Texas A&M University is the latest in a long line of institutions trying to account for the “actual” value of a professor’s work. The past few years have seen a significant rise in this sort of formulation, even as academe has seen a decline in some forms of public support.
As an administrator, I see the value in trying to figure out the “actual” costs related to particular programs. I have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that my academic programs operate efficiently so that they may be sustained. Indeed, some programs that might be termed “inefficient” by some critics are essential to a well-rounded set of offerings at a university, and they are worth the “cost” of their existence.
I also see, however, the immediate dangers of the overcommodification of academe that can arise from a bean counter’s approach to such formulas. The danger of the former is that institutions can become bloated, unable to sustain their operations in the real world of budgets. The danger of the latter is that institutions will succumb to the temptation of becoming degree factories that omit rigorous, nuanced education (or at least some vestigial form of it).
How can we strike a necessary balance between being fiscally responsible and utterly ruthless in assessing genuine educational value?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
10 Responses to Accounting for the Professoriate
gypsyboots - September 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm
First of all, let all university administrators justify their own jobs in the same “bean-counting” terms some are so anxious to impose on hoi-polloi faculty members.I have a feeling very few stones will be thrown after that clarifying exercise. We all know that a rapidly expanding administrative superstructure, grown in large part of comply with absurd and unnecessary federal regulations, are one of the main drivers of the rapid rise on the cost of higher education.
cwinton - September 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Thank you gypsyboots. I couldn’t have said it better.
11223435 - September 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Listen , I am not going to throw stones about grammar–I know that there are lots of reasons for “errors” like speed of typing, etc–but dammit, if you are writing to justify the existence of faculty work and arguing that work’s efficacy and the stupidity/evil of administrators, be careful of subject verb agreement, OK? I think there are lots of non-academics who read these posts, and you do us no great service with errors that can be sneered at!
jffoster - September 3, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Even, 4, if the “sneerers” know almost nothing about language?
11223435 - September 4, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Or even if they can’t count……number 4.Your elitism is showing. I’ll do you the favor of assuming that it is well-founded.
morsej001 - September 5, 2010 at 3:01 am
“How can we strike a necessary balance between being fiscally responsible and utterly ruthless in assessing genuine educational value?”That’s an important question. So why ask it in this forum? Nobody is going to prospect a comment stream on the off chance of finding a tiny flake of intellectual gold.
mchag12 - September 9, 2010 at 12:05 pm
There is a difference between typos and bad grammar, and is “sneered” a word?
wingedwarrior - September 9, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Hmmm, maybe #3′s comment should be slightly reworded so it reads at the end, “…at which can be sneered.” *g*
kurtz1rs - September 10, 2010 at 11:02 am
Rather than considering the net financial benefit/cost of an individual faculty it is much more appropriate to consider value in terms of outcome based budgeting. Specifically, what are the desired outcomes for a given academic unit or program? What are the required overall expenditure of resources to reach the intended outcomes? Likewise, what are the anticipated contributions of each individual in reaching anticipated outcomes? This requires the development and implementation of a well defined strategic plan, budget, transparent outcomes and benchmarks. Finally, there should be a recognition that the varying necessary contributions of individuals do not all have the same bang for the buck. Placing a dollar value on individual contributions is often not appropriate as a primary benchmarking tool.
jffoster - September 13, 2010 at 8:30 am
Machg12, (7), There ain’t no such thing as “bad” grammar. Nor good grammar neither. Grammar is grammar, it’s different from dialect to dialect, but neither good nor bad. And ‘sneered’ is formed in a perfectly common regular English pattern. That makes it a “word”. In my dialect, the past tense of ‘sneer’ is ‘snore’, but ‘sneered’ is more likely to catch on generally.