The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

Qualified enthusiasm

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 04-25-03 15:56

A poll of the public by The Chronicle found widespread backing for American higher education, with respondents praising the quality of education that they and/or their children received. But the poll also found that members of the public are skeptical of the policies of colleges on a range of issues, including college costs, affirmative action, tenure, and athletics. How should academics respond to the results of the poll? Does the poll indicate areas where colleges should change their policies or priorities, or how they explain themselves to the public? Read more ...

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: Sriram Khe, Associate Professor/Western Oregon U.
Date: 04-28-03 11:57

i am particularly troubled by the attitude shift towards the nature of higher education: that higher ed is not a public good, but is a private good that should be paid for by students and/or their families.

this depsite the larger understanding that higher ed is a guaranteed passprt to a middle class life. if higher ed is indeed a path to middle class life, but may not be accessible to those who may not be able to pay for it, well, won't it have disproportionate impacts? won't it erode the equality of opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

it is this philosophical shift that worries me. tenure, general ed., athletics, etc., are secondary issues.

it does appear that higher ed, which used to be state-funded, and then state-assisted, is fast on its way to becoming state-independent and private-funded. am not sure if this is a road we should take ...

oh well, ...

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: Patrick Juola
Date: 04-28-03 12:59

I don't think the "larger understanding" necessarily holds any more; only about half of the respondents feel that a four-year degree is needed for success in society, or that their own degree was "very important" to their success.

In other words, the assumption that higher-ed is THE ticket to middle-class life doesn't appear to be universal. For someone who believes there are other or better ways to get a nice life, the idea of state-funded universal education loses a lot of its appeal....

Frankly, the fact that higher ed is no longer perceived as the ticket to the middle class worries me more than questions of funding.

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: Christopher Strode/East Tennessee State University
Date: 04-28-03 15:03

In my experience, at a regional state funded institution, going to college and obtaining a degree is viewed as a "means to an end".

However, when the end result doesn't meet their expectations, the value of their educational experience is viewed as worthless. This education, everyone kept telling them to obtain, wasn't their ticket into the middle class, and has left them with no job, or a job they thought they wouldn't have to take after completing their college degree.

Somewhere in meeting Gen. Ed core requirements, major core requirements, filing intents to graduate, poor advisment, their experiences in college have been forgotten, and the positive experiences outside the classroom have been forgotten.

Nevertheless, in the end they are at our universities to learn and to graduate with skills and a knowledge base that will help them be better employees, citizens, etc.

Maybe, we need to help the students to understand that; no, you may not be able to obtain the $50,000 a year job with a Sociology Degree straight out of college, but the educational experience, and growth that will come out of this degree will help you advance your position in life, as well as your career.

Then again, maybe we need to think about the story that is being told to students about the college experience and working world, from us and other professionals, to help them balance their expectations.

Dr. Sriram Khe's comments

Author: Patrick Jung, Adjunct
Date: 04-28-03 15:59

Dr. Khe's comments caught my eye, particularly the statement:

"i am particularly troubled by the attitude shift towards the nature of higher education: that higher ed is not a public good, but is a private good that should be paid for by students and/or their families."

I think it was few colloquies ago that we debated whether students are "coddled" or not. One the threads that emerged in that discussion is that students (and their parents) tend to see higher education as a good, and themselves as "customers" who can shop around and look for the best educational deal.

On the other hand, most of us professors tend see higher education as means of enriching both the society and the individual. That is why the Liberal Arts plays so central a role in undergraduate education.

It would appear that this gap in perceptions is at the root of many problems, but it is hardly new. Indeed, when I received my undergraduate degree in the 1980s, I cannot say that it was much different for me or my contemporaries. As an 18-year old, I went to college because I wanted to learn a vocation, not to receive the bountiful gifts that a Liberal Arts education bestows upon young undergrads. Of course, I changed my tune when I got to college, and I left with a tremendous appreciation of the Liberal Arts. I was so transformed, in fact, that I pursued an academic vocation.

Nevertheless, I think most of us would have to admit that most students are not transformed by the Liberal Arts as much as we would like them to be, and they leave the university with the same idea with which they entered; that the purpose of a university education is to secure and insure a comfortable job and upward mobility.

What can we do about it? Well, that is the $64,000 question. The tremendous expansion of universities in the twentieth century came at a price, namely the growth of business schools, professional and pre-professional programs, and other vocational curricula at the expense of the Liberal Arts.

Now, the problem is that even this watered down curriculum is getting to be more difficult for those persons on the lower socio-economic rungs to attain.

As Dr. Khe concludes:

"it does appear that higher ed, which used to be state-funded, and then state-assisted, is fast on its way to becoming state-independent and private-funded. i am not sure if this is a road we should take"

Given the current fiscal and budget crises in virtually every state, I would conclude that we, as academics, do not have much power to change this rather bleak reality.

Poll support Higher Education Change movement

Author: James W. Mello & Associates
Date: 04-28-03 16:25

The poll supports and validities the work of the consulting practice: James W. Mello & Associates, Higher Education Consulting (see http://www.jameswmello.com).

Higher education organizations experience difficulty changing their business processes. Tuition expenses are out-of-control because university administrators are generally risk averse, do not like to update thirty plus year old business processes and are not compensated for risk-taking and exploration. This is a governance issue as much as a HR compensation issue.

Furthermore, colleges and universities are not under the scrutiny of public organizations such as the 'SEC' and there are few 'watch-dog' groups to keep them honest and efficient. Each year, we see tuition increases outpacing inflation. Who pays for poor management? Students of today and tomorrow are forced to take on great debts in order to pay for inefficiencies that could be easily remedied. If you are interested in improving the state of higher education in America, I implore you to contact via email: james@jameswmello.com for additional information on consulting practice focused on higher education issues. Find out how you can become an agent of change at your institution.

A mixed message

Author: Sherman Dorn, Associate Professor/U. South Florida
Date: 04-29-03 01:23

The claim of a clear trend in attitudes about whether higher education is a public good or a private good is overstated. Yes, the Chronicle poll suggests the population wants students to pay more of the costs than the public (or than happened in the past), but the poll also suggests that those responding to the poll want colleges and universities to pay attention to general education and such public-good functions as teacher education.

The article had two very interesting assumptions: (1) university presidents are primarily those responsible for educating the public about higher education and (2) the poll questions about affirmative action and tenure are good gauges of public opinion on those policies as a whole.

(1) University administrators are not the only ones who can educate the public about colleges and universities. Faculty are better equipped to talk about their research and teaching, and administrators have done a poor job, on the whole, of educating the public in the era of the multiversity. They're hired to raise funds and manage huge enterprises, not defend the core principles of higher education. Well, yes, putatively they're also hired to defend the core principles, but that's not what makes the difference for most of them between being hired and not.

(2) As Robert O'Neil notes (as quoted in the article), the questions in the poll are sometimes awfully phrased. There is no indication that the poll used alternative wordings to gauge whether the results were an artifact of the question itself (a basic requirement in good polling, from what I understand). I can think of several alternative questions on tenure, each of which has a different slant:

"Should faculty be protected from political retribution and being fired for writing and teaching about controversial subjects?"

"Should faculty who are paid less when compared to those with similar educational credentials have more job security in compensation for the loss of income?"

"Should colleges and universities continue to reward productive faculty with a guarantee of due process within the institution once they demonstrate that they are good teachers and writers?"

"Can you describe a better system for defending academic freedom than tenure?"

And this question, directed to the moderator: will The Chronicle use alternative question phrasing on future polls?

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: Jack Longmate; Adjunct English Instructor; Olympic College; Bremerton, Washington
Date: 04-29-03 01:37

To the question, "How should academics respond?" to the erosion of respect and public funding for higher education, we must recognize this trend for what it. As the country with the greatest income disparity between rich and poor, placing a greater burden on families to pay rising tuition is a dangerous step away from the American dream of equality and egalitarianism and democracy and a step toward elitism.

One poster observes that there's not much hope "to change this rather bleak reality." But we don't know until we try. And those who believe that higher education's task of educating our youth and providing the means for socio-economic mobility of our citizens is vital for a democratic society should be trying.

We are not alone. Washington Governor Gary Locke recently defended a bill providing a tuition break, saying, "... a college education is part of the American dream."

One opportunity for higher education to affirm the principles of equity is Campus Equity Week, October 27-31, 2003, sponsored by a host of major disciplinary associations and unions (http://CEWAction.org). The aim is to highlight the lack of equity in the academic workplace.

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: John Garner
Date: 04-29-03 10:02

"There are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics"

...Mark Twain...

It seems to me that at least one of the questions on this poll are worded to solicit a particular response from those polled. I think that the question about "...a job for life..." is a loaded question in that whoever made this poll knew in advance what the typical response would be.

The respons to a question like...

" Do you think that Tenure is needed to protect Professors from Political and Administrative influence regarding their political positions? "

...would have gotten a positive response with the majority of respondents.

It is commonly known as a "Loaded question."

The second issue here is that should the opinion of the public and the government influence the direction of academe?

Given the "Ivory Tower" reputation that is fostered upon academe in general, this question is typical of the type of arguments that academe has grappled with for years.

I think that academe has its own expectations to meet. Then, after we are happy with ourselves, we can worry about the perceptions of the public and government.

One thing is sure. As a rule, when the public or government needs brains, thinkers, ideas, scientists and people who are generally competent in a given field of expertise, they do not run an ad in a newspaper, on television or on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: tom abeles, editor, On the Horizon
Date: 04-29-03 15:19

i believe that one of the United States' founding fathers said something like, "I study war so my children can study engineering and their children can study arts and literature. In many ways the idea of the luxury of a liberal education has been transformed in society's mind, much like the cargo cults of the Pacific where it is seen that those who graduated from a university entered an "elite" income sector.

Today that "illusion" may be somewhat tarnished even though the statistics seem to indicate that the college experience yields a significant return. Robert Bates Graber, in his essay, Valuing Useless Knowledge, suggested that the last words that a parent wanted to hear from the mouth of a returning freshman were liberal studies major".

Somewhere along the line, The Academy has to come to grips with this schizophrenia as it does with its own internal issues regarding teaching as a tenurable vocation as opposed to the recent introduction of research/publish/perish as the principle route to academic survival.

Perhaps we need to see that K-12 education is now K-16 and the responsibilities of the HEI's needs to realign themselves to the new realities, particularly now that many students are able to translate courses taught by high school faculty into the equivalent of that offered by university faculty. Maybe the latter need to also be certified?

Perhaps the issues are more with the academics' perception of The Academy based on a past that never was and a future that may never be?

Re: James Mello and Associates and the poll...

Author: John Garner
Date: 04-29-03 17:42

Quote:

"Higher education organizations experience difficulty changing their business processes. Tuition expenses are out-of-control because university administrators are generally risk averse, do not like to update thirty plus year old business processes and are not compensated for risk-taking and exploration. This is a governance issue as much as a HR compensation issue."

Blaming academe for the restrictions that have been placed upon it by government through State and Federal legislation, bureaucracy and public expectations in general are examples of blaming the illness on the victim.

This is but one more area in society at large where the evils of profit at any expense will result in the lowering of standards. Lame excuses such as "education is too expensive" or "education is too wasteful" or "fill in the blank _____" ... ad nauseum are typical of those attempting to make institutions that are conceived and perpetuated for the good of society through tax dollars turn a profit.

I have watched medical facilities go from being places of healing and mercy to places of technology and profit in a short 30 years. While some technology is necessary and irreplaceable in modern medical care, in more cases than I want to think about it is being used to prolong death just to generate a profit. They use a "Ethics Committee" to make life and death decisions, but usually they do not call them in until the money dries up.

SO, if you want to see the same thing happen in education, just start trying to generate large profits like private corporations are doing.

I saw the best and brightest that business had to offer on the 6 o'clock News last night. One was fined 30 million dollars and BANNED from trading on the New York Stock for life. Another one was fined 4 million dollars.

I have witnessed massive medicaid and medicare fraud at the corporate level in medical corporations with CEO's fired and lower level management given suspended sentences.

SO, if you want this for academe just go ahead and try to make it generate profits. Go ahead and make it accountable to money generating formulas and so forth. Just see what you get in 30 years or so.

I am sure that then nobody will like education but the people who get rich from it.

But do it anyway. Just DO IT! Justify it any way that you like.

It is truly as Mark Twain told us...

"...there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics..."

Lies, Damned Lies. . . .

Author: Anonymous
Date: 04-30-03 12:26

The points made on the phrasing of the tenure question are excellent ones. Tenure is a form of compensation and should be seen as such. Often the same people who complain about a tenured History professor who makes $45,000 and works 65 hours a week think nothing of a hip replacement surgeon charging thousands of dollars per hour or a middling lawyer charging hundreds per hour. The lawyer has three years of post-baccalaureate education and the surgeon four, plus internship and residency. The History Ph.D. takes, on average 8-12 years to complete (at great personal sacrifice, not just in reduced income but in deferred income) and in a research university the History professor must demonstrate currency in the field and the ability to advance knowledge. He or she may well have been hired from a pool of hundreds of applicants and the quantity and quality of his or her work is constantly scrutinized and reviewed by students, senior colleagues, reviewers, pre-publication reviewers, and funding agencies.

Part of the problem: the education lobby is the weakest and least effective in Washington. By and large it only knows how to ask for things and not how to explain education's inherent value. The institutes, centers and related educational organizations seldom say anything worth hearing and generally just drone on about the same things (technology! internationalization!) or the same old things (more respect for teaching!), though there is an occasional notable exception such as Chancellor-emeritus David Ward at ACE. More often than not the individuals in such organizations have either never been in classrooms, research libraries or laboratories or have not visited them in a great while. Also, the educational establishment tends to be farther to the left than the American mainstream and focuses on issues which are more peripheral to the general public (e.g. the comfort level of international graduate students vs. the curing of major diseases or the development of public policy to combat major disfunctionalities in our society, such as illegitimacy or addiction). This further reduces their effectiveness, since they appear to "care about" different things than the average person does. They do care about mainstream issues also, of course, but what the general public often perceives is that the academy can be galvanized by issues such as transgendered student support services while seemingly out of touch with issues which affect a far larger number of lives and communities.

Finally, many discussions of higher education tend to lump its constituent elements together with little sensitivity to the fact that the system is rigorously tiered. Once you get below the top 100 national universities (sometimes below the top 75 or so) you have, basically, open admissions. "Selective" and other terms used are quite exaggerated. Hence, discussions of "access" often ring hollow. (The fact that the rolling back of affirmative action policies has meant that a larger portion of minority students is now at UC-Riverside rather than UC-Berkeley should not necessarily result in knee-jerk complaints. UC-Riverside is a great institution, one of the top institutions in the world and some minority students might actually attain greater success there. The fact that there are fewer minority students at Berkeley does not mean that they are being denied higher education at premier institutions. The general public understands this--since most of its sons and daughters have not had the opportunity to go to schools of either Berkeley or Riverside's quality. Again, the "access" issue must be seen with more nuance and greater attention to the concerns of all.) If cost is the problem there is a full network of community colleges to provide initial entry into the system and an opportunity to prove yourself. There are exceptions; it is difficult to gain access to veterinary schools and the service academies, for example, and a student who does not have good grades and the motivation to study may find that schools with wide-open doors do not have wide-open financial aid coffers in his or her case. To the average person that is not necessarily unjust.

What do we do best? From the behavior of international students and the awarding of Nobel and other prizes, it is clear (and has been for years, though Australia and New Zealand have been working hard to cut into the international student market) that we excel at graduate education and research. Once again, that is part of our tiered system and the reputation is carried by approximately 100 institutions out of 4,000+.

What the American people need is what we all always need: hard facts and common sense. If all understood higher education at a reasonably mature level we could address its problems and enhance its accomplishments. At bottom, I fear, there is a gross and devastating misconception that higher education is rather simple and straightforward and can be run by anyone and altered for the good by simple administrative changes in such areas as purchasing. I knew an individual, a non-practicing lawyer who had worked in Dupont Circle educational agencies, who told me that it was her goal to be a university president. She had never taught and she had never done research. She had no line administrative experience whatsoever. At the time I had over 15 years of line administrative experience and had come up through the academic ranks at a top-20 research university. I asked her what she would think about my seeking a position as a managing partner in a major New York or Washington law firm. She said that that would be absurd, since I was not a lawyer. I will never be (deo gracias) a managing partner in a law firm, but people such as her are regularly appointed to college presidencies. And many are so appointed who have no educational experience whatsoever. What does that say about society's (or boards of trustees') appreciation of the nature and complexity of the educational task?

It is true, of course, that some institutions (Harvard is a notable example) have enough budgetary room to spill resources and cling to decentralized structures and mechanisms that result in obvious inefficiencies. But then medical doctors characteristically seek separate administrative structures in universities and separate officers' clubs in the military and have no problem with a compensation system in which some practitioners make 25X more than other health professionals while many of the presidents and chancellors at billion dollar-budget research universities make only 2X the salaries of professors. Let's not even talk about corporate America here or lawyers, but let's note that they generally hit the bottom in "confidence" surveys, while universities (that seem to get bludgeoned by nearly everyone) are near the top and the military (which is subject to searching criticism) is, in this most recent survey, at the very top.

The far right longs for a past that never was and the far left longs for a future that will never be. Let us look closely at our present condition, salvage some of the lessons of the past, and look to the pressing needs of the present and future and do our work (and use our precious dues to hire individuals who understand that work and can explain it to our fellow citizens).

Anonymous on Lies, Damned Lies....

Author: Int'l Grad Student
Date: 04-30-03 22:53

Dear Anonymous,

I take it that as an American [?] scholar, you are justifiably proud of the fact that so many international students choose to come to American universities for graduate studies. I find your comments below most interesting.

"Also, the educational establishment tends to be farther to the left than the American mainstream and focuses on issues which are more peripheral to the general public (e.g. the comfort level of international graduate students vs. the curing of major diseases or the development of public policy to combat major disfunctionalities in our society, such as illegitimacy or addiction)."

What gives you the impression that American research universities devote significantly more attention to the 'comfort level' of international grad students than to that of our American colleagues?

"From the behavior of international students and the awarding of Nobel and other prizes, it is clear (and has been for years, though Australia and New Zealand have been working hard to cut into the international student market) that we excel at graduate education and research. "

So what exactly is your beef with all these international students who vote with their feet to come study at the excellent American universities?

Re: Lies, Damned Lies....

Author: Anon Again
Date: 05-01-03 08:21

Well ... speaking as a lawyer ...

I've taught post-graduate students, demanding post graduate students. On a nine point scale I averaged student feedback at 8.5.

I've published. Over forty articles.

From my perspective, comparing being a lawyer to the academic stuff, the academic work was a piece of cake.

When you make the comment "The lawyer has three years of post-baccalaureate education and the surgeon four, plus internship and residency. " you are leaving out a great deal.

The surgeon comes out of a progam far more demanding and far more competitive than the educator. And that is as compressed as it can be.

I see people getting PhDs in three years. You won't see a surgeon's program compressed any more than it currently is. I also hire PRN general practice docs at sixty dollars an hour (which would be thirty an hour if we were hiring them as employees). Any of which had better test scores and grades that the run of the mill PhDs at UC Riverside.

As for the lawyers, lots of them are paid worse than adjuncts. Yes, at the top, once you discard the lies hiring committees tell the press, some make a great deal of money, working eighty hours a week, fifty-one weeks a year. As the Wall Street Journal article on the Harvard Class of 85 noted, after ten years, none of them had the legal equivilent of tenure at their starting institution after ten years. NONE. And it isn't until they survive through to the partnership track that they really count.

I'm tired of academics that whine when they realize that their training isn't sufficient to be competitive. It should send a message that a lawyer with the right contacts and experience could expect to make the move she did to become a university president.

It should also tell you something about the "research" that history PhDs are doing.

When is the last time a PhD in History changed the way reality was? I've changed the law in the state where I live.

Sure, as far as I can tell, it is possible for a professor to fill up their time with make-work, but if they are competent, it shouldn't take that much time.

Consider the classes I taught. Both for the first time, both where I provided specific handout material for every class, feedback and assignments for every class, and class notes for the students after every class (so they could compare them with their own notes to verify that they had gotten out of the class what I was intending to teach).

It took about an hour or so outside of class to prepare for each hour in class, and about half an hour afterwards for follow-up.

If I were to teach the same class a second time, it would take a great deal less time (since I would have already read the text books, etc.).

Most lawyers who have taught have the same experience.

Which is why they have the attitude they have about educators, which bleeds over when they are involved with other lawyers in the legislature. It is a legitimate attitude towards PhDs.

Especially those who are so dismissive of lawyers.

Look who is winning out in head to head competition.

Should teach you a lesson.

Since you haven't learned it ....

Confessions of an Adjunct

Author: Patrick Jung
Date: 05-01-03 11:40

I found several of "Anon Again's" comments to be very interesting. Particularly:

"I'm tired of academics that whine when they realize that their training isn't sufficient to be competitive.... It should also tell you something about the "research" that history PhDs are doing. When is the last time a PhD in History changed the way reality was? I've changed the law in the state where I live."

Anon Again makes a few very provocative statements that, I must confess, apply to me. I am one of the many people in this world who could not get an academic appointment after receiving my doctoral degree in history. While I do not see myself as completely out of the game yet, my chances of securing an academic appointment become more remote as the years go by.

My personal reasons for wanting to secure an academic appointment are uncannily similar to those that Anon Again cites; so I can have the time and resources to do research into the topics that I love and publish my research in journals and books, and to teach, which I also love.

Does historical research change the world? No, it does not. However, that does not mean it has no worth. It may not change the world the way a legal precedent can, but historical research certainly enriches our world.

Now, getting back to the focus of this colloquy, it is this aspect of the academic world that the general public does not especially support. Most Americans certainly see the value of good teaching (since that is usually the main consideration in choosing an educational institution), and they also see the value of research in the physical sciences and in medicine. However, they simply do not see the value of researching the lives of medieval women in France (or most other historical topics, to include those that I research).

This explains, of course, why there is considerably more funding available from government agencies and private foundations for scientific and medical research than for historical research; our society simply values the former far more than the latter. And, again, while I agree with Anon Again that historical research does not change the world (at least not very often), it certainly does enrich it, and that is important in it own right.

I also agree that it does not help for academics in the social sciences and humanities to whine about the fact that their colleagues who teach chemistry, medicine, and law make more money and get considerably larger grants than they do. The general public and the marketplace which it has created value chemistry, medicine, and law more than history or literature. That is the reality.

Nevertheless, (an here comes the "confession" part) I would give my right arm for an academic appointment because it sure beats what I do now in the nonprofit sector as a development officer. Here, I actually have to work, 50 weeks out of the year (no summers off or Christmas breaks), 9 hours a day. There is constant pressure to find more money, and if you cannot find it, your career is in serious jeopardy. As Anon Again states, "From my perspective, comparing being a lawyer to the academic stuff, the academic work was a piece of cake." When considering my own situation, I would paraphrase this statement to say, "From my perspective, comparing being a development officer to the academic stuff, the academic work is a piece of cake."

I would much rather secure an academic appointment because it would give me the time and freedom to do the research that I love, to teach, and, best of all, there would a whole lot less workplace pressure. The only downside would be financial. I currently make more than a full professor, and I have not even come close to reaching the top tier of the pay scale in the development profession.

I only get to taste the academic world in my capacity as an adjunct, which I love doing far more than trying to raise money in the nonprofit sector.

It is that perception among the general public--that an academic position is a "cushy job"--that fuels much of the resentment against higher education. I am guilty of it as well. Indeed, it the reason I wanted to go into academe in the first place.

As a final note, Anon Again is only talking about a fraction of the graduate student population he (or she) writes, "I see people getting PhDs in three years. You won't see a surgeon's program compressed any more than it currently is." It took me seven and half years to get a Ph.D., and that was working full tilt, everyday, and not taking any time away from my studies. I never met anyone who received their Ph.D. in three years.

ANON (arrogant?) Again...

Author: John Garner
Date: 05-01-03 14:14

Dear Anon Again,

I am curious as to why you find it necessary to be anonymous.

Perhaps it is because you are ashamed of what you have to say. If had I said what you just said I know that I would be ashamed.

Quote...

"I see people getting PhDs in three years. You won't see a surgeon's program compressed any more than it currently is. I also hire PRN general practice docs at sixty dollars an hour (which would be thirty an hour if we were hiring them as employees). Any of which had better test scores and grades that the run of the mill PhDs at UC Riverside."

It seems to me that the Doctors are working awfully cheap for you. Have they ever practiced before? I know an Emergency Room service that would be glad to have them if they were competent at about double your PRN rate.

One thing is sure. You are not hiring surgeons for $60.00 an hour and I certainly would not want one of them operating on anyone that I knew if you were.

Most Family practice docs make in excess of 85k per year their first year. That is before their practice really takes off. Maybe you are just lucky. Or, perhaps they are unlucky. Or, maybe these doctors are working their way through a residency.

In addition, you say that...

"As for the lawyers, lots of them are paid worse than adjuncts..."

This is nothing to brag about. Exploitation to this extent is usually rare in academe. It happens occasionally in Medicine but older attorneys are notorious for the exploitation of younger attorneys. It is a food chain thing with them. Like sharks.

You say that...

"...Yes, at the top, once you discard the lies hiring committees tell the press, some make a great deal of money, working eighty hours a week, fifty-one weeks a year."

Of course, not all of them are working hours like they claim that they are in the large law firms because the back-breaking, mind-bending work is being done by the young law "partners" ("partners"?, that's a laugh) They generally have a bad habit of exploiting junior "partners" in the larger law practices.

I have a nephew who is an attorney. He is a nice fellow and not arrogant as you are. He is an Administrative Law Judge for the state of Illinois. He collects "lawyer jokes" as a hobby. He is an Eagle Scout and our family is very proud of him.

He started his career by being exploited by a large law firm. We have had a lot of talks about ethics and the Law profession. It is odd indeed that so much discussion can occur about a subject with that seems to have such a small content, but as you know, legal does not mean ethical.

You say that ...

"When is the last time a PhD in History changed the way reality was? I've changed the law in the state where I live."

Well...,

I have had a newborn baby die in my hands while I was attempting to x-ray him. I have had patients who have died between the PA and Lateral views of a Chest x-ray examination and I have revived the dead with CPR and mouth to mouth resuscitation. I am a Radiologic Technologist, not a doctor or a lawyer.

Your point is....?

Your arrogance in dealing with colleagues who are Historians is inexcusable. Especially in light of the fact that in a thousand years or two most of what attorneys were like today will be known because of what will have been written by historians. Maybe you should think this one over and become a historian next.

Perhaps what disturbs me the most about you is not your attitude. It is that you are a apparently a teacher and that you are shaping minds with the philosophy of "...I had to (do it) (put up with it) (whatever) so they should have to, also."

You are perpetuating what has hurt you in life the most. That is abusive personalities like your own.

Academics and reality

Author: David Foster
Date: 05-01-03 14:21

AnonAgain says.."When is the last time a PhD in History changed the way reality was? I've changed the law in the state where I live.."

Work done by historians *certainly* has an impact on "the way reality is." Many statesmen (and their staffs) read significant amounts of history. The recent actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were, almost certainly, a consequence of history-based conclusions drawn by Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, President Bush, and others in the administration.

The same principle applies to many other aspects of academic work. A professor of electrical engineering may conduct an esoteric study of, say, "the phenomenon of metastability in bistable logic circuits." Five years later, designs influenced by this study show up inside your laptop computer. "Changing the way reality is" is a multistage process. It's not just the people at the final stages of the process who should be credited.

The problem with academia is *not* that there is too much "pure" or "impractical" work. It is that there is too much *bad* work, in which the reality is contorted to fit the fashionable theories of the moment. I for one would be happy to have more academics studying the lives of medieval women in France (to use Patrick Jung's example)--if these academics were making a serious attempt to truly understand these lives and their contexts--rather than force-fitting these lives into someone's theory.

photoncourier.blogspot.com

Int'l Student & Lawyer

Author: Anonymous
Date: 05-02-03 08:56

Hello again,

To the international student: sorry, I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was opposed to int'l students. They are most welcome; they contribute immeasurably to our research and other educational efforts and interchanges with them help promote desperately needed international understanding. My point was made ineptly. What I had in mind was the fact that after 9/11 many academics were first concerned about backlashes against middle eastern students on campuses. That is a significant and important concern. I believe, however, that the more 'mainstream' concern, if you will, would be for the safety of the country and its citizens. The fact that the participants in 9/11 were middle eastern and had come, in some cases, as putative students was a fact of life. Thus, decency and fairness are necessities, but survival and self-protection are as well. The fact that the left tends to highlight some concerns rather than others (here and elsewhere) puts them out of synch with the mainstream and makes communication difficult. An example: the bumper sticker 'If you want peace, work for justice.' While this might be taken as a friendly suggestion it can also be taken as a threat. A more mainstream view would be that we want both peace and justice. How can we achieve both with a maximum of fairness and love in the process?

Now, our lawyer friend. Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, lawyers graduated with L.L.B. degrees. Now they graduate with J.D.'s. A law degree is an undergraduate degree. It may be taken post-graduate, but it is not preceded by a specific undergraduate major. In England, of course, physicians long received B.M.'s not M.D.'s and individuals in American medical centers still refer to the M.D. as the "undergraduate program" and the M.S. and Ph.D. as graduate programs. Lawyers do not write dissertations and they do not take comprehensive examinations. They do take the bar exam, but not in all states. At least one state that I know of permits graduates of its public university law school to practice within the state without taking the bar exam.

Law is the only area of academe, to my knowledge, where the journals are essentially edited and peer-reviewed by undergraduates. Think about that.

Many appointees to law school faculty positions expect to be hired at the associate professor level (this is common in top law schools)-- a reality of the market. Promotion dossiers of legal faculty tend to be relatively thin, certainly in comparison with the dossiers of other social science colleagues.

An L.L.B. (or 'J.D.') is not a research degree. It is completed in three years (nearly always) in lock step fashion. Ph.D.'s are completed when the research is completed. In the case of historians that frequently requires the acquisition of one or more foreign languages. It nearly always entails travel to repositories, often foreign repositories. These are facts. If you doubt them I invite anyone with significant research university experience to weigh in and confirm what I have said.

On a personal level, I have never met a Ph.D. in history who completed all of the requirements for the degree in three years after receipt of the baccalaureate and I have worked in higher education for 40 years. There may well be such people, but they are extremely rare. Our lawyer friend's flippant comment about UC-Riverside, an institution with Nobel laureates, national academy members and (in general) a first-rate faculty is, on its face, ignorant. As to having changed the world by being involved in creating state legislation--every human action changes the world to some degree. The question concerns the importance of the action and the extent to which it has ameliorated the human condition. I suggest that the lawyer check the survey which this colloquy concerns and note the degree of respect and confidence which lawyers and legislators enjoy.

Just for the record, I have never worked at UC-Riverside and my field is not history.

Re: ANON (arrogant?) Again...

Author: Anon Again
Date: 05-02-03 18:21

A couple of points.

First,

[quote]

My personal reasons for wanting to secure an academic appointment are uncannily similar to those that Anon Again cites; so I can have the time and resources to do research into the topics that I love and publish my research in journals and books, and to teach, which I also love.

Does historical research change the world? No, it does not. However, that does not mean it has no worth. It may not change the world the way a legal precedent can, but historical research certainly enriches our world.

[/quote]

I surely believe that history enriches the world. I loved A World Lit Only By Fire and am reading about the Sire of Courcey (sheesh, I'm not certain of the spelling by this late in the afternoon without the book here). You are 100% correct.

I'm not saying that there is no worth in history. I think there is a great deal.

Rather, I was responding to a poster's comments and, at the same time, perhaps more than a little more grouchy than I should have been.

But you are right that history, like science fiction or art or music enriches the world.

As for the next poster ...

John Garner wrote:

"Dear Anon Again, am curious as to why you find it necessary to be anonymous."

Because I believe that my points stand by themselves, though avoiding ad hom attacks is also a good reason. There are surely enough people who launch them.

"Perhaps [they] are ashamed"

Perhaps, but mostly I think they enjoy attacking people out of a surfit of self-righteousness.

of what you have to

"It seems to me that the Doctors are working awfully cheap for you. Have they ever practiced before?"

I'm hiring family practice docs and/or pediatricians to work for a volunteer children's clinic and others to work for a rape crisis center. They all have excellent skills and experience, but we offer them flexibility in hours and a good cause.

"One thing is sure. You are not hiring surgeons for $60.00 an hour"

Heck no. We all know that the surgeons cost around 2k to 3k an hour. Any surgeon who would work for $60.00 an hour that we would take might as well just donate the time for free.

"Or, maybe these doctors are working their way through a residency. "

No, I'm not taking unsupervised residents. Heck, they'd work for $30.00 an hour, as you probably know.

"In addition, you say that... 'As for the lawyers, lots of them are paid worse than adjuncts...' This is nothing to brag about."

I wasn't bragging. I meet kids out of second tier law schools who are getting $12k a year, without benefits. It makes me very, very sad.

"It is a food chain thing with them. Like sharks."

I'm not familiar with sharks getting little sharks to work like dogs for scraps and bring all the food home.

"that they are in the large law firms because the back-breaking, mind-bending work is being done by the young [associates is the word you were looking for]"

I was only discussing the adjunct and instructor food-chain position, sorry if I made you think I was referring to partners, non-equity, junior or otherwise.

"I have a nephew who is an attorney. He is a nice fellow and an Administrative Law Judge"

Need we say more about arrogance, both yours and his?

(and yes, since I'm posting this in context, it should be obvious that I'm playing with the quotes for the purpose of responding to the post in the tone it was written).

"Well..., I have had a newborn baby die in my hands while I was attempting to x-ray him."

I'm sorry. I've had a child die in my arms as well. I hope in this case you added nothing to the cause of death.

"and I have revived the dead with CPR and mouth to mouth resuscitation. I am a Radiologic Technologist, not a doctor or a lawyer. Your point is....?"

And I've done CPR that failed.

"Especially in light of the fact that in a thousand years or two most of what attorneys were like today will be known because of what will have been written by"

Economists and Sociologists. Quite, and popular novelists.

"Perhaps what disturbs me the most about you is not your attitude. It is that you are a apparently a teacher and that you are shaping minds with the philosophy of"

The world should be a better place and you can make it that way, but no one likes a whiner.

As for my personality, when was the last time you swore at anyone where anyone you worked with could hear it? When was the last time you raised your voice with anyone in your work environment? When was the last time you use a verbal violence or Satir mode?

I'm curious.

When was the last time you patched in (arrogant) into someone else's name or subject?

Re: Academics and reality

Author: Anon Again
Date: 05-02-03 18:23

"The problem with academia is *not* that there is too much "pure" or "impractical" work. It is that there is too much *bad* work, in which the reality is contorted to fit the fashionable theories of the moment. I for one would be happy to have more academics studying the lives of medieval women in France (to use Patrick Jung's example)--if these academics were making a serious attempt to truly understand these lives and their contexts--rather than force-fitting these lives into someone's theory. "

Ok.

That was an excellent reply and focuses well on what I should have said vs what I did say.

Of course much of the "bad work" is the result of the requirement to do research and to publish in order to obtain tenure. There really needs to be some adjustment there.

Re: Int'l Student & Lawyer

Author: Anon Again
Date: 05-02-03 18:42

[quote]

Now, our lawyer friend. Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, lawyers graduated with L.L.B. degrees. Now they graduate with J.D.'s. A law degree is an undergraduate degree. It may be taken post-graduate, but it is not preceded by a specific undergraduate major. In England, of course, physicians long received B.M.'s not M.D.'s and individuals in American medical centers still refer to the M.D. as the "undergraduate program" and the M.S. and Ph.D. as graduate programs. Lawyers do not write dissertations and they do not take comprehensive examinations. They do take the bar exam, but not in all states. At least one state that I know of permits graduates of its public university law school to practice within the state without taking the bar exam.

Law is the only area of academe, to my knowledge, where the journals are essentially edited and peer-reviewed by undergraduates. Think about that.

[/quote]

Well, you make some points. And yes, in Wisconsin graduates of that state's law schools are not required to sit for the Wisconsin bar on the thesis that graduating from the school and passing the exams therein should be proof of having learned the material without the necessity of taking another test. An interesting idea.

And an interesting way to transition into the idea that the bar exam really isn't a comprehensive exam and that it really isn't generally required. Misleading, but interesting.

However ... a Ph.D. in business generally takes about three years or so and like a Ph.D. in economics does not require an undergraduate in business or economics.

An M.D. requires about four and a half years of prerequisit undergaduate training. To state that it is essentially a bachelor's level degree is misleading in the extreme.

You overstate and mistate a lot.

Much like your stating that law reviews are essentially edited and peer-reviewed by undergraduates. The reality is that graduate students with extensive, hands-on supervision by faculty do the grunt work in editing and reviewing law review articles. There have been some interesting comparisons of law reviews ("law journals") and those in other fields concerning the depth of review and the amount of work that goes into editing and fact checking the articles. If you are familiar with the literature and the reality, you are guilty of gross misrepresentation. If you are not familiar with the literature, you are merely ignorant.

[quote]

not preceded by a specific undergraduate major

[/quote]

Which does not an undergraduate degree make. Long ago and far away most "doctors" were not required to have graduated from high school. Does that make a current historian a prep school graduate? Show some respect for the historical process.

Oh, but you are not an historian, merely someone who likes to misuse history.

[quote]

flippant comment about UC-Riverside

[/quote]

Actually, check the math on medical student admits and PhD admits for standardized test scores and GPAs. I guess I sounded flippant, but check the math.

Given your derison of MDs as really undergraduates, check the pre-reqs for the PhD program of your choice vs the level of pre-reqs for an MD program. Assuming a surgeon, check the intern, residency and fellowship programs and time to graduation vs. a PhD in your comparison of choice.

Take the time to do more than take cheap shots, the old and worn out cheap shots, btw, and check the math, read the literature and learn something.

Justify yourself as an academic.

You've had forty years of experience.

[quote]

Ph.D. in history who completed all of the requirements for the degree in three years after receipt of the baccalaureate and I have worked in higher education for 40 years.

[/quote]

Hmm, interesting comment. If you move to "you would no longer, not in the last twenty years, find a PhD in History who finished the PhD within three years of a BA unless they had extensive pre-graduation foundation work" you might have something there.

Of course my case I was talking about was a published state supreme court opinion from a pro bono case I took.

BTW, my reference was not to legislation. How much legislation really makes a difference in any one person's life? Specific cases can and do, even if they involve making major changes in state law or persuading a court to do so.

///////////////

Anyway, back to the real topic.

Yes, people like to grouse about lawyers, but they often feel the need for one.

Yes, people will claim to respect university professors, but it is rare they feel that they need their research and they are generally upset to discover that most university professors appear not to have been trained to teach, not to value teaching and not to make it the focus of their carreers.

Anyway, that is the real topic.

Interesting comment on the same topic

Author: Steve Marsh
Date: 05-02-03 23:32

I read a lot of the posts, and as a lawyer I'm almost afraid to post here, but I thought I'd quote from the Volokh Conspiracy:

Quote:

BATTLE ROYALE OVER THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: Following Jacob Levy's links, I winced, I physically winced, while I was reading Megan McArdle's broadside against the humanities and all of social sciences save economics. Megan's basic argument is that economics relies on "the scientific mindset" while the other fields do not. Megan's comments page has prompted even more extreme rhetoric, such as this lovely passage from one David Thomson:

The Ph.D. is largely the degree of the intellectual slut. One usually must be a whore who has little self respect and integrity. Do I offend anybody? Tough, that's just the cold reality of the matter.

As someone who's had graduate-level training in both economics and political science, I could write a long disquisition on why Megan and David are mostly wrong about the social sciences, but Henry Farrell and Kieran Healy have done much of the hard work.

I will mildly defend Megan on one aspect of her argument -- methodology in the humanities. Scholars working on close textual analyses of Shakespeare's works rely on a different analytical tool kit than the social scientist -- as they should. However, a lot of recent research in in the humanities focuses on non-conventional forms of literature -- personal diaries, dated textbooks, old self-help manuals, or other examples of "found" literature.

I don't argue that these documents aren't worthy of serious analysis -- they are. It's just that much of this analysis boils down to either social history or cultural sociology -- in other words, social science. Many humanities scholars lack the methodological training to do this kind of analysis properly, and so, as a result, they produce work that is inferior to what a historian, sociologist, or anthropologist would do.

End of Quote.

Volokh makes the point that historians do quality work.

Of course he's a law professor, but still, I thought I'd chime in on the side of the historians.

Re: Int'l Student & Lawyer

Author: Charles V. Mutschler
Date: 05-04-03 09:55

Anonymous says, "Law is the only area of academe, to my knowledge, where the journals are essentially edited and peer-reviewed by undergraduates. Think about that."

Unfortunately, a comparison of undergraduates at law journals to Ph.D. bearing historians may not reflect well on the historians. Certainly not if the case under review is that of Michael Bellesiles and his book, _Arming America_. The historians (the people with the Ph.D. and research training) thought that the book was an outstanding piece of new scholarship. Many of them wrote reviews praising the book, and the history department at Columbia University gave _Arming America_ the Bancroft Prize for the most important work of scholarship in American History of the preceeding year.

The critics - and there were some - were for the most part dismissed as right wing types associated with the gun rights movement. After all, the good professors of history had the Ph.D., a research degree, and they said the book was good scholarship. The critics included Clayton Cramer, and James Lindgren. Mr. Cramer only holds an MA in history, and Mr. Lindgren is a professor of law at Northwestern University. Both gentlemen contribute to law reviews, and both were used to the rigorous fact checking done by the editorial staff at law review journals. They subjected _Arming America_ to a similar fact checking, and the error rate they found was not merely surprising, it was staggaring. Gradually they concluded that there was possibly more than poor scholarship involved - the book was simply not credible as hisotrical research.

The response from the historians was not what one might have expected from people trained in research. The response received by Cramer was dismissive, and Lindgren was initially treated as someone working out of field. Last year, in February, The Chronicle carried a good overview of the developments (to February, 2002) in the Michael Bellesiles case. Since then, professor Bellesiles has resigned from Emory, the trustees of Columbia University have rescinded the Bancroft Prize which, and Knopf has withdrawn the book from its trade list.

Arming America fooled a lot of people with Ph.D. degrees, who were supposedly well versed in research. I, for one, am not nearly as dismissive of the "undergraduates" editing law review journals as I might have been a couple of years ago. I think we historians can learn something from this unhappy episode.

Re: Interesting comment on the same topic

Author: Charles V. Mutschler
Date: 05-05-03 09:18

Mr. Marsh raises a good point.

However, I think Mr. Volokh has, over the longer term, pointed out that the historians do have some matters that need attention. The Bellesiles case pointed out the lack of scholarly rigor exercised by some historians. The profession has a rather uneven track record in the past few years. Bellesiles may be the most obvious, but consider Joseph Ellis lying about his military record in Viet Nam to undergraduates for years; and several other high profile cases of historians exercising poor judgement rather then careful historical methodology.

Lawyers who exceed the bounds do face a much more serious sanction than historians. They can be disbarred. This recently happened to an attorney in our community who was accused of unprofessional behavior.

to ANON AGAIN>>>

Author: John Garner
Date: 05-06-03 10:21

Hi,

I am glad that you seem to be somewhat more reasonable today.

I am glad that you have found no surgeons who will work for $60.00 per hour...

I am sure that you can find many, many docs in specialty residencies who will fill you needs in the clinic that you describe, provided that they are within driving distance and that they can make a living wage.

I have a friend who is practicing at a local indigent clinic for about $60.00 per hour, but he has several decades of experience as an ER Doc with E.R. specialty credentials. Emergency Room specialties do exist, you know.

In Indiana, according to my friend, there is a law that you cannot sue a Doc at such a non-profit clinic for malpractice.

My friend and I get together and play music occasionally, mostly jazz, but recently he has been busy with his business, a small resort on a lake.

The problem here is at $30.00 per hour a Doc would make almost nothing after he/she paid their malpractice insurance premium.

So, I understand that your medical facility takes care of that tab, right?

Finally,

Quote...

"...When was the last time you patched in (arrogant) into someone else's name or subject?..."

I do not remember the last time.

I am sure that I have been termed arrogant several times by those who didn't like what I had to say, though.

So, do not feel too badly, but please, just try not to be so abrasive to fellow educators and students without good cause.

Historians serve a vital function in any civilization.

Re: to ANON AGAIN>>>

Author: Anon Again
Date: 05-07-03 14:19

"specialty credentials. Emergency Room specialties do exist, you know."

The more I look, the more specialists I meet

"The problem here is at $30.00 per hour a Doc would make almost nothing after he/she paid their malpractice insurance premium."

Well, malpractice insurance is rated at a percentage of revenue, so a Doc at $30.00 an hour is pretty much paying the same percentage of income for malpractice as one at $3,000.00 or so an hour. Needless to say, our local Lasix specialist who is making 1.5 million a week is paying a hefty premium.

"Historians serve a vital function in any civilization."

I think we can agree on that.

Re: to ANON AGAIN>>>

Author: John Garner
Date: 05-07-03 16:00

[QUOTE]

"The more I look, the more specialists I meet"

Yes, and the more ill you become the more specialists that you are bound to see.

[QUOTE]

"Well, malpractice insurance is rated at a percentage of revenue, so a Doc at $30.00 an hour is pretty much paying the same percentage of income for malpractice as one at $3,000.00 or so an hour. Needless to say, our local Lasix specialist who is making 1.5 million a week is paying a hefty premium."

By "LASIX SPECIALIST" I am taking that to mean Nephrologist, or a specialist in Renal Dialysis. Yes, but their malpractice is not nearly as high as that of an Orthopedic Surgeon. I know of no physician who is making 52 Million a year from a private practice.

Maybe Michael Creighton, but he has never practiced. All he has ever done is write books. You know, Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and so forth. Not bad for a Harvard educated Physician, huh?

I do take issue with the statement about Medical Malpractice rates being based on income.

Medical malpractice rates are always a set amount based on risk factors involving the medical speciality, litigation history and geographical area.

All the malpractice that I have personal knowledge about are flat rates and the insurance carrier didn't care about the size of the practice of the practitioner or even how many patients he or she sees.

It has driven a lot of doctors from practice entirely. Even many of the older surgeons that I know who did not want to practice full time have quit entirely because of high malpractice premiums. I know of one who was excellent and taught for IUPUI who just flat quit practice entirely. It is a shame.

Finally,

Yes, ANON AGAIN, we DO need Historians.

Re: to ANON AGAIN>>>

Author: Anon Again
Date: 05-08-03 11:59

"By "LASIX SPECIALIST" I am taking that to mean Nephrologist,"

Lasix is a brand name for a laser revision of the eye to correct vision problems. I'd say the guy is only netting about thirty-two million a year, btw.

"I do take issue with the statement about Medical Malpractice rates being based on income. Medical malpractice rates are always a set amount based on risk factors involving the medical speciality, litigation history and geographical area."

Yes, the policy, when issued, is quoted at a flat rate, but if you compare a surgeon who makes three million a year to one making only six hundred thousand a year, you will find that the "factors" total up to vastly different rates.

Talk to someone in underwriting about it all. Of course the surgeon who is making more is seeing more patients, but there is a strong correlation between income and rates and it is the strongest underwriting factor. At times, once the base for the type is set, it is the only factor (e.g. an OB/GYN used to be rated at 8% of income, calculated from last year's income or a floating average, a podiatrist would be at 5% of income, etc. -- these are all old rates, based on high interest rates).

The driving force behind rates going up is interest rates going down. If interest would only jump back up to 18%, medical malpractice rates would drop by 50% or better.

Of course that would cause other issues.

There are problems when a surgeon tapers his or her practice off, mostly caused by the fact that the "tail" coverage issue (exposure for what he or she did last year or two years ago, rather than this year) is expensive, but if you average the income and the years it doesn't look so bad.

It does explain why many doctors just quit rather than taper off -- though they find that they still need tail coverage and that it still costs -- so that if they had thought better they would have tapered rather than just ended their practice.

Re: Qualified enthusiasm

Author: Ed Lawry, Professor of Philosophy, Oklahoma State Unive
Date: 05-23-03 10:30

There is, of course, legitimate controversy about whether the Chronicle opinion poll should make institutions of higher education change very much. Research, teaching and tenure are undoubtedly not well understood by the general public, and it might well be thought that the issues surrounding diversity are more complicated than can be unearthed by the poll. However, it certainly seems that on the issues of intercollegiate athletics, the colleges should pay attention. Most institutions justify the emphasis on athletics as a public relations tool to market the school and give it public exposure. The Chronicle results indicate that the institutions have misread the importance of athletics. No doubt, the intense enthusiasm of boosters and commercial interests have persuaded college authorities that athletics is much more important than in truth it is. Indeed, it seems clear that athletics can often be a negative in the public relations of colleges. I wish The Chronicle would follow up on this by commissioning a poll of institution faculty regarding athletics to see if the emphasis that institutions place on it have the support of their most important employees.