• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

New Blood, New Life

December 15, 2011, 11:18 am

What happens when an academic department steadily adds new professors to its ranks for about a decade? At the University at Buffalo members of the physics department have seen that kind of hiring spate revitalize research, teaching, and enrollment. And the department — which has hired more than a dozen physicists since 2000 — has crunched a bunch of numbers to prove it.

“The university made an investment in the department and the hires that we have made are paying off,” said Hong Luo, department chair.

For instance, Buffalo physics students and professors wrote 100 refereed papers in the 2010-11 academic year — five times more than the department produced five years earlier. The number of students who co-wrote academic papers almost tripled and the number of students who presented research at conferences increased five-fold, too.

The department also graduated 18 physics majors last year, compared to a decade ago when 10 or fewer students graduated annually. The new trend is holding up; more than 20 students are on track to receive degrees in physics this academic year.

Also worth noting, Mr. Luo said, is that eight physics professors at Buffalo have National Science Foundation CAREER awards, which are given to promising scientists and provides them with five years of funding for their research.

One of those CAREER award recipients is Doreen Wackeroth. She’s a member of the department’s theoretical high-energy physics group and was hired as an assistant professor in 2002. Ms. Wackeroth, now an associate professor, says the steady stream of new colleagues has helped strengthen her research. Now that the department has hired two faculty members working in experimental high-energy physics, Ms. Wackeroth can just walk over to visit a colleague to talk about the experimental side of her work.

“Before, I was here alone and I would have to rely on talking to people from other institutions on the phone or by e-mail,” Ms. Wackeroth said. Easy access to physicists who work in the field of cosmology — which wasn’t represented at Buffalo when Ms. Wackeroth came — has been a perk as well, she said.

Meanwhile, the new crop of professors has also put its stamp on teaching. Dejan Stojkovic, at Mr. Luo’s request, stepped up three years ago to revamp an introductory physics course for honors students. The plan was to make the class so enticing that more students would choose physics as their major.

Mr. Stojkovic, a cosmologist who joined the department in 2007, said the course’s overhaul included choosing a new textbook and trading some lecture time for interactive problem-solving activities. Mr. Stojkovic also focused more on his field — talk about black holes is always an attention getter.

Enrollment in the class doubled from 10 or so students to two dozen. “Most of them will decide to become physics majors,” said Mr. Stojkovic, an assistant professor.

Mr. Stojkovic, who is up for early tenure and promotion this year, said although junior professors clearly “have to prove themselves in the department, it’s a healthy competition,” he said. “There’s not any backstabbing here.”; In fact, Mr. Stojkovic noticed right away that the environment at Buffalo was different than that in other departments he visited while on the academic job market.

“The department here works as a family,” Mr. Stojkovic said. “You’re a member of the department first and then a member of your research group.”

Ms. Wackeroth agreed. And she commended senior faculty for the level of support they give to junior colleagues and for being open to new ideas.

“That’s a strength of the existing faculty,” Ms. Wackeroth said. “The new faculty we have had coming in, that’s been viewed as an opportunity.”

Even with the recent hires, the 27-member physics department has only six more professors than it did in 2005 — thanks to retirements and other departures. But the search is on now for another physicist, an assistant professor, to round out the experimental high-energy physics group.

Said Ms. Wackeroth: “It’s just an exciting time to be here.”

Do you think “new blood” in a department makes a difference? In what ways?

This entry was posted in Faculty Hiring, Faculty@Work. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • http://twitter.com/lstuitionbubble Matt Leichter

    Am I the only person who noticed that the change in the lending law doesn’t affect Income-Based Repayment?

  • antiutopia

    What is a “generic college degree”?  Does such a thing exist?  I agree that we need to invest more in our K-12 education.  Really, 7-12 education, as K-6 does just fine — we don’t seem to know how to take the next step after elementary ed.  Bottom line: employers want college degrees, so most people will continue pursuing them.  And they want them legitimately, as a HS degree doesn’t prepare people for anything, really, not even college most of the time. For most non-science oriented private sector jobs, the specific degree doesn’t matter, just the skills developed.  What I suggest that you do is read Academically Adrift and then decide what degrees contribute the most to skills development.  If anything, we need to drop Business and Com majors from all college and university curricula as anything but minors or vocational training.  They don’t serve their students.

  • marka

    Thanks for articulating a number of reasons why the push for more ‘investment’ in ‘education’ is bankrupt, not only as an idea/ideal, but as a financial reality.

    There may be some aspects of ‘education’ that are worth ‘investing’ in, but from where I sit, most of it is being thrown into a money pit.

    We don’t do well at giving high schoolers a decent education – many of those ‘graduating’ are not prepared for college, and yet off they go … to remedial classes, where many fail & drop out.

    And now we have increasing numbers of college ‘graduates’ who aren’t prepared for paying back the ‘investment’ we’ve made in them, nor in paying back the loans taken to ‘graduate.’

    So, as I see it, the ones most likely to make a short-time profit from this:  ’educators’ who can fail to teach high schoolers or college students much, and still draw compensation (pay/benefits); loan brokers who can still draw compensation for making loans (even though the loans may not be paid off ultimately); and government officials ‘managing’ the systems.  The losers:  the students themselves, tax-payers in general, and ultimately, the public.

  • westfalldavis

    Blessed are the few who can go to school without the burden of loans and a full time job.We, as a country, have a reservoir of an untapped educated  with huge student loans and a bulging underclass of the barely literate. It does not take an Einstein to realize that if we pay a living wage to the educated to help the illiterate it would be a major improvement in this country.

  • minnesotan

    We, as academics, keep looking to the outside for help and change when we can’t even control our own economic landslide. Haven’t we established that it’s completely immoral to train more PhDs than could ever hope to work in academic positions (which, in my field, are almost the only possible positions a PhD could help you). If we could give up a small portion of our privilege in order to make an equitable system for those who truly want to endure the rigors of graduate education and have a job at the end, we would be able to say “Sorry. No more room.” to those students who would be wasting 6-10 years of their lives and tens — or hundreds! — of thousands of dollars only to return to the same bartending gig that paid their way through undergrad (but this time with the added benefit of paying off their worthless loans).

    We can only help grad students when we finally take a hard look at our selfish ways. Grad students exist, at many institutions, to provide cheap labor and increased status for our departments. When does it become apparent that we’re being exploitative? Well, as soon as we care to look at the way some grad students are forced to live.

    Then again, this tirade probably wouldn’t have happened if I wasn’t still upset about the article from yesterday about the job candidate who was too good for a t-t job in the Midwest, because she might have had to give up shopping at Victoria’s Secret for her lingerie. It’s clear that some grad students bring it on themselves, but let’s not let a few pampered apples ruin the whole bunch.

  • 22028784

    We are buying the Vedder line without careful examination. Our nation needs an educated workforce, every nation does. Students who don’t go to college face a dead end. Students who do go to college are still receiving a good return on their investment on average.

    For example, Business Week published a study that was designed to make people draw the opposite conclusion. The headline was that the returns were not as much as previously published. The study made some extreme assumptions, such as saying that students who did not graduate in six years received no economic value from their education and excluding students from the analysis who did not stop with a bachelor’s degree but went on to receive graduate and professional degrees, even though they benefited the most. The study still found that the lowest rate of return of any non-profit university was 6 percent. That is an excellent return.

    Also, it makes no sense to make these long run decisions during a recession. Of course graduates are having trouble finding work, but they are having much less trouble than non-graduates. The statistics are very clear about that.

    Of course students cannot afford higher education. They are not yet educated, increasingly they come from lower income families  and the states and nations are withdrawing their support.

    China and India are increasing their investments by billions. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by talking people out of a college education, and talking ourselves out of investing in it.  We need more, not less.

  • butteredtoastcat

    Who is buying the Vedder line?

    Not me.

    Vedder, Carey, and Peter Wood clearly have the goal of reducing opportunity for Americans as does, it seems, our Congress. 

    The ultimate result of making government-backed loans for graduate and professional students unavailable is to guarantee that the professional class will shrink considerably.  Grad students will either have to be lucky full-time students (have wealthy parents or get chosen for a fellowship/TA ship) or be in debt bondage with potentially destroyed credit.  Part time or evening students will be drastically and disproportionally affected.  Upward mobility of people already working will be drastically curtailed.

    The new global economy does not need a lot of professionals.

    Just Nibelungen.

  • polisciguy

    In any department, I think that new blood leads to new ideas and new opportunities for students and the college/university as a whole. If you ask me, having an expanding set of foci and areas of research lead to diversity of student interest and, often, a healthier department.  

  • eulerian_ta

    Correction:  The NCAA is becoming more lax with punishing big-money athletic programs.  I can find many examples of mid-major Division I schools in that time period that have gotten postseason bans and damaging scholarship reductions for violations that make the violations at the big money schools look like simple mischief.  It makes no sense to give out TV bans to these schools because they hardly ever play on TV.

    It’s not that there aren’t enough rules or that they aren’t being enforced strictly enough.  It’s the the rules are not enforced equitably.

  • cwinton

    Follow the money.  The NCAA is funded from rights fees and championships, and so has a vested interest in seeing its member institutions, especially the big ones, being positioned so that they produce a lot of revenue.  The inherent conflict of interest to protect its income stream is undoubtedly a major factor in the NCAA’s increasingly lax enforcement of its own rules.  Since the NCAA is unlikely to go away, perhaps an independent enforcement agency can be set up that has no financial stake in the outcome of an enforcement action.  The trick would be determining how best to set up and fund such an agency so that it could operate in a truly independent manner.

  • jbarman

    cwinton is correct. Placing bans on the money-making majors in football or basketball would diminish interest and cash from signature events like bowl games and March madness. For that reason, these schools are typically given a bye when transgressions occur.

    Remember Mike Tyson? Here was an individual with so many demons, transgressions, and violations that he should have been denied a license to fight anywhere in the US (he was, in fact, jailed on rape charges). Had he not been such a notable figure of interest and such a money-maker for fight promoters, agents, and TV contracts, he would have received entirely different treatment.

  • show_me_the_money

    Not sure exactly what you’re comparing.  There are also plenty of “big-money” programs that have some pretty outlandish violations.  These violations result in the same loss of scholarships and post season bans just like a mid-major school.  In many instances a “big-money” school will receive a harsher penalty, because the NCAA wants to make an “example” out of them.  So… I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment.  I’m the opposite of you, if the NCAA was serious about enforcing the rules they would quit handing out “slaps on the wrist” and enforce the strictest penalties, even for the most minor violations. 

  • d_reamy

    I gather from the article that scholarship money is at the heart of this.  The school gives you an education in return for your commitment to play there.  This is a problem that D-III schools and players don’t really have.  So I would add that the scholarship money and any other stipulations should become a “contract” just like the pros.  The player and the school can negotiate based on that and a courting school can “buy out” or negotiate a new contract.   

  • ggurney

    Institutions should not restrict their athletes from transferring in any manner.  They currently are treated as chattel and universities are intent on protecting the interests of their celebrity coaches.  So long as college athletes are quasi-professionals and not students, they should be freed from their bondage.  Coaches freely break their contracts with the university.  If a player has met his eligibility requirements at the university, he should be free to leave and receive a scholarship to whatever university he wishes.  The APR points is nothing more than an NCAA manufactured mirage to shape public opinion that they treat athlete academic achievement seriously.  For more ideas regarding transferring, see   http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/03/22/essay-urges-reforms-how-college-sports-programs-recruit-athletes.

  • jroane

    NCAA scholarships are contracts. Most are one year renewable for up to usually 4 years, more in certain situations, medical redshirt, for example.  The problem is that the University has all the leverage, the athletes can’t have representation to bargain for them. There’s no one representing the athletes at any of the NCAA meetings. Of course, the college Presidents and ADs will say that they represent the athletes but of course their number one responsibility is the school’s bottom line, not the athlete’s bottom line. Presidents and ADs can’t represent both the University and the athlete because what’s good for the “U” may not be in the best interest of the athlete.  For example, the addition of a 12th regular season football game. This helps provide more revenue for universities but exposes the athlete to more injuries and allows less time for academics. The college football season has expanded from 10 to 12 games but there has been no adjustment to the scholarhsip for football players. Even the idea of paying full need was shot down.

  • Socratease2

    No, scholarship money is not the issue, if a player leaves school to transfer that contract ends and his money is simply given to then next one-and-done wonder,  what motivates schools to restrict transfers is fear and greed.

  • Socratease2

    What the hell does a student’s current 2.6 gpa have to do with APR? Absolutely nothing. A student-athlete earns 2 APR points at the end of every quarter/semester. One for being retained by the university as “a student in good standing” and the other for being eligible to compete. A 2.0 gpa is the cut-of for eligibility (though NCAA starts freshmen at 1.8 for eligibility and moves up from there) so a 2.6 gpa obviously provides that APR point. Any internal rules stipulating a 2.6 gpa for transferring are capricious and arbitrary. Anti-trust laws don’t apply here but they should.

  • libwitch

    NCAA division 1 schools send a FAR rep to their meetings – who yes, are faculty, but  should (and generally) do a good job representing the student-athlete interest – at least in that they generally are not looking at the bottom line. 

  • sparty43

    Can someone ask Mr. Barnes his take on SMU’s new basketball coach, Larry Brown’s, initial moves on taking over the program and kicking kids out of the basketball program?  While the school offered to provide the players with scholarships, why does the NCAA not see these people (like Coach Brown and other athletic administrators) are the ones teaching the kids that this approach to treating people like this is okay?  It doesn’t even matter if you are committed to the school, the program and a good student.  One day the old coach or the new coach, may not like you anymore.  Heaven forbid, a student-athlete may feel the same!  While I believe the rule was originally set up to prevent coaches from pilfering players from other programs, it should be reconsidered and written with limitations.

  • glenthomas

    It was probably 40 years ago when I first heard the comparison: The only difference between professional athletes and Division I athletes is how they get paid.  Whether the “scholarship” money or the campus’ prestige is the issue, it’s the money that creates the leverage.  The difference in policy with Division III gives that away.

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037