Ack. For one, the idea that professors, as a class, are paid to sit around and pursue projects of merely personal significance and interest for three months a year, is ludicrous. One would never know from this piece that the tenured academic is a dying breed, a minority. Hence the idea that institutions are simply bleeding "resources" while their employees rack up the dollars for doing nothing - yes, that's a ludicrous idea too. It would have been nice to see some numbers, or even a simple acknowledgement, concerning faculty who don't get paid for their summer "off." But even for those who have a full-time, permanent appointment with no summer teaching expecations, on what planet does it make sense to say that they do no work during the summer?! It must be the planet where work is defined as something one wouldn't do without immediate, day-by-day compulsion - well, there goes the notion of a profession. There's this little thing called research, which many institutions still want their faculty to engage in - Ms. Auer Jones would have us believe this to be a bizarre personal habit of professors, from which administrators are dying to liberate them. Funny that they don't jettison the research imperatives that allow professors to waste so much time on "personally-enriching" projects!
Perhaps, rather than breaking out the calculator to multiply 19 by 40, in highly scientific fashion, the author could have cited some actual research on the hours professors really work, in the summer and during academic terms. (Oh, but that would ruin the nice contrast between academics and people in the real world, who have ... you know, Blackberries, and schedules, and agendas, and ... lots of stuff to do, not like those leisured fat cats in the ivory tower!) And rather than telling origin stories about calendars in agricultural societies and fetid swamps, perhaps she might have considered whether the academic calendar now serves some other purposes less ridiculous than avoiding long-dead mosqitoes - purposes that are perhaps best understood by practicing the profession, not by facile and misplaced bean counting at the managerial level.

All in all, there is a bizarre lack of specificity here. If the point is that many institutions are trying to be too many things, and are holding on to patterns that don't serve their core purpose, that's one thing. I'm sure many colleges and universities would be better off not pretending to be elite research places. But this is levelled at academia as a whole, with vague references to those institutions that "get it" and those that don't. There are all sorts of institutions that do not, by any measure, shut down for the summer - to the extent that some do, there are many considerations to take into account besides the mosquitoes of yore - time for student work and internships, facility maintenance, alumni events and fundraisers, administrative catch-up, and last but not least, faculty (and student) research.

Possibly less relevant in Higher Education, but if K-12 schools moved to a year-round schedule there would be less loss of knowledge over the summer. I would love to see an academic calendar that has 2-3 week breaks divided over the course of a year...

Note: I attended graduate school at an institution that had a break from Thanksgiving until after the New Year. That winter break was excellent for students conducting research (especially abroad), we made up for it by attending school through the beginning of June.

Many colleges compensate profs on a 9 month basis. Is the author proposing a 33% salary raise to go with her proposal?

I was going to address the first comments: most professors are on 9-month contracts and thus are not paid to do ANYTHING over the summer. But are still expected to do research that is rewarded in terms of tenure and promotion. So, yes, I think a 33% salary increase is in order. But, why not if you can charge full tuition? Oh wait, an entirely new class of administrators to oversee the transition and monitor summer quality. Bye-bye 33% raise!

I like the idea of 2-3 week breaks and have the school year be a truly year-round activity at all levels. 2-3 weeks is enough time for an academic to get some research and work done, as long as they are left alone duing that time, and not expected to fulfill any and all administative and committee duties. If properly matched up, conference schedules can be done to accomidate those periods, as well as k-12 school breaks.

Listen, I love my summers "off" as much as the next academic. But we don't run on a seasonal schedule anymore and we need to be able to use all our time efficiently and effectively.

I could never sunderstand why faculty are paid in the summer months. It's another reason why the tenure system needs to be reformed or done away with.

An important point missed in the article is the fact that many students need to work in the summer to pay for their education or to take extra courses to get credits. I don't think many students could or should be expected to take year round schooling. There is a saturation point.

"Many colleges compensate profs on a 9 month basis. Is the author proposing a 33% salary raise to go with her proposal?"

How do you distinguish being compensated on a 9 month basis from a 12 month basis. I get paid 12 months a year, so is that being paid on a 12 month basis? Clearly if I was forced to come to school in the summer I would be worse off than I am now, but would I quit my job if they made that requirement and offered me no extra pay? Probably not since I am already compensated quite well to begin with.

Oh my campus, as on most, a lot of infrastructure maintenance takes place during these "wasted" summer months. Remodeling in academic buildings. Painting. Repaving parking lots. Pretty much any major changes in IT infrastructure happen in the summer, because that's when we can change things without affecting too many faculty and students.

I certainly hope that some other maintenance windows can be found, or you're going to be conducting year-round schooling in crumbling buildings, on broken computer networks.

For tenure-track faculty like me, summer is vital research time. I can accomplish far more in my lab and in my writing during the three months of summer than I can during the school term. Yes, not all faculty are tenure-track and researching, but not all faculty are spending the summer doing nothing.

A few points, some iterated from above:

1. For faculty at research institutions, and increasingly for those who work at purportedly non-research-centered schools, the summer is the only time to complete the research and writing required. This often means traveling to libraries and archives.

2. Few professors really work under 40 hours a week and few only work during the semesters. Imagine an English professor at a school with a 2-2 load. Seems light, right? Well, imagine that prof teachers the Shakespeare class (100 students), the survey of English literature from medieval to the 18th century (100 students), a seminar on the sonnet (35 students), and an upper level course on Ben Jonson (35 students). Imagine each class asks for three essays, along with a written midterm and final. That's 500 + 500 + 175 + 175 essays to grade between September and June. Each essay takes between 20-30 minutes to grade. Factor those work hours into your ridiculous claims about faculty work time.

That's beside the time it takes to write letters of recommendation, to serve on committees, to peer-review scholarship, to review scholarship in one's own field, to attend conferences, etc.

3. Universities do not sit around collecting dust during the summer. Most charge high prices to private companies for summer retreats, summer academic programs, and so on. Year-round school means a loss of revenue.

4. Summers are often the only chance for students to work a real 9 to 5 job to make the money to pay for tuition and expenses during the school year.

I agree that it is high time to reflect on running campuses year-round; indeed, many places run 12 month "businesses" with 9 months of revenue. We patch together summer revenue from a variety of sources: summer enrichment programs, high school programs, small on campus internship programs or clinical programs for those in healthcare.

What strikes me is that it is that the goal is not to take a 9 month program and simply make it a 12 month program with faculty teaching an extra semester. A goal should be to consider what could be done in the summer for our students that cannot be done during the academic year as presently configured.

Consider visiting faculty options for short courses, consider intensive courses on key topics (taught for added compensation) that leave time for research and writing, consider more clinical rotations in healthcare courses (with faculty who prefer working summer as opposed to fall or spring), consider research courses that allow a concentrated blend of theory and practice, consider repeating some courses that are particularly challenging to vulnerable students so they can get back on track. On top of that, consider opportunities for vulnerable high school students to experience college during a short stay (so they still have time to work at home). Co-teaching is doable more easily in the summer too -- with a myriad of benefits. The list continues, and we are trying some of these options on our own campus now. (www.svc.edu)

For me, the goal is not to just replicate the 9 month year to a 12 month year; it is to consider new ways to reflect on the educational programming we offer and use the summer to be bold and creative with our classes, for the benefit of our students and prospective students. Summer can be a time when we are a laboratory of experimentation. Existing and visiting faculty would be compensated for participation, and if successful, some of the insights garnered from summer programming could enrich what we do during the "traditional" academic year.

Karen Gross, President, Southern Vermont College

Under IRS regulations, if you are paid on a nine-month basis you can still elect to be paid over twelve. At my university I have to submit a signed form each year to make the election to be paid over twelve months. But I still am under a nine-month contract. And I'm expected to keep up on my field, prepare courses, do research, etc., etc.

I am amazed that so many academics are uninformed about the terms of their own appointments! Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Summer "break" is already becoming less and less a break. Our institution has face-to-face, hybrid, and on-line courses that stretch from the end of the spring semester all the way to the beginning of the fall semester with only one free week.

I don't represent the faculty view, rather, the viewpoint of one with the responsibility to provide various support services. If it wasn't for the summer "break," there would never be time to provide enhancements and upgrades. Once the fall semester starts, only an emergency would permit reducing service levels. And believe me, in order to serve the needs of the students and faculty, it takes an entire summer's worth of effort by a lot of folks on every campus.

I second the comment above. As an administrator who works 12 months, I too cringe at the idea of year-round full semesters. Perhaps it is just my institution, or just my job, but the "academic year" runs at full-tilt, at a breathtaking pace, stuffing in services and response and "doing" in every available moment. Most assessment, review, planning, evaluation, training, orientation, hiring, financial review, archiving, organizing, and preparation (and vacation!) takes place in "summer" while we still run programs and regular business but at a percentage of the volume and pace. Our students have similar cycles - incredible pressure and course load in fall and spring, with internships and work and lighter course schedules in summer. Although I understand the argument about efficiency, for all persons involved SOME sort of slower period seems healthy, sane, and essential.

Diane:
you really should get out more. Summers are, as other posters have noted, completely full with summer class sessions (required in Florida), needed maintenance/upgrades, special conferences (that make far more money per head for the institition than tuition), and all the planning, assessment, budgeting 'stuff' that enables the institution to run the rest of the time. The majority of Faculty are on 9-month contracts and are NOT PAID unless they are teaching. A few faculty members are fully 12-month employees, but I can tell you those people are working their rear ends off on academic and administrative tasks that must be done before the next semester.

Scholarly activities are vital to the university -- hardly a "luxury". Have you talked to NSF lately? perhaps that agency might be helpful in educating you about the value of basic academic research at universities. The summers are also for students -- to work, to do research, to travel abroad, even to go to summer school to catch up (they do fail courses you know) or to get ahead -- all incredibly valuable.

Please go visit some institutions and talk to faculty and administrators before you write your next column. It might help your rather uninformed perspective of the modern academy.

The college where I work offers summer courses. Those students who wish to continue their education during the summer and perhaps shorten the time it takes to obtain their degree are free to do so. We also accept those from other colleges to come and take courses for transfer for the same purpose of shortening the length of time it takes to graduate. So I am not really seeing what the author is describing. I do know that summer courses are not as well attended as those during the academic year. I believe someone already brought up the point about students needing time to work to make money to help finance their education. I don't see a need to change anything.
Beth

This June was the hottest on record. You try teaching in an un-air-conditioned classroom building when it's 95º and the humidity is unbearable. Lots of luck.

The three year model is a logical step as higher ed recognizes the need for drastic redesign. Its just a matter of time.

Some years back the University of Oregon spent two years planning a transition from quarters to a semester system. Just as it was going into effect, the state's leisure and hospitality industries found out about the change and decided it would make their use of student labor much more difficult. (This includes the flexibility of students dropping out winter quarter to work the ski business.) The state legislature heard the alarms and stopped the change.

This had noting to do with educational mission, it had everything to do with busisness having an inexpensive labor pool.

Chuck Kleinhans

Flaprof is right. Auer-Jones apparently doesn't "get it". I wonder if she's ever held a faculty position. There are many faculty on my campus, for example, who have 9-month appointments who spent 7 days a week in their academic office throughout the summer---NOT BEING PAID---but working their tails off (reading and redesigning course lectures, writing letters of recommendation, writing manuscripts, doing research, etc.). Students wo want to take classes during the summer can always do so; those who cloose not to attend summer school can do research, intern, or simply work to earn funds to support or partially support their education during the fall and spring.

I would like to see a nation-wide study, but at our university, students use the summer for jobs or internships that are important in getting jobs or simply having money for the next year.

The only faculty in my department who are in their office this summer are the ones teaching summer school. Also, since 90% of the faculty are tenured there is little research being done in the summer. And few of them work 40 hours a week during the academic year. While this may not be the norm, it is clear that in many situations there is room for more efficient utilization of our resources.

Summer is the time for students to test-drive careers by doing internships. It is also the time for study abroad & taking jobs that prove the value of the college education that the student is toiling to pursue during the year. The student working the summer job sees what is out there for non-college educated workers and strives harder during the year.

I work in student affairs at a college that has required summer classes for students, and I've actually been hearing/getting a lot of pushback to reduce activities in the summer term. So I wonder - if we do have a "summer term" or a year-round institution, as is suggested - would everything still be offered for students? the pushback is because summer is traditionally the only time several staff members can take their vacations, and because of budget cuts staff are being hired for 10-month positions - hence the need to reduce programs/activities. I feel terrible for these students that are paying the same tuition as they would in the fall but are receiving much less from the college. Would the same occur?

I also agree with the above statements about internships; students need the time to explore careers and earn money, and schools should maybe instead divert resources to providing funding/scholarships for financial-need students who can't always afford to take meaningful yet unpaid internships.

Adding a new argument in defense of faculty, at our college we have several programs, most are vocational or medical, that require annual review and updates to much of the curriculum in order to incorporate new research and technology. In the example of Nursing, people's lives will depend on our graduates having the most current knowledge and training. Faculty use their (unpaid) summers to share out this review work, and often meet through the summer to collaborate. In addition, many programs require some kind of internship for certification, and faculty will be working with staff to coordinate placements for Fall and Spring students. Our community has only a small pool of qualified placements to be matched with the number of students in each cohort. Some programs mandate a full time faculty per certain number of students must also be present during the rotation. That is a HUGE amount of work, lots of phoning, emailing, but also lots of driving around to meetings with local staff at the various placement sites.

Many of our programs, I estimate about a third, also have citizen advisory boards or groups, and the lead faculty is expected to participate and attend all those meetings, and they don't stop during the summer.

Much of what others have described also occurs at our college, I add these points as new, not mentioned by others.

I personally would not be opposed to a rotation system, whereby teaching could occur year round, like a quarter system. However, I think that the biggest difficulty would NOT be getting the faculty buy-in. The biggest problem would be the management and staff required to support it- the planning and resource allocation, accommodating vacations in our already very low staffing, working with maintenance in scheduling water, power, and heating or cooling shut downs or extremely noisy jobs, ensuring student support services had adequate staff and time to do all of their "off-season" catch up tasks in addition to continuing to serve students, the list goes on and on. We, at this college, have not seen the quality of managers or administrators who could handle that workload and keep the inner workings of the college running smoothly.

Blaming the "fat cat faculty" is such an easy, lazy shot. But, it's also just wrong, and perpetuates a classist bias that has no foundation in fact or evidence.

With my experience as a faculty member at the University of Illinois for 55 years I think some are missing the point by looking at the question strictly from a financial, pragmatic and selfish view. An education is not only a classroom exercise but a preparation to enter the real world. A three month period may be just the time and situation for college students to learn more useful things than more books. Philip Dziuk

I read Diane Auer Jones' piece and immediately looked at her bio. Amazing! We have had someone in the US DOE's Office of Postsecondary Education who apparently knows so little about the social ecosystem of the American professoriate. She is now president of a non-profit organization that consorts with business schools to have a Washington DC campus.

I won't repeat many of the spot-on comments already listed. Suffice it to say that in 30 years of "professing," I hated to see summer arrive! It was always my busiest time of the year; by far. Nine months of pay (in years where I wasn't on a 12-month appointment) over twelve months only takes advantage of our professional commitment to both students and the institution, not "proving" the "fat cat" status of faculty. Moreover, I never, even once, took the sabbatical leave available to most tenured faculty every seven years. I was always too busy chasing grant dollars to support my research (and student stipends, clerical salairies, and institutional overhead).

I would expect some naive hack to take this approach to higher education's efficiency model, but not someone serving in the US Dept. of Education's Higher Education Office!

Not really important, but DOE is the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Education is ED.

This sentence in particular galls me:

"I suspect that all of us could work until we are 70 if we enjoyed three months of summer vacation each year during which time we could plan our own schedules, work at our own pace on those projects that we find intellectually stimulating or personally gratifying, and if we could, for several months each year, walk away from the mind-numbing routines of office life, including a Blackberry that buzzes day and night with emails from senders who expect instantaneous answers."

Sure, in the summer I can plan my own schedule, compared with the rest of the year, when I'm up at 5 a.m. so I can start teaching at 8 a.m., and I can guarantee I'll be at the office until at least 4 p.m., maybe with a lunch break, maybe not,

[oh sorry--had to stop typing so I could answer a student's question. Blackberries, you know, never stop buzzing!]

and I'll probably have to return in the evening to hear a student's recital or have my own rehearsal.

But let's see my to-do list for the summer...

For argument's sake, let's leave off all the things I have to do around the house and in my life in the summer because I DON'T HAVE TIME THE REST OF THE YEAR. My non-paid summer to-do list for my job includes: advising, syllabus revising, filing (no time during the year), contacting incoming freshmen, contacting returning students, general course-prep, correspondance with colleagues about course issues, attending professional conferences that only meet in the summer, preparations for professional development, filling out forms, and oh yeah, RESEARCH. I do this spread out over the summer for my own sanity, because the academic year is crazy. I still struggle to get "my" share of "intellectually stimulating, personally gratifying" work in in the summer months, because everything else has piled up.

Our dear administrators, who do work hard (I have worked in low-level administration) meanwhile, get weekends, evenings, paid holidays (hello, intersession...most office folks don't get that huge break between Christmas and New Year's), personal days and paid vacations spread out over the year. Most administrators I know (unless they're high level) do not have to answer their emails/phones day and night. Once they're home, they're done. They have time to attend Weight Watchers meetings, go to the gym, visit family, during the year. I don't.

If I am sick, I have to make up the work (lessons) I've missed or create an assignment for my students to do while I'm not there. If I have to miss because of research/personal development, I have to figure out ways to get my classes covered--this also generates more work. Essentially, there are times just doing my job generates more work!

High level administrators make way more dough than I do. Twice as much, maybe three times as much.

If I'm working until I'm 70, it's because I'm broke.

"High level administrators make way more dough than I do. Twice as much, maybe three times as much."

Then why don't you become one? I am serious, I have served on enough high level search committees to know that it is not that difficult to become an upper level administrator. So if they get paid three times as much for the same amount of work, I think there is an opportunity for you to improve your wellbeing.

""High level administrators make way more dough than I do. Twice as much, maybe three times as much."

Then why don't you become one? I am serious, I have served on enough high level search committees to know that it is not that difficult to become an upper level administrator. So if they get paid three times as much for the same amount of work, I think there is an opportunity for you to improve your wellbeing."

I don't think I equated being paid more with wellbeing. I'm not sure anyone should. On the contrary, I quit being an administrator so I could do what I love, which is music and teaching. No fool goes into music to make loads of cash.

My point is, contrary to what I think the author of the article is implying, our summers are not a luxury.

I didn't equate wellbeing with having more cash. But if you wouldn't take someone else's job even though they get paid 2-3 times more then perhaps there is something inherent in the job that makes it distasteful enough to make it worth the extra cash they are being paid.

Auer Jones is a weak thinker and a worse decider, and almost as bad as her former boss Bush.

"I didn't equate wellbeing with having more cash."

Really? Then why say "So if they get paid three times as much for the same amount of work, I think there is an opportunity for you to improve your wellbeing."

And then say:

"But if you wouldn't take someone else's job even though they get paid 2-3 times more then perhaps there is something inherent in the job that makes it distasteful enough to make it worth the extra cash they are being paid."

Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to say.

Never denied there might be something there to make an administrative job warrant a higher level of pay than mine (heck, I'm a musician...I'm used to being underpaid). But we seem to have an administrator suggest that professors are living in the lap of luxury by having summers "off" when we are actually *working,* whether are paid or not.

Diane Auer Jones is "the President & CEO of the Washington Campus, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to educating current and future business leaders about the federal policy-making process, the impact of policy decisions on business strategy and success, and the ways in which business and community leaders can effectively and ethically influence policy decisions to support healthy communities and a robust national and global economy." (See http://www.washcampus.edu/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Diane%20Auer%20Jones&category=Core%20Speakers%20and%20Bios)

Her organization provides "week-long residency programs for full-time and part-time students in a variety of graduate business programs, including MBA, Executive MBA, Accounting and Marketing programs," among other interesting functions. It's not clear from the bio, but it may be that this very nice-sounding program is offered, ah-hem, in the summer.

Further details: "Originally trained as a molecular biologist, Jones began her career as a laboratory director and college biology professor, but ventured into small business as the founding owner of a natural and gourmet food store, a healthcare and wellness center, and as a founding co-owner of an environmental biotechnology company." Also: "...business owner, scientist, higher education leader, and a Washington policy-maker in both the legislative and executive branches ...."

Ms. Auer Jones has had an intriguing career, though perhaps a minimum of actual higher education experience. It seems to me a molecular biologist would understand the value of a correctly calibrated tool for investigating something. My dad used to say, "The right tool for the job" - actually, he said this in the kitchen, referring to the appropriacy of the size of the knife for what had to be cut up.

Ms. Auer Jones, it appears to me that you have looked but have not seen. Note the above comments, which reflect my own in tone if not in specifics. It would be worth another, more serious and less politicized, look. Don't you agree (as a scientist)?

Others have covered the main points: (1) that students, while not tending crops, do still work over the summer to raise the money to stay in school (and for those who work year-round, even while taking a full course load, summer is a chance to catch up on lost sleep while still working and saving a little cash); (2) that faculty do not in fact have summers "off"; (3) that even those of us who are salaried on a 12-month basis are arguably making a 9-month salary that is spread out over 12 months for our own convenience as well as that of the institution (which benefits from spreading the cost of faculty pay out over the whole year); (4) that the lower traffic on campus during the summer makes possible numerous repairs, etc., that cannot be undertaken during the school year. I would just add, in response to the author's offensive math suggesting that (tenured and TT) faculty do 24 years-worth of work in 40 years: you are assuming that those faculty work 40 hours a week during the 9 months we are tied to campus, which is emphatically not true. Most of my colleagues work 60 hours a week at a minimum during the school year, which means we work as much in 33 weeks (or a little under 8 months) as a 40-hour-per-week worker does in 49.

So, even if we did all have "summers off," we'd *still* be working our full 1960 (=40x49) hours per year and then some. This "slacker" label people love to slap on university teachers is getting very old and tired.