In the not-exactly-news category:
People who listen to music at work may be happier and more productive employees than those who don’t, according to a report
in The Scotsman, a daily Scottish newspaper:
Professor Richard McGregor, of the University of Cumbria, yesterday insisted there was plenty of evidence that the right sort of music, played at the right sort of volume, could help bring about a happy work force and increase productivity.
“There’s clear evidence that a happy work force is a productive one, and the easiest way of raising the spirits in the office is to put on the radio or a CD,” he said.
Of course, some music — songs you hate or songs with depressing lyrics — can have the opposite effect, the reporter, Claire Smith, writes: “Playing the Boomtown Rats’ ‘I Don’t Like Mondays’ or Cilla Black’s ‘Work is a Four Letter Word’ could be counterproductive if played in the workplace.”
She suggests that songs like “the Beatles’ ‘We Can Work it Out’ would be the kind of music likely to induce a happy, productive atmosphere.”
That wouldn’t be my first choice, but whatever floats your boat. I prefer the Shins, They Might Be Giants, and Tom Petty. What do you like to listen to while you work?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
7 Responses to Academic Jukebox
raza_khan - July 15, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Mary and Mike…. are you suggesting that we should fire the administrative positions like deans…. You know very well, that most of the meetings are mostly talk any way…. such meetings are never good use of anyone time. It is norm for some to go out to meeting, get excited, come back, suggest new innovations or rather sometimes even implement without any serious consultations.. and then that vicious cycle will get repeated. Case is point: No one really to this day know what is learning assessment and when and how it should be assessed. We have been talking about it for the past 15 years that I have been involved with teaching……
So, yes, lets keep talking…. :)
best!
Raza
_______________________
Raza Khan, Ph.D.
Dr.Raza.Khan@gmail.com
sherbygirl - July 16, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I think one of the biggest obstacles that need to be overcome is that there is little to no diversity in thinking on these committees. If there is, it would seem to be token, there for show rather than any substantive reason. Again, take that 75% who is currently not teaching on a tenure-track. Their voices are excluded from the conversations surrounding reforming higher education (the humanities especially) because of their positions on the food chain. Study after study has shown that the demographics of those in contingent positions is more diverse than those who are on the tenure-track/tenured/in admin positions.
I would argue that any “action” taken can’t be embraced by the whole unless it involves those who make up the majority of the faculty on our campuses. As someone who is off the tenure-track, I am sick and tired of meaningless “reforms” being done to me. No one asks, and if they do, our input is ignored. Ask the people who have been doing the heavy lifting for almost 20 years now what should be done. We don’t have a lot of time or patience for talk. We’ve been too busy figuring out how to get things done for ourselves and our students.
VCVaile - July 16, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Recently, I’ve been taking MOOCs – Massive Online Open Courses – innovative, chaotic, challenging (that and free are probably why I keep taking them). Their relevance to this discussion? The mix includes instructors – boots on the ground educators – from across the spectrum (higher, K-12, literacy, continuing), administrators, course designers, directors, learning analytics number crunchers, corporate trainers, career and professional trainers, for profit and not for profit, online, hybrid and from all over the world. All in one huge course together. Chaotic? Yes, but we are communicating, talking – and listening – with each other. That may as significant as specific course focuses. Oh, and by the way, the structure (such as exists) is distributed networks. Recalling Dick Whittington, cats may and do look at and talk to queens.
darccity - July 18, 2011 at 7:47 am
Actually, the arts and humanities have made out relatively well (except for philosophy and art) compared with the social sciences and physical sciences: more resources, small classes, number of majors. Instead, the relevant questions are at the narrower and broader scales.
At the sub-department level, for example, English departments need more tenured writing faculty (actively-published authors) and fewer literature specialists. Creative writing is a huge major with dynamic faculty at places like Sarah Lawrence and Bard. Perhaps more colleges and universities should take composition away from lit-dominated English departments (I’ve been at places where “writing across the curriculum” has been very successful) in the same way we should liberate math and stat from the powerful math departments. Then, see how lit does as a separate department without the service course FTE generators and adjunct instructors base that subsidize regular faculty.
At the broader level, liberal arts has drifted too long and has lost much of its justification. Liberal arts majors constitute under 20% of college grads (and that figure is inflated by ubiquitous communications departments and vo-tech specializations hiding within traditional liberal arts departments). The Core of courses required of all students have relinquished any rationale other than as a “breadth” requirement politically designed to protect departments that have no reason to exist.
Sadly, colleges and universities today more than ever use cross subsidization to fund favored son departments. By trying to be all things to all people, proliferation of majors, minors, concentration, and tracks have been built on institutions made of sand. We’ve lost our way in higher education and failed society at its time of greatest need. Let’s start anew with perhaps 7 or 8 departments, coherent majors, strong meaningful Columbia/Chicago core requirements, and an end to the double-major idiocy.
cwm4c - July 18, 2011 at 1:07 pm
This is a very astute observation, and one I’d add nicely answers Mary & Mike’s plea that “There is a great need for people in our institutions who can translate theoretical ideals into actual practices.”
MakingCollegePay - July 18, 2011 at 6:29 pm
The changing mission of higher education is real. To pretend as though higher education remains the bastion of the intellectual and financial elite is to be out of touch with the demands of the world our students, their parents, and our graduates must deal with every day. The “academy” is no longer the gatekeeper of knowledge.
12080243 - July 20, 2011 at 10:55 pm
“In my mind, moving forward will require us to move from theory to practice. I agree withNigel Thrift, who states the following with regards to the recent bout of higher-ed bashing: “Any critique needs to be accompanied by at least some notion of what the writer would do instead.” I would push that even further by stating that not only do we need new ideas, but we also need a plan for action that goes beyond critique and debate.”
I agree. Consider the following as “a plan for action that goes beyond critique and debate”:
Do we want our institutions’ and their leaders’ behavior to reliably reflect the representations propounded in their missions, goals, principles, policies, procedures, codes of ethics, and rules? If you agree, this research may be of interest.
The purpose of “A General Theory to Test Social Reality” – the reliability – of institutions’ and leaders’ behavior vis-à-vis their institution’s representations. Administrators’ power to influence our daily lives deserves scrutiny and, if not in compliance with their organization’s representations, should be challenged. Given the historical and current administrative corruption and mismanagement pervasive in for profit and not for profit organizations, a research structure to monitor leadership is relevant. A General Theory is offered, therefore, to structure rigorous research to advance the integrity of institutions and leaders.
Tests of social reality are reported in “Is Accreditation A Reliable Authority On Academic Quality?” and “University and AACSB Diversity.” (The research reports are available
online at the Social Science Research Network. See, http://ssrn.com/author=397169.)
Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA, Professor, School of Accountancy, College of Business, University of Southern Mississippi, m.depree@usm.edu.