created to "rank" applications for the Aubrey Lucas Grants. He wanted to quantify the applications when they varied from computer assisted vision to an opera. Is what is going on now a bad idea - absolutely; but it is not the first time that is has been done nor will it be the last. This bunch just is so stupid that they got caught.

And as far as a Senator being able to do anything about this - not all Senators have the job security of tenure so there is a disparent ability of folks to turn to their representative in the Faculty Senate.

Maureen, I have no doubt that David Huffman "ran the numbers" because he's an engineer, and engineers seem to live by their spreadsheets for assessment. It wasn't the only method used by the university administration at that time, and VPAA Huffman successfully got the university through a "reduced budget crisis" with input from faculty, chairs, and deans. There was none of the unilateral decision mentality of the past four years.

The critical difference between "then and now" is that under President Lucas and VPAA Huffman, promotion/tenure and annual evaluations were all originated at departmental or college level, and there was a greater respect of the opinions of the faculty "at the working level." While personnel decisions were subject to evaluation and validation at progressively higher levels of authority, back then administrators only rarely attempted to overrule the college advisory committee or the university advisory committee.

Contrast this record to the Thames administrative history of ignoring the procedures published in the Faculty Handbook; bringing unqualified administrators and asking them for their input on personnel issues; overruling consistent lower-level decisions; and "reorganizing" the entire university with nobody happy about the reorganization than perhaps the newly-hired deans.

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

oldtimer and others--again, i'll ask my naive question, what were these spreadsheets used for? people seem to assume they were used for something, but can't identify the something. as maureen points out, over the years, administrators have "crunched" numbers to look at things from a variety of perspectives but nothing came from the analyses.

and as to oldtimer's assessment of the tenure and promotion and annual review process, from my perspective in my college, it wasn't as pristine and pure as one might imagine. very political--particularly when it came to elections to the college committee.

Curmudgeon · Status: Offline

The spread sheets were used to alert department chairs as to which of their faculty were not profitable. All faculty members are expected to turn a profit. If this expectation is not met, one assumes the situation is meant to be rectified.