• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Princeton Student Reveals Way to Access Students’ Personal Data

February 17, 2011, 5:42 pm

A Princeton University student whose Web site revealed the breadth of student information publicly available on Princeton servers has drawn criticism from the university and support from some students who say privacy safeguards should be tightened.

The student, Dan Li, said he discovered last summer that anyone sending a request to the university’s LDAP server could determine some students’ student ID numbers, vacation away messages and dates, personal e-mail addresses, dorm addresses, and other information. Much of the data is not searchable using the student directory on Princeton’s Web site.

Mr. Li said he objected to the university’s making that information accessible to the public. Last week, he created a Web site, Do Not Forward @ Princeton, that allowed people to search for some of the additional information if they knew a student’s Princeton e-mail address. He also sent a message to hundreds of students’ Gmail addresses that he gleaned from the database asking students to voice their concerns to Princeton.

The information Mr. Li found does not appear to be protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or Ferpa, experts say. But the case offers a warning to institutions about the need to carefully manage student directory information at a time of heightened concerns about online privacy.

A Wednesday editorial in The Daily Princetonian, which initially reported the news,  commended Mr. Li and said he raised important concerns about the university’s handling of private student data. “The university must do a better job of making sure that private information remains private.” It pointed to New York University, which publishes students’ information only after they give their permission.

A spokeswoman for Princeton, Emily R. Aronson, said the university has begun to remove from public view the information Mr. Li found. “Students are always, and I emphasize always, able to request that their information be removed from the published directory, or that some of their public information is not included in their published directory listing,” Ms. Aronson said.

Ms. Aronson said Mr. Li had engaged in unauthorized use of information that was supposed to be available only to university programmers who needed to access the information for official university business. She pointed to a Princeton policy that states that anybody who finds a gap in the university’s online security must report it to the university and refrain from exploiting it.

But Mr. Li pointed to a page on the university’s helpdesk Web site that gave step-by-step instructions on how to access the university’s e-mail server and use a Unix search command to access the student information he found. The instructions were replaced on Monday by a notice forbidding unauthorized use of such information.

Mr. Li said he had been interviewed by campus security and was in discussions with campus officials about “what they’re going to do to me about this.” Ms. Aronson said she could not comment on the specifics of the student’s case, citing privacy concerns.

Tracy Mitrano, director of information-technology policy at Cornell University, said it did not appear that Princeton had violated Ferpa. But she said of Mr. Li, “I think that in some sense he may have done the community a service, because we all need to be more aware of privacy.”

Student information that was harmless in paper form presents new risks when it is published online, she said. Directory information could be combined with other publicly available information—say, through a Google search—to form a student profile that could create a liability for individuals in terms of physical safety, identity theft, or reputation impairments, she said.

She asked, “Should Ferpa be reviewed on the question of directory information, in light of the digital realm and the power of information systems to mine and recombine data?”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • joneseagle

    Do you think the answer is YES?
    She asked, “Should FERPA be reviewed on the question of directory information, in light of the digital realm and the power of information system to mine and recombine data?”
    I do. We must be cognizant of all unintended consequences when ever we make decisions or policies. If we do not we face those unintended consequences and normally without being able to work through it reasonably but reactive.

  • mbelvadi

    Many institutions are schizophrenic in their handling of their internal student IDs, just as the rest of the US is about the Social Security #. They treat it as strictly for identification in some cases, and as a confidential password to access other data in others. Professors who post grades and the like in a public place like the outside of their door thinking that if they just put ID#s next to the grades, not the names, they are maintaining any kind of confidentiality, are guilty of doing the latter. I don’t know if this happens at Princeton, but incidents like this should be a wakeup call that all institutions should probably audit how all of the faculty/staff use them to make sure there aren’t any security contradictions.

  • effigies

    What personal data is there? Li mentions “dorm room, mailing address, and university ID number”. Is there something more troublesome, or are university ID numbers exploitable at Princeton? Considering that it is standard practice for universities to sell student names and campus addresses to credit card companies, I don’t think a directory service is particularly worrisome. There was one at my undergrad university, and the only worry somebody might have is being outed if someone else saw they were on the LGBT mailing list.

  • http://fungibleconvictions.com/ Andrew Whitacre

    “What personal data is there? Li mentions “dorm room, mailing address, and university ID number”. Is there something more troublesome”…

    The troublesome part is that Princeton gave students the option to keep that information out of the public directories…and then made it publicly accessible anyway. At best, it’s sloppy management, while at worst, it’s dishonest and leaves them exposed to liability if a student is assaulted by someone who used the LDAP system to find where the student lives.

    For the same reason, Li likely could have handled this more ethically, for example by working with The Daily Princetonian on a piece, citing what he found but not releasing the data until the university had a chance to show how it would react under public scrutiny. He should have only released the data itself as a last resort.

  • bradleyhockey

    IT obligations are obviously not taken seriously at Princeton University despite the rhetoric. Emphasis should be not on the student or method of student rather on Univ. sloppiness! Institutions are not only schizophrenic about handling their internal student IDs they are asleep at the wheel! I think the student made his point the only way he possibly could – politics can be a difficult wall to climb.

  • kwrs1

    Cornell is correct; he did Princeton a great service. Princeton, and specifically Ms. Aronson, should be ashamed of the way they handled this, both internally and externally. Sounds like they need a new spokeswoman, as well as some oversight of the IT department.

  • chemmilt

    As an alum of old P.U. I must say that all this was rather surprising. I thought that their people were better data managers. (Of course, when I attended, it was all slide rules and main frames with punch cards. You had to actually meet students to get any data out of them.)

  • mnprivate

    More administrative “blame the messenger” tactics? The school should reward this student for his service to fellow students and the institution. Instead, Aronson tries to blam Li for using the information in exactly the way the school apparently intended it to be used.

  • smsather

    If you read the article carefully, you will see that Princeton did not release any data it was asked to keep confidential. We can decide if it was right, wrong, or sloppy to release other information, but information that was asked to not be published was not made available on- or off-campus.

  • norton95

    Certainly find fault with the Princeton processes and/or staff that left the door open, but don’t congratulate the person who walked through the door that he was not welcome in. If I leave my front door unlocked at night and you walk through it, do you think you will get out of a trespassing charge because I, the owner, left my front door unlocked? Yes, shame on me for doing so, but you certainly knew that was not your door to walk through and so did this student.

  • a_voice

    You said, “IT obligations are obviously not taken seriously at Princeton University…” If this article gives you enough information to make that assessment, then obviously you do not know what you are talking about.

  • a_voice

    “oversight of the IT department”? Hopefully not from a shallow judge.

  • drjeff

    I have to laugh. I watched The Social Network last night, and Mark Zuckerberg did a similar thing (though it involved some – light – actual hacking and caused embarrassment for some students) and Harvard suspended him for 6 months. The film made it seem that the penalty was more for making the administration look bad than anything else. If this student receives any actual punishment, it would be ONLY for making Princeton look bad, since there was no harm to anyone (else). Administrators covering their behinds? Hard to believe, I know…

  • 11272784

    As usual, the institution is shocked, SHOCKED at their weakness and criticizes the student – instead of thanking them for pointing out the problem.

    They need to “academic up” and admit their problems, thank the student, fix the problems and go on with life.

  • teachfordamasses

    Please d/c the use of the adjective “schizophrenic” to mean: two-faced or hypocritical. First, it is not even accurate (schizophrenic does not mean of two minds, or of two personalities; it refers to a split between affect and cognition). Second, and more important, it continues the mental illness stigma we no longer permit in reference to gay, female, fat, ethnic, disabled or other populations. In the CHE, of all places, we need to be more sophisticated than this.

  • http://twitter.com/juandoming juandoming

    We must make learners accountable for their acts and the network, too, so it’s important to be able to construct their own knowledge and appropriate tools with society and Intenet, it is.

    Juandon

  • http://twitter.com/HamptonLife Hampton Life

    President Harvey of Hampton Univ. named 1 of 5 Most Vocal HBCU Presidents 

  • maestrho

    Yippee!! My new President, Dr. David Wilson, made the list. To be fair, our previous President, Dr. Earl S. Richardson, was also a vocal advocate of Morgan State in particular and HBCUs in general. Go Bears!

    Ultimately, the article is OK and the points are true, but I must take issue with the notion that all of this is within the control of the HBCU Presidents. Specifically the piece about having a national media presence. I concur that scholars and administrators at HBCUs should certainly have their voices represented in the national discourses on all manner of topics – politics, social policy, economics, business, etc. – however most network & cable news shows prefer to pull from the Ivys or larger TWIs. Even when an African-American is asked to share viewpoints on some topic du jour, they are speaking from the campus of a TWI and usually aren’t members of a an HBCU alumni association. This may not have been Dr. Gasman’s point when she mentioned the media presence, but I’ve long felt that the higher ups who work at NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. really need to take a moment to find the wealth of talent and intellect that lays in wait on the campuses of many HBCUs.

    Full disclosure: I’m clearly an alumnus of MSU, but currently teach at a TWI … kind of have this feeling I’m going to hear about this later.  :-)

  • dank48

    Gasman.

  • druce

    Mainstream colleges should be the standard. Time to end black-only colleges.

  • disembedded

    Definitely not much of an article.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Myhbcu-Interview/100002218821528 Myhbcu Interview

    “Given the backlash against HBCU’s and other issues of access for
    students of color in the nation, more HBCU’s presidents (and all college
    and university presidents, for that matter) should be speaking out and
    telling the HBCU story to critics and supporters.” That is why we created our site. And for those who think HBCUs should be closed obviously never attended and lack an open mind and the decency to respect others and practice empathy. Only speak on what you know. #HBCUsRuleTheWorld We are the global majority

  • goxewu

    1. There are those (me included) who don’t want to close down HBCU’s, but who want instead to see the public colleges among them simply declared state colleges and universities, without overt references to being quasi-exclusively for black students, and then let the racial composition of their student bodies fall where they may.

    2. Why? First because the overt racial characterization of public HBCU’s is probably unconstitutional, as some eventual Supreme Court decision will say. Second, because “separate but not-quite equal” run by African-Americans isn’t any more productive than “separate but equal” run by whites.

    3. The paeans to HBCU’s from the likes of Prof. Gasman, HBCU presidents, student cheerleaders such as Tajae Brown (who seems to blurt “Great article!” and nothing more every time Prof. Gasman praises HBCU’s) never really address (1) or (2), above.

    4. What one gets is more of the likes of Myhbcu Interview’s “#HBCUsRuleTheWorld We are the global majority.” (Really? There are more black people in the world than there are yellow, brown, red and white people combined? Somebody needs to retake middle school cultural geography.) One hopes this isn’t a reflection of the quality of education HBCU’s deliver.

    5. Prof. Gasman, “vocal” HBCU presidents, and HBCU student cheerleaders are so obliviously relentless, though, that one is almost tempted to say, “O.K., if you really want an inferior, quasi-segregated education, you’re welcome to it.”

  • Guest

    One serious problem with this whole discussion is that it doesn’t distinguish between different types of online education.  Community college students utilizing online classes usually first have experience with seated classes, or are taking hybrid classes that are a combination of seated meetings and online instruction.  That is very different from a student whose entire educational experience is online. 

     The weaker students described in point 2 can survive if they are part of a community college, have taken seated classes, and “get” how classes work in a seated environment first.  The weaker students described in point 2 who attend online only colleges are being raped for tuition dollars without having their real educational needs met.  These remedial students can receive a lot of support — federally funded support — for remedial instruction at community colleges that is not offered by most online colleges, and which is prohibitive in an online environment.  The very skills that are needed to be successful in an online environment are just what the student lacks. Furthermore, this discussion needs to consider the possibility that different subjects lend themselves better to online instruction than others.  Math, for example, might be taught online more easily than English or writing.  

    Bottom line: the fact that online instruction may work for community colleges or as part of a hybrid model in which some instruction is also taking place face to face is NOT a defense of fully online for-profit colleges with high faculty and student turnover, high student loan default rates, and low levels of needed service for the challenged students who seem to flock to those programs. Failing to maintain these distinctions is smoke and mirrors covering up a money grab — get while the gettin’s good.  The Fed may not have money for it next year…

  • rthezel

    Thank you for your revised perspective of distance and online learning.  It is encouraging to observe that individuals can change their views on this sometimes polarizing topic, especially among academics.  But then, we have evidence of faculty who, after 30 years of classroom teaching, learn the joys and effectiveness of teaching online.
    Among the weakness factors—or maybe we should say “threats”—is the failure to be mindful of the sustainability of online learning.  Over the years, we have seen many institutions jump into online learning without clear business and market planning, without strategy and contingencies, without finance and investment plans.  In the long term, any failure to consider sustainability results in a disservice to students, faculty and staff alike.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=123600063 Brian C Steinberg

    It is obvious the Chronicle has been bias to online education for years. I wonder if online education holds the Chronicle with much respect because of this?

  • http://twitter.com/LauraARinger Laura Ringer

    I believe the point of the Illinois article is that online education is not for everyone. Someone without prior experience with computers would most likely not even research online schools and therefore, would not be found in an online classroom. Students must be self motivated and have a drive to participate in classes, which weeds out the population that is not interested in contributing or participating in class. Professors and schools must be chosen carefully to assure that the student chooses a quality program that will fit their lifestyle. In that decision students should consider accreditation, nonprofit and for-profit schools, learning style and length of program. 

  • 5768

    Like modern antidepressants which are widely used by millions but for which we have no long-term studies (by which I refer to lifetime and transgenerational studies), so it is with online education and most other technologically-facilitated endeavors when widely implemented. Experimental at best, even when shown to be superior in the short term (for retention? for one-semester mastery of facts? for better student grades over 4 months?), prolonged and entrenched use may result in unforeseen consequences as to how we as a culture approach what is means to learn and to know.  Excellent mileage in one on-line course, perhaps, but was that course a prerequisite to a second course or not, and how did the student fare in the subsequent course? How did the student fare by the end of the 4 year curriculum? How did s/he compare to students nationwide? Too many long-term questions are going unaddressed–or unasked.  One would think educators would be better attuned to longer-term consequences, but in this day and age of ‘riding the wave’ it seems to be the last thing on their minds.

  • jesor

    While I have not fully experienced an online course myself, I do find myself frequently interacting with students who have.    Keep in mind that most of these students have completed their online coursework through a community college in Washington (there’s a  study that just came out about that particular population), and the reaction seems to be very split (mind you, this is anecdotal information).  
     For some students online coursework is exactly what they needed in order to achieve a manageable work-school-life balance, and without those classes they would likely not have completed their programs.   For that factor alone, many of these students are appreciative of the medium, however most have said that they would still have preferred to have taken an in-person course.  
    The other group generally was unsuccessful in their online coursework.  Their motivation seems to have been similar (work-life-balance) but some seemed more likely to choose online courses because the course at their home instituiton was full and online was their only option in order to stay on time for graduation.   In general both of these subcategories of students experienced problems in three areas.  The first was instructor based.  This was usually due to slow or non-existent response to assignments and questions (i.e. two more papers would be due before the first was evaluated), but also problems with vague syllabi or instructions on assigments  seemed to be common.   The second was technology based.   Servers crashed and students were unable to upload assignments at times they were available, student’s personal computers were not up to the task of handling the schools CMS, or confusing interfaces caused students to have difficulty participating in discussions, as well as in uploading and downloading course materials.  Finally a portion of these students by their own admission indicated that they had not budgeted the appropriate amount of time for the course.  These students found themselves behind, or overwhelmed and usually ended up dropping.   The best summative quote for these students would be “I chose online because I’m a busy person, but I realized that it’s the exact reason I shouldn’t have taken an online course”.  For these students, the choice of an online course was really a choice to prioritize other life activities above their education.

    What we really need is some sort of sorting system that determines if online coursework is really the best fit for a student. Ultimately the question should be “if an in-person class was conveniently scheduled two blocks from your house do you think you would attend regularly”   If the answer is no, then online is likely not a good fit for the student either and maybe education isn’t a good choice for them at that moment.   As I said, this is all anecdotal based on my professional work, but it’s amazing what students will tell you about their experiences if you just spend a half hour with them.

  • cddl71

    Thank you for your opinion as you are most certainly entitled to it.  However, I have my own and I’m not going to argue about it.  I simply felt the need to voice my opinion.  I won’t debate the use of “former” i.e., FBCU as opposed to “historically.”  There are better uses for my time.

    I will say that I attended an HBCU and there was a certain comfort in being around people with similar backgrounds and experiences.  The literature and writers I preferred were embraced and celebrated.  The music I liked was not the exception.  The politics for which I felt strongly were not passed off as simple rhetoric.  I had black and white friends and sorority sisters.  We worked at homeless shelters and collected funds to benefit charities together.  We all learned…together.  Some of my favorite teachers were Black, White, Indian and Asian.  They were genuinely interested in making sure that I was well prepared to live and be a productive citizen.

    Do you deny all girls or all boys schools the right to exist?  To receive funding to ensure that those students are well educated?  Is a young woman who feels more comfortable attending an all-girls school alienated because she does so?  How about a student who attends a military school?  Point is, where you learn should not be as important as the fact that you DO learn.  It’s funny that you used the phrase “token sprinkling of white students.”  Black students have been the “tokens” for many years in the name of diversity.  Yes, black students are sought after at PWCUs and TWCUs.  But what happens when they get there?  The school is “diverse” but these students are shunned; maybe because they don’t dress the same as the majority of the student body.  Or, because they wear their hair in braids or dreadlocks.  Or, because they listen to R&B or rap music.  What good is diversity when differences still aren’t embraced?  That is actually another conversation altogether so I won’t even go there.  Anyway, suffice it to say, EVERYONE feels more comfortable when they are in an environment which accepts and celebrates the individuals they are.  I accept your opinion, goxewu, even though I think we will need to agree to disagree.

    One final note:  Professor Gasman, I thoroughly enjoyed your article, “The Educational Effectiveness of HBCU’s.”  You hit many of the reasons I enjoyed attending an HBCU.  The article was full of substance and very informative.  In fact, you “took control of the Black College story” and you did it well.  Kudos!

  • dnewton137

    Just a brief comment:   I commend those who have made observations here (most of them, anyway).  This is an academic discussion which should (and probably will) continue ad infinitum.  But it is a mistake to view it as primarily a debate about the value of the differing characteristics of teaching using the old (or “true”) technology (books, blackboards) and the new (online).  It should more properly be focused on the nature and methods of teaching and learning, whatever might be the current technological circumstances.  I remember reading a diatribe proclaiming that the fundamental nature of the academic endeavor as we know it (or as they knew it, in the sixteenth century) would be permanently harmed by that new-fangled invention, the printed book, which allowed just anybody to participate in the debate.  And I remember my own personal experience, which demonstrated that some professors (including a couple of Nobel Laureates) were essentially clueless about how to teach, in those cases using lectures and blackboards.

  • bernardjsmith

    I am not sure that “self-motivation” is sufficient. I think many students can be self motivated but the problem is that they do not have the skills to be as self regulated as online courses seem to require. You can be very motivated to do whatever is asked of you in an online course but if  a significant part of that online course requires that you are driving your own learning and are not simply responding to the facilitator’s questions and assignments then you may be a fish out of water. I don’t know that it is a coincidence that (according to one of my colleagues who is doing research into this) the military finds that when enlistees take online courses their success rates are not as good as when they take courses in a brick and mortar classroom.

  • phd2binus

    I have been lucky enough to have taught the full range of our freshman / sophmore undergraduate offerings as both an onsite and online instructor.

    While I have thoroughly enjoyed both formats – and very much so – I must admit that my experiences online have been *much* more positive than onsite instruction. Let me try and elucidate:

    1. While in the onsite classroom you have the opportunity to think on your feet and challenge and be experiential on your feet to reactions to the students who speak, in the online classroom, you are able to meet *every* class member and challenge their minds and ideas. The students who would normally be lost in a classroom of 35-40 are met and developed each day or week at their level and pushed to consider ideas they might not have considered.

    2. I am able to reach the entire class through multimedia exhibits in each of the weekly units – journal articles, non-copyrighted film clips (and many from our university’s purchased collection under an agreement for both onsite classroom and online classroom use), photography, art, patents, etc, that the students would not see – or would otherwise ignore – in an onsite classroom. We incorporate this information into our discussions and make it part of the larger whole of history.

    3. Each student and I – on the phone during office hours or in e-mail – discuss the creation of their term papers – and discuss midterm and final “anxiety” issues – and as they are used to the online format, and regular communication with me through the discussion boards, they respond much more readily than onsite students, whom I have found I have to pressure to talk to me.

    4. I am able to accommodate students from around the country – and around the world. I have had enrolled in my class students from Japan, Indonesia, India, England – and many other countries. As a result, I have set up a *very* specific Skype address *only* for use of my students. They are required to set up the time and day with me ahead of time and I need to approve that request, but for them (and for some of my students scattered all over the state and US), the face time is invaluable in helping them feel “connected” – and I am more than happy to offer it.

    5. As the software upgrades, the possibilities of what I can offer become more and more amazing, and the ease of use for both me – and for the students -  becomes astronomically better. Many have never known the software, so they don’t notice it – but those who have taken online courses before cheer it on. Software does not achieve backwards.

    As very few of these issues are met by the onsite classroom, I am leaning more and more toward the online classroom as the better mode of instruction. Yes, there are times I *really* miss the onsite opportunities, but then I think of the above distinctions and realize that yes, I am where I should be, and virtually *ALL* the students are getting far more for their money than they would get in an onsite classroom.

    This is the wave of the future, and it holds such amazing promise. Already I think we are seeing clear and fruitful results, and if academics receive effective – and continuing – instruction and support from the very beginning, I cannot imagine why one would ever go back. The only reason I can think of *not* doing this is if the instructor has his or her *own* fear of computers. Beyond that – please, please jump on the bandwagon, swallow your fears, and learn how to do this with vigor. I don’t think you will ever be sorry.

    PhD2BinUS

  • Guest

    The thing about generalities is that they’re only “generally” true — of course there will always be exceptions.  The worst and most unprofessional college in the world will be able to point to graduates who had a good experience, however — perhaps they were lucky, or a rare right fit, or were so highly motivated that they would have a good experience anywhere.  You can’t establish much of anything by appealing to anecdotal evidence.  Retention rates, graduation rates, employability, GRE and other scores, and student loan default rates are better indicators of the effectiveness of a college or university to actually teach its students and develop their skills.  Might also want to look at the number and quality of publications by Ph.D.s coming out of fully online programs.  I understand the fiscal pressures that make fully online education appealing.  I also understand the long-term, high cost of failing to educate our students while we have them.  Education should not be left in the hands of people only interested in grabbing all the dollars they can as fast as they can.    

  • phd2binus

    As a side note in response to dnewton137, I *do* require two books, and require integrated discussion of them as a primary means of historical discourse. When I say what I do about the multimedia approach, the approach is in *supplement* to the primary discussions and positions put forth by the books, not as a *replacement for* the books themselves. They are also most definitely exposed to and expected to discuss the issues of bias in sources – including within the books themselves – throughout. This is generally something we simply cannot do due to time constraints in the regular classroom.

    Furthermore, because the dialogue in the online course is asynchronous and multimedia it exposes students to issues and sources in ways they simply would be unable to reach within the time limitations of the ordinary classroom. It is not an *onerous* amount of material, but rather carefully chosen and deliberately meant to be a sounding board for a very lively debate. It usually works *very* well, and frequently there is debate well in excess of the required amount – and from many, many people you might not expect in an onsite class; it engages, it encourages, it develops the mind. What a joy for an instructor!

    I just realized I didn’t make myself clear in my first and for that I do apologize.

    PhD2BinUS

  • ardvaark

    I appreciate your thoughts. I’m not sure how they are getting more out of online than they would  in person. Students who are afraid to speak up in my classes benefit from being in classes more than they would from being on line because they have to  deal  with their anxieties, and with support, work through them. Differences are in my mind also not best handled by avoiding them but rather by engaging them and working on the challenges they  present. I’m sure you report your experience accurately here but I can’t imagine online experiences can ever surpass personal ones. I should add that my students do engage in discussion board conversations between sessions in class and that these are helpful and support and enhance what we do together, often nicely. But honestly I find that the less active students in class are less active on line, and often say that they don’t like on line discussions. In regard to productivity, I can’t tell what you know about this aside from your impressions, which seem to be about processes rather than outcomes.

    We want to believe this works, and that is mostly what I hear from online advocates. I suppose I want to believe the opposite. But I will keep my skepticism for now rather than require less of students, offer less to them, and reduce the human contact of the enterprise.

  • ardvaark

    I am glad you got so much from your online experience. I wonder why you worked harder and learned more..Does this mean that you think it was because of the online format? Do you think an in person course with this instructor would have been no more or not as helpful? I did mean to suggest that the online approach was especially ill suited to some subjects and aspects of subjects. As to reporting what my students say, done. However, you don’t win friends with administrators or colleagues who want online to work and want to think it is as good as in class approaches. Look, part of my situation and bias is that I am training social workers; it makes no sense to not work with them in social situations in person that replicate work conditions, challenges, and experiences and present the very difficulties that wil be present in their practice. They will not be helping others online (I hope).

  • ardvaark

    Research suggests, actually, that course design may have little to do with the outcomes of online courses. It is the reflection and activity that are required, and these have nothing to do with online technology. See the study issued by the US Dept of Ed last year.

    The online environment in my view is not as good for reasons I have expressed. This seems hard to dispute. But if you have evidence in support of your assertion I would be interested in it.

  • R117532

    I’m with you Softshell. I feel the same way about the Internet. Cars are OK but, airplanes! More crap. 

  • rwinston87

    After reading the article, I found myself considering the issues brought up about online learning. I agree with Mr. Donaghue on his feelings of the first three points that he brought up. 
    I am currently working towards my Master’s in Education using an online learning course. Having taken a traditional route for my bachelor’s, I can say that the differences between “on-ground” and online learning are quickly becoming irrelevant as schools continue to refine the process. 

    Not all online learning services are created equal; some are fit for participating in the future of our nation, others are destined to be relegated to the history books. What separates these two categories is the economic vote of John Q. Public. If a school is providing the opportunity to earn, say, a Master’s Degree and the graduates that attended that school felt like their money was well spent, then they will undoubtedly encourage others with similar interests to spend their money at such an institution. Conversely, if a school takes the money of students and does not provide a degree of satisfying quality, that too will become news. What I’m trying to say is that the for-profit institutions that are clearly not living up to the standards of online learning will not live long in our fast-paced economy. 

    For those interested in learning more, I have found this article to be helpful in addressing these issues, and more.

  • jcbmack

    As someone who started out in a brick and mortar institution and then, later on went the online route,I will say I benefitted from both mediums.I am set to graduate from Walden University, and in fact they helped me obtain a selective NSF funded program, working in psychobiology lab at a state university for 2 months. Also, I should mention that most of the online, graduate programs at Walden offer: practicum and internships, and all require face to face residencies for additional training, and job networking. For the mental health program at Walden that is CACREP accredited there are training hours similar to most B & M programs, that must be face to face. For the psychology programs there are more extended training programs as well. I liked both online and B & M Universities, and now I am applyng to a hybrid PhD program. Recent published peer reviwed articles suggest that a hybbrid format is the most successful delivery system to offer a student. Thanks.

  • Bob Mayer

    Those are the best known conferences for literary writers or those of the MFA ilk.  If you write genre, consider others such as San Diego State University, Pikes Peak, Surrey International, Emerald City, PNWA, Thrillerfest, RWA National, etc.

    I find a strange dichotomy in conferences and publishing where conferences like the ones you mention won’t even respond to my queries about being on their faculty.  Much like MFA programs won’t consider most applicants if they don’t have that appropriate MFA or PhD, regardless of publishing credentials. 

    Publishing is an industry, by the way.  Unless you make your living teaching it, in which case you’re in the academic industry, which has its own rules and best minds.

    I’ve shaken my head as MFA directors immediately reject a query I send them in favor of graduates of similar programs who have yet to earn their spurs in publishing.  45 novels, NY Times and all the other bestseller lists, 4 million books sold, hundreds of workshops and presentations with tens of thousands of writers– none of that matters much in the academic world.

    I submit that where your primary income comes from determines what kind of writer you are.  If it comes from teaching, then you are a teacher first and writer second.  If it comes from writing, then you are a writer first, and teacher second.  Thus, students should take this into account and decide which path they wish to pursue.  Neither is right or wrong.  Just they will lead you to different places.

  • info8036

    I think that you will find that the annual Key West Writer’s seminar is quite an exception. It attracts a serious roster of guest authors as well as participants. Check out their website.

  • patbowne

    I also feel that ‘insubordination’ is a poor word, though I think the phenomenon exists. And actually, it seemed as if people gave a lot of good definitions and examples of it in the comments to your previous post. Can you explain what you found inadequate about them?

  • grhoades

    Rob, let me refer you to a couple of AAUP sites for clarification on academic freedom, grades, and “insubordination.” The AAUP national site is not easy to navigate (just google a search and it generally takes you there). One web site is a clear discussion of academic freedom, including grading.  On grading, it is the faculty’s purview, with certain professional responsibilties, and of course a provision for appeal.  But an administrator should not unilaterally change a grade–that is a violation: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/legal/topics/whogrades.htm  On insubordination, your instinct is right in that it is a term used to justify punishing those who disagree with administration.  The AAUP’s commitment to faculty’s academic freedom in this regard was recently strengthened during my time as general secretary, with the Speak up, Speak out campaign surrounding a series of court cases following Garcetti.http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/protectvoice/ On insubordination, see the following web site: faculty can be fired for cause (detailed here), and the use of insubordination is VERY narrow, and refers to failure to carry out professional obligations (e.g., to teach an assigned class), not at all like the usage being promoted in some institutions by some administrators. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/programs/legal/topics/term-discp.htm  Hope this helps!

  • robjenkins

    That helps a lot, Gary. Thank you.

    Rob

  • yellow1

    In my experience as an administrator now and as a faculty member before, the issues (whether called insubordination or not) were never about research topics, teaching methods, writing, and other traditional academic duties.Here is a very specific example of something else:

    Student evaluations. All full time faculty members would have one class per term selected, 2 terms a year (Fall and Spring), to have student evals performed. Instructors must initiate these in computer classrooms and traditional classrooms (they are out of the loop for online classes). This instructor only taught on ground. There are clear instructions about the timeline these must be handed to students, instructions for the students, and how/why these are used. I had an instructor who never even pulled these out of his mailbox for Fall term. The instructor was reminded after Fall term to perform these, asked which class he’d like/rather give them to, asked which prep he’d like/rather give them to, etc. It was made clear that I would only need one course for Spring, not Fall’s incomplete ones + Spring’s class. Basically, “just use the same packet and pick a Spring class” was what I told this instructor. Part of the annual eval includes at minimum the documentation and discussion of these. Schools like ours need and use this information as part of our documentation for regional accreditation, and this is part of the eval process of full time instructors since we do not have tenure. The process bleeds over into documenation our HR department and Office of Institutional Effectiveness require. In other words, there was no way to keep this within the department. This instructor was not new either, FYI. Instructor did not give these to students Spring term.

    His failure to initiate his student evals for the academic year was called insubordination by the VP of Academic Affairs and by the HR Executive Director. I gave the instructor the equivalent of what most would call a “write up,” and this was documented in his end of year evaluation. Not under the portions covering instructional abilities or scholarly activity.

    I have no personal examples of a faculty member being deemed insubordinate for his/her scholarly work or teaching methodologies, and I think that goes more to Rob’s point about insubordination relative to “faculty independence and authority.”

  • stuaff

    Is it insubordinate when a student publicly questions a faculty member or the authority of the faculty member? So far we appear to be looking at this question through the lens of ourselves being told to do something by someone else. One emerging challenge today is when students question our authority and ruffle our feathers.

  • robjenkins

    I appreciate the example, yellow1, as I always appreciate your insightful contributions to this blog. And yes, I would agree that the situation you describe constitutes insubordination. I believe it fits the definition I offered above.

    To your last point, though, faculty members don’t actually have to be CHARGED with insubordination in order for their academic freedom to be infringed upon. When members of the administration have strongly suggested that you stop writing about certain topics, and suddenly the word “insubordination” is being bandied about on a regular basis, whereas you’ve hardly ever heard the word used in all your previous years in the profession—well, you just might get the message.

    All of this is completely hypothetical, of course.

    Rob

  • robjenkins

    You’re right, stuaff. I have been talking specifically about faculty members in relation to administrators. But you’re also right that that relationship in some ways mirrors our relationship with students. I think the two are actually closely tied together. It’s all about how much freedom those in power are willing to allow those who have less power–and what those with less power can do about it if the answer isn’t to their liking. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, whether in the classroom or the board room.

    The truth, I believe, and as I’ve learned from my experiences as both a teacher and an administrator, is that the more freedom faculty members have, the more productive they’re likely to be–and I think that’s also true of students.

    Thanks for bringing up an excellent point.

    Rob

  • yellow1

    I agree. The word is tossed around in our arena, and it is troubling AND a bit puzzling. None of my friends and associates in the business arenas/private sectors have mentioned an increase in this area. It seems like many in higher ed want it run like a business, but only the portions they like! 

    I am hoping someone has a good (which would be bad, I guess) example of when this has happened relative to faculty academic work and responsibilities. Unfortunately, I see at minimum more scrutiny being placed on the academic portions of faculty duty. I see at minimum more scrutiny being placed on measuring the value (another loaded word like insubordination) of that academic research and work.

    These are interesting times.

  • waywardeaglescout

    The central issue raised by Jenkins is that in the absence of an accepted definition for faculty “insubordination” (by AAUP, or other), ANY issue can be willfully distorted by an administrator who has taken offense, reasonably or not. Without such a definition, a faculty member accused of so-called insubordination is without recourse. Yes, one encounters good & bad faculty/administrators/students. When faced with large power differentials between any of these groups, the lessor party requires clearly defined standards to appeal inappropriate accusations.

    Rob, you’re right: “Insubordination” is the new tenure-breaking weapon of choice (often sheathed in a scabbard labeled “collegiality” or “behavioral” concerns.)

    At Penn State the “primary responsibilty” of a faculty member is “to state the truth as they see it”. That was written in 1973, mind you. I took this to heart and earned the respect of my colleagues but the enmity of administration for identifying and working to correct violations in our program regarding accreditation requirements and university policies at large. Students learning opportunities were being heavily compromised as a result. In my P&T review, I received the highest rating in all three areas (teaching, research, and service) from my departmental committee, had violated no university policies, but was ousted by administrative parties for grossly distorted claims of so-called “insubordination” in retaliation for my respectful candor.

    Being able to draw upon a widely accepted definition of “insubordination” or “collegiality” (yes, AAUP’s is helpful, but some specific examples are badly needed regarding what is and is not “collegial”) would go a long way in the pursuit of redress.

    Why is this important? Other than the fact that this is patently obvious to a few who genuinely care about the academic experience, others may appreciate the fact that in an environment which allows retaliation to go unchecked, people are afraid to raise concerns or report things like boys being raped in a shower. Not sure what further evidence is needed to make this point to those few administrative parties who are working from a playbook from halcyon days gone by. Given the ease and commonplace nature of retaliation at Penn State, few faculty are genuinely surprised by the administrative cover-up of the horrific Sandusky situation. There is a serious lesson for all universities in this situation about the importance of fostering a culture committed to free expression of concern without retaliation — and it goes well beyond football and kids.

    The few brave young men who came forward about Sandusky may (hopefully) have done more to reverse administrative retaliation than anything we’ve yet seen. Bravo to them!

  • http://www.facebook.com/bbuchner1 Brad Buchner

    I’d be surprised if you haven’t read “Fall of the Faculty” by Benjamin Ginsberg already – but if not, you should. Although he doesn’t deal directly with the insubordination/tenure issue – he does clearly show the trend towards administrative takeover of colleges and universities. Using insubordination to defeat tenure would just be another tool in the arsenal. My own observation derives in a big way from what Max Weber told us about bureaucracies. University Administrators constitute a bureaucratic unit – and, as Weber said, as such they seek to expand and consolidate their power. Unfortunately, since they control the purse strings they are better placed to exercise power than other units, such as faculty. Hence – where administrators used to be seen as ancillary personnel to carry out necessary tasks to support faculty and students – now they are seen (and see themselves) as commanders directing the operation. Obviously academic freedom and tenure are seen as obstacles to their freedom to command. So – they employ various strategies to undermine, redefine, and otherwise alter the academic structure to suit their vision of a top-down corporate model institution – where faculty are no more than paid technicians who can be hired and fired at will. The saddest thing is that more than a few faculty have bought into this model, or have simply rolled over and accepted it.

  • doctorpapa

    I withdrew my comments because I’m not sure this is the appropriate venue for them. Thank you.

  • jffoster

    Interesting how institutions differ, which may mean either that insubordination must be defined and determined locally, or perhaps that the whole notion has very little meaning in higher education.   I know of a case within the past eight years at a large public R1 where a faculty member, tenured, refused to do student evaluations in his classes. His department head told him he had to, and the Dean of his college said that he had to and told department heads she and they had the authority to require faculty to do them.  The faculty member in question said that while they might require them be submitted along with things like RPT recommendations, they had no standing unilaterally w/o vote of the faculty to require tenured faculty or others who were not applying for RPT to do them in classes, any more than the dean or head had the authority to require a professor to call the role or otherwise take attendance in class.

    The university then vice provost for faculty affairs, i.e. the “adjutant-general” as it were, and also a lawyer, told the college department heads that the dean (and therefore they) did NOT have the authority to order a faculty member to allow student evaluations in their classes. So clearly the professor’s refusal to obey an order the head and dean had no authority to give was not insubordination.

  • Guest

    I think insubordination will vary depending on whether the campus is unionized or not, and whether it’s a public or private school. Public schools are “state resources” and the matter of public record. Unionized campuses have contracts that clearly limit what chairs and deans can dictate to faculty.

    I work at a unionized state school. In my context insubordination means basically failing to live up to the standards of the contract. I’ve never heard the term “insubordination” used to describe faculty issues, and I’ve been teaching for 12 years at colleges & universities. So I think the reason you aren’t getting a clear answer is that your question is a bit of a misnomer.

  • lenoreb

    On the matter of grading and the AAUP, Gary Rhoades is right to refer you to AAUP docs. Your college can have a procedure whereby the student can appeal a grade, but that process should have been established with faculty participation, if not direction. The AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (1966) establishes that areas such as curriculum, academic standards and such like are where faculty have “primary responsibility” for governance, to be overturned by administrators only rarely.

    The AAUP’s 1994 statement On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom establishes their reciprocal relationship.

    I guess I am also not wild about the word “insubordination”–seems applicable to a different context, unless you’re thinking about especially martial administrators.

    [I hope I have quoted acceptably--see Lingua Franca above.]

  • 12080243

    “[S]etting the parameters for insubordination” seems like an excellent idea. So, why wouldn’t it work to provide guidance? You’re asking too much of “parameters for insubordination,” assuming “parameters” can be specified to the satisfaction of faculty and administrators. If various interpretations of the “parameters” don’t make the “parameters” useless, dishonest faculty and administrators will render it a farce at their choice. 

    My favorite example is the distorted interpretations our faculty and administrators applied when they were caught plagiarizing others’ words–copying them verbatim. The parameters of plagiarism were specified at our school, or so we thought.

    Here’s the short version: Our dean had a senior faculty member who participated in copying documents to ask permission to “copy them without proper citation”–their phrase. They asked for permission to “copy without proper citation” after the dean and senior faculty members were caught. What they copied included an “Academic Integrity Policy.” The only thing the dean and senior faculty members didn’t copy was the extensive list of citations posted at the end of the “Academic Integrity Policy” they copied. 

    The university’s ombudsman and president approved the “copying without proper citation,” because the dean and senior faculty member got permission to “copy it without proper citation.” That made the copying, in their interpretations, not plagiarism.

    As an aside, “copying without proper citation” seems like a pretty good definition of plagiarism. 

    A senior faculty member involved in copying The Academic Integrity Policy enforced the policy against a graduate student who did site work of others but didn’t do the citations in a form the faculty member specified. The student was required to take the course over again as a punishment.  The perversion of the parameters of plagiarism got worse. By the time the dean, president, ombudsman, and involved senior faculty got through with their interpretations, a farce is the appropriate descriptive word for their behavior.

    But give it a try. Put forward “parameters of insubordination,” Mr. Jenkins. You’ve been thinking about it. Maybe it will work. Maybe it will improve our academic human condition a bit, which is often all we can hope for.

    Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA, Professor, School of Accountancy, University of Southern Mississippi

  • charlie1112

    Academic Freedom/Integrity  = Tenure = Entitlement = Academic Welfare. 
    Anyone who feels that tenure equates with the real world is delusional. I am an adjunct faculty member and former administrator.  A faculty colleague once said to me:  “Having tenure is like being on the public dole.”  Tenured faculty could care less about the institutions and students they supposedly serve.  As long as they “get theirs,” they will never weep for other college personnel who work “at the will” of the institution.

  • Mstrx

    I taught a core class in engineering.   I explained to the class that there was a typo in the syllabus. And I had witnesses to this.  One student, however, decided never to show for class, did no HW and failed all three exams.  But he tried to exploit the old syllabus by claiming his points added up to a D.

    I failed him.

    And he filed a grievance.

    The committee ruled in his favor and ordered me to change the grade.  They told me that informing the class was not enough – I should have posted it on Blackboard.

    I informed the university that I would not ever change the grade.  I informed them, in writing, that a pass in this class would graduate an engineer.  And then I hit hard and put the following in writing: “whoever changes that grade is ethically responsible for who ever this engineer kills by his poor analyses.”

    I have no idea what happened; and I do not care.

    But I suspect one could easily play that card in many classes with regard to grades.  “I take my job seriously and I do not want to be sued by a student who is looking for someone to blame for having been graduated with an inferior education.”

    These kids today refuse to take responsibility for themselves; and they may sue. I grade based on my training, not because a university orders me to make a change. If they want the grade changed – they change it.

  • waywardeaglescout

    To believe that the definition of “insubordination” is an area for the courts to decide is a dangerous proposition. If you don’t believe me, read the AAUP’s take on the Supreme Court Garcetti vs Ceballos decision and what it means to so-called “free speech” at universities that receive public funds. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/JF/Feat/delf.htm

    For the AAUP, or another recognized body, to clearly define the “professional standard” for the appropriate use of this term is essential for multiple reasons:

    1. University Grievance bodies will be able to draw upon such language and consistently reinforce challenges to its use. In the absence of a recognized definition, most grievance bodies will prefer to not rule on these types of issues, which will be interpreted as “he-said-she-said” disputes. These bodies MUCH prefer to evaluate violations of policy, procedural fairness, or professional ethics.

    2. Courts will ultimately (and have done) the same.

    The jump in terms of time and cost is exponential when moving from an internal grievance forum to a legal setting.  Not to mention the career consequences of fighting, and even winning a case against a university. What university will want to hire someone after they (successfully) fought their employer?  

    Further, what employee (probably younger and in significant debt due to school loans) with limited resources is going to take on a university with unlimited resources when the cost of legal action to fight an unfair dismissal for “insubordination” is at a minimum going to be $50K-$75K? Not many.  This very fact is what universities who rely on this horrific strategy to jettison “troublemakers” (meaning: those who speak out about concerns) count on being the case. The university knows it can outspend an employee, so they generally drag the process out as long as possible.

    If this form of retaliation is unknown to you, BE GLAD—you work for an ethical environment!  If this is the case, and before you write off this VERY IMPORTANT issue as a “misnomer”, please don’t conclude that just because you don’t know of injustice personally, that it doesn’t exist.  It does. Not only have I lost my tenure-track position due to this type of retaliation, I know of at least two others who have lost theirs due to blatant misuse of “insubordination” by unscrupulous administrative parties. 

    While not all administrative parties are unscrupulous, insecure, careerist, or head-wagging Babbits — they are out there! Protecting caring and inquisitive faculty from these parties is as important as preventing tenure, or renewal to poor teachers/researchers.

    Keep in mind that many universities do not have faculty unions. Imagine fighting an unfair decision by yourself with a grievance board that doesn’t meet AAUP’s guidelines. Having even an “inadequate” definition of “insubordination” is better than having none. Think about it.

    One example: I followed University policy to obtain pricing on installing a new piece of equipment—getting external bids. My school Director wanted internal bids only, which curried his favor with the Office of Physical Plant. He didn’t care that my funds were involved and the internal prices were three times that of external bids. He called my actions “highly annoying” and thus, “insubordinate”, putting a letter in my file. What?!?!?  The faculty grievance body, rather than indicating his actions were inappropriate, simply decided that he had the authority to put a letter in my file due to his position. Double what?!?!?  That’s justice for you at Penn State…  I’ll bet there are a few other Penn State’s out there. UC Davis, anyone?  (The list could go on and on, sadly).

  • hccprof

    Insubordination is the correct term—it is the legal term used in a tenure contract for firing a professor based on adequate cause. I know because I was fired due to insubordination and now I am in a nasty legal battle check it out http://www.courts.state.md.us – click on find a case- enter  Harford Community College for party and  Baltimore County Circuit Court for jurisdiction- million dollar lawsuit-tenure is indeed being attacked). I was tenured and taught at a public cc for 11 years. Received tenure with glowing support, received 10 years of satisfactory evals and then in the 11th year when my institution accused me of assisting students with an academic grievance against a fellow professor by telling the students where to file their academic grievance …..my institution used insubordination and one false unsatisfactory evaluation to fire me. Here was the insubordination scenario. Students filed academic grievances against a non tenured term faculty member who was canceling classes (18 hours out of 45 hour course) losing graded work, giving out arbitrary grades because he could not find the lost graded papers, issuing incomplete grades to students who did not request them, etc…Students had complained for 2 years straight..the current students contacted the former students to help bolster their grievances to prove the college knew about the incompetent methods and did nothing to remedy the situation. I was charged with insubordination when my dean wrote me an email asking me if I gave 2 present students names and contact information of two former students. I answered in writing that I did not violate any FERPA laws or any college policy. End of story.My dean never told me that I was being investigated or I was in trouble–he was clearly trying to get me to admit to some wrongdoing so that he could fire me. When he did not get the answer that he wanted then I was charged with insubordination for not answering his question yes or no. I went to an internal  hearing (suppose to be due process but it was a kangeroo court- good thing I was a trial attorney in my former life) and a student was called to testify on my behalf and told the committee that she (not me) gave the new students the former students’ contact info. I was cleared by the committee and then overruled by the President and then my dean wrote up a false evaluation on me the next year and fired me. Did I mention that AAUP has been contacted and has stated that the institution did not follow the AAUP guidelines for terminating a tenured professor. We have been in battle for 2.5 years now and  it has been reported that my institution has spent over $325,000 in legal fees defending this case and we don’t even go to trial until mid 2012.  The good news is that I have documentation, students, colleagues and local that will testify in court which will expose my institution for the wrongful termination of my employment.  So yes tenure means nothing to colleges anymore…it is only used to protect the people who need no protection (professor who refuse to take a stance on important issues and are just lapdogs for the administrators). The professors who teach and fight for quality education are the very ones who are fired.
    At the internal hearing it was asked of the committee to the college’s lawyer what the definition of insubordination is and he stated….it is whatever your dean tells you it is….very dangerous. 

  • caveat

    Your following text is personally offensive. Some of the worst examples of allegations of insubordination during my 35 year career came from Left Wing Liberals with a personal agenda.

    “We expect such attacks to come from outside sources, such as right-wing pundits and Tea Party candidates.”

    I expect better from you than to let your personal political bias dominate your “column.”

  • robjenkins

    Where to begin?

    A) I wasn’t referring to allegations of insubordination in that passage. I was referring to attacks on tenure.
    B) This isn’t a column; it’s a blog post.
    C) One sentence in an 800-word post hardly constitutes “domination.”
    D) You don’t know anything about my “personal political bias,” and your assumptions in that regard are way off base. (See http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-conservative-case-for-tenure/?singlepage=true.)
    E) You find my “text. .  . personally offensive”? I suggest that you get over it.

    Rob

  • robjenkins

    As I think the comments above clearly demonstrate, that seems to depend on where you work.

  • armadillo_girl

    OMG, you talk about self-serving administrators?  Everything that faculty do is about self-serving…keeping their full-time salaries for doing part-time work, not being held accountable for anything, always blaming administrators for everything in order to keep the focus off of themselves.  And all the bad guys are right-wing and/or Tea Party activists?  That statement right there identifies you as one of the uber liberal left wingnuts who have your own agenda.  Get a life.  Quit assuming you have a right to a job. 

  • totoro

    I can’t see what is wrong with a Skype interview. Recently we interviewed two North American candidates by Skype here at my Go8 Australian University (where I’m a professor). I think it went very well. And at this university we can’t appoint candidates “by nomination” whatever that means. We advertise, have a search committee, interviews etc. We ask for referee letters after the interview though. We have to detail clearly to HR why each candidate who was rejected was rejected. Of course, some searches are targeting a particular candidate but the search is serious. There are of course appointments to research positions that aren’t advertised – for example if someone gets a Future Fellowship from the ARC.

  • stephen_said

    I was recently invited to a Skype interview during my job search.  Much to my shock, I didn’t have the equipment.   I am a self-described gadget guru, and was more than embarrassed when I couldn’t immediately accept the interview.  I did a phone interview initially, was invited for a second interview.  I withdrew my application for personal reasons.  But now I am prepared!

    I don’t think that there is anything wrong with a Skype interview, in this market, ANY opportunity that I can have to present my skills and experience it fine by me!  Honestly, I have been honing my Morse Code Telegraphy skills just in case!  .– …. .- - . …- . .-. /  .. - /  - .- -.- . …  yup I’m a nerd! paste it here to see what it says…http://morsecode.scphillips.com/jtranslator.html

  • jculibrarian

    The money saved by such interviews is certainly an incentive to try them.

  • nickfolger

    Last October, we had a Virtual Job Summit, essentially an online job fair for graduate level scientists, using live video chat and video interviews.  Employers were really enthusiastic about it because they were able to meet candidates from many geographies.  Since finding a skills match can be difficult, the geographic extension was valuable.
    Employers had five minute chats to answer questions and determine skills fit, then interviewed at length later to get an assessment of culture fit.  Clearly, employers aren’t going to hire without seeing candidates in person, but it worked well for outreach, greatly boosting their confidence in the people they then invested in for in-person interviews.
    If you’re interested in learning more, you’ll find info on the biocareers.com site.

  • raymond_j_ritchie

    (1)  Critical question.  Did you appoint them?  I bet you did not otherwise you would have proudly said so.  How many academics have you met that got their jobs through a telephone interview?  I have never met one. My case rests. 
    (2) My opinion of telephone interviews is based on my own experience.  None I ever had felt genuine.  Of course, if I had ever got a job through one my opinion would be dfferent.
    (3) I have years and years of experience in an Australian G8 university.  Appointments by nomination are going on.  No ads, search committees, interviews, referees reports or presentations. My G8 university is old enough to have a charter that gives it the right to appoint by nomination – they do not have to advertise or use a competitive process to appoint people. Often it is through part-time and casual positions and contract lectureships being quietly turned into permanent academic positions and ARC post-doc fellows being appointed to permanent positions before the end of their fellowships. The net result is appointment to permanent positions without advertisement or competitive selection or much oversight.  I too thought appointments without advertisement and a competitive selection process were something that happened back in the 19th century. The change has happened quietly in the last 15 years or so.  I was an Australian Research Fellow post-doc in the 1990′s.  At the time the possibilty of being offered a permanent job as a result of holding an ARF never crossed my mind.  I knew that things like that did not happen. However, that is exactly what is happening now.  No-one seems to notice.

  • voltaire75

    Absolutely the way to go. Going to AHA, MLA etc is wasteful, stressful and pointless. It is also immoral to expect broke applicants to pay @ $100 for a small possibility of a job…

  • totoro

    I’ve been on search committees. The Director of the School eventually made the decision. We just offered two candidates jobs based on Skype interviews. OTOH both had previously visited our university 1-2 years ago. Those were the two candidates that I thought were the best in the pool. The truth is that we didn’t interview anyone else. But we certainly reviewed all the other applications. I think we should be doing more of these Skype interviews for each search. I haven’t noticed appointments without advertising in my school but don’t know exactly what happens elsewhere in the university. This might apply to Future Fellow positions as applications explicitly have to state how the FF will be integrated into the university at the end of the FF. Of course, no-one has completed an FF yet. Also the vast majority of our FFs were already working at this university before getting the FF.

  • rhoccrim

    It seems to me a key is layering and interpretation. Skype interviews are becoming the norm throughout the business world. A middle level manager for a professional baseball team recently told me that his very traditional management team has recently started Skype interviews for staff positions throughout their farm system. The layering is that Skype interviews are but one part of the process. As phone interviews, references, pre screening profiles and skill assessments, etc. give a “picture” of the candidate [pun intended] you create a richer communication medium with Skype interviews allowing you to see reactions. You can gain greater confidence in culling the field to who comes to campus with webcam interviews.
    At issue, however, is the interpretation of the visuals. The camera reveals but it also lies. Video interview presentation capabilities are not something that many seasoned, upper management types have developed. The camera exaggerates movements and exemplifies facial expressions that can easily be misinterpreted. Something as simple as the misplacement of a camera that appears to “violate” personal space dictums or a lighting issue can be read negatively. I coached an interviewee before a Skype interview for a professional job she applied for. The practice session revealed her animated movements in the camera’s field made her appear as if she suffered from an untreated hyperactivity. The savvy communicators on the hiring committee need to use the technology for its positive input without over reacting or over interpreting what is gleaned from the new technology. You don’t want to hire someone who is good on camera but not in person.  

  • rhoccrim

    I have been hired at a University based on a phone interview. Due to some extenuating circumstances at the university, they used an extensive vetting process of background confirmation and references then the phone interview where they were able to clarify information revealed in the vetting process. One of 8 finalists, they hired 2 of us from the pool. Its 2 years and counting and working out well on all sides.