next »

[wailing]

Speaking of working AND being abused overseas. Check out the job ad in the CHE this week for AIU in Japan, and consider the following:

1) ALL current AIU faculty attended a faculty forum on 7/31 in which the school president read a statement announcing that the 3-year-renewable contracts that had been given to teachers at the university start up in 2004 were declared null and void.  Interested incumbent faculty would be required to reapply. A select group of teachers, including all president-appointed program directors, had "secret" interviews in the weeks before the meeting and were given renewals, with the selection criteria only known by the president and his cronies.

2) The annual performance evaluation, announced in the same ad, is rigged from the start. Points are *arbitrarily* assigned to given tasks and accomplishments by each program director and/or the president. While peer and student evaluation are supposed to be of value, as are other contributions, faculty have been *flunked* or demoted as a result of disagreements with program directors, the president or any one of his campus cronies.

3) Policy and curriculur decisions are made top down, with little or no input from faculty.  In fact, the president himself, a China *scholar*, has routinely supported the decisions of his program directors even when those are opposed by an entire program faculty.

4) AIU has partner institutions in many countries in the world. However, students who attend AIU from these institutions have regularly commented on the degree of easiness of AIU courses.
This opens up the question of academic equivalence.

5) Cronyism is rampant. Friends of the president routinely fly to Akita to give *fully-accredited* though short-term courses. Imagine the effectiveness of a two week Intro to Sociology course, given by the president's grad student son.

6) Academics has been hamstrung by the admin council. There are no prerequisites for any courses. First-year students can register for 300-level courses. Advising is based on a voluntary basis.

7) AIU has been called an innovative Japanese university. In fact, with the faculty having little or no voice and the president and his cronies developing policy and curriculum based on their whims, it's business as usual in Japan.
 

[abuflletcher]

Working at a Japanese university can be a real grab bag and it's hard know what you'll be getting before you're actually in the job.   By and large though universities can be divided into those that treat foreign professors equally and those that don't. 

One good place to start is to look at the Green (and Black) lists compiled by "Arudou Debito."  Green list universities offer tenure (-like) status to foreign professors and generally treat them equally in all other ways.  Black list universities limit foreign staff to limited term contracts and reduced compensation packages.

http://www.debito.org/greenlist.html

Only after 10 years have I begun to realize just how lucky I was with my current position.

[wordsmith100]

Since "Wailing" 's post on Akita International University (AIU):

1. AIU has been forced to advertise again (9-2-06) for all of those positions.  Reason:  Little or no response to the original ad (the word is getting out on what an unhappy and unprofessionally run place AIU is).  Here are some further points about AIU.

2.  AIU is a successor institution to a failed university (same place, same campus) that ran out of money.  The financial pinch already has many people worried at AIU.  Akita Prefecture is the poorest in all of Japan (with the highest rates of suicide) and it is the primary source of $$ for this school.  Although the prefecture governor is a big supporter of AIU, others in the Akita Prefecture government are not.  The financial crunch isn't helped out by the free-spending (on himself, his wife, son and his cronies) president.  So, the president of this university really lives in Tokyo and flys in 3-4 times a week for a couple of days (maybe the prefecture politicians don't realize what airline miles they and their taxpayers are picking up); he lives in a hotel room for the few days a month he is "on campus".  Imagine the kind of management that creates.

3.  Not only is this campus a restart of a failed university, the university president is a proven failure.  He was the head of the Tokyo U. of Foreign Studies (a mediocre school in Tokyo) until its faculty voted him out of that position around 2000. 

4.  AIU has 2 Vice Presidents.  Neither one of them has an advanced degree.  In fact, neither of them even has an M.A.  The older of the two, like the president, lives in Tokyo and he is around even less than the president (which seems to satisfy most people who have ever met him!).  The other, younger V.P. is also a crony.  Although he has no advanced degrees and had no prior teaching experience, he was also named a "Full Professor" and allowed to teach a course. 

5. Similarly, the Director of the Library has no prior experience as a librarian and no degrees in that area.  In fact, although he is also a Full Professor teaching subjects in Global Studies, he has only one degree--a bachelor's.  Reason for his hire?  He is a former student of the presidents (and one of the few supporters of the same at the university above that voted him out).  He once made the statement that he set up committees not so that they could do meaningful work, but so that he could observe and report on faculty who were considered not completely loyal to the institution and the president.   

6.  Contracts and papers to the AIU administration mean nothing.  Faculty are routinely asked to do far more than their contracts specify.  For instance, recently ALL faculty (not just those in English) were asked to help administer TOEFL examinations.  These are given on weekends and no extra compensation is provided.  And, they are given very frequently (7-8 times a semester) since the university's students are having such a hard time reaching the necessary scores.  Also, so-called "faculty development" seminars are scheduled at inconvenient times:  like from 5-7 pm.  Again, no extra compensation.

7.  At one of these "faculty development" seminars, to further humiliate the faculty, the president had the doors to the auditorium where his pearls of wisdom were to be given, locked to the faculty until he arrived (20 minutes late of course).  They had to stand waiting for the Great Man to arrive. 

8. There is no secretarial support staff for the faculty.  Faculty, even full professors and directors, have to do their own photocopying etc. 

9.  There is no input sought from the faculty.  Although there is a so-called "faculty forum" that the president attends, he does all the talking.  Anyone foolish enough to make comments is considered a troublemaker.  These forums seem to be a means of making sure that the faculty is in attendance for their duties (faculty are expected to be on campus from 9 to 5 pm daily).  They are scheduled at inconvenient times (how about 4 p.m. on December 22nd?) at the very beginning and the absolute end of every semester.  The university administration could care less about its faculty or its ideas or suggestions (because they realize that given the opportunity, AIU faculty would immediately force them out of their positions as happened at the Tokyo U. of Foreign Studies.    But this is impossible, AIU has been structured, in "new and innovative ways" to prevent just this from happening.   

[rainslicker]

Dear Victory100 and Wailing,

For academic career reasons I cannot divulge in a public forum, I am greatly alarmed by your recent exposes of AIU. If you are checking this thread anytime in the next few days, might it be possible to contact me offlist at larrydamms@yahoo.com? This is an extremely urgent matter and your private input about AIU would be most helpful.

Thanks much!!!

[concerned8]

Re Akita International University (AIU)

post by; concerned8

In reply to wordsmith100  September 9, 2006.

Dear wordsmith: If you are going to slam a university, first get a few of your facts right.  For example;

1.  AIU has had little response to the original ad?  Well, only 230 responses so far, and still counting.

2.   AIU inherits a legacy of failure?  Well,  currently it has only has 10-15 student applications for each slot. According to a juku ranking list, quality of applicants is number three among all public and national universities in Japan, after Tokyo University and Kyoto University.  And that despite the fact it has only been going three years.

If that is failure, we need a new word for the real thing.

3.   The AIU president irresponsible because he spends time in Tokyo?  Maybe the fact that he heads or is a member of several very important education-related committees or organizations (UMAP, Central Council of Education, MEXT English education, Graduate School education) all relevant to his university and all based in Tokyo,  is a reason. The accusation that even so he flies to Akita 3-4 times a week and has to stay  at a mediocre hotel just because it is close to AIU suggests excessive sense of responsibility

4.    Neither AIU vice-president has an advanced degree, even an MA?  Here wordsmith seems too consumed by his prejudices even to bother to check CVs.
Neither qualified for their job?  One is on secondment from MEXT (Education Ministry) to handle the many establishment and administration problems involved with a new university, and is one of the few MEXT bureaucrats with good English and experience in international education.  That makes him unqualified?

The other has been hired to advise on (a) university management (qualification - thirty years involvement in Japanese  university education including six years as Japanese university president) and (b) language learning techniques  (qualification – fluency and top qualifications in Chinese and Russian, full fluency in Japanese,  plus several European languages.)  Still unqualified, wordsmith?

True, he too spends time in Tokyo. Maybe that is because (a) he is only employed on a part-time advisory basis, and (b) he only gets part-time pay. 

The accusations that both got their jobs through cronyism approaches slander.

Neither had any prior friendship or professional relationship with the president. True, one works in the same China field as the president. But because their views on China are radically different they would not have met more than five or six times in the thirty years before going to Akita. What is more his views on a range of AIU questions - techniques of language education, secretarial assistance to directors, appointments etc - often differ from those of the university administration.  Is that how you define cronyism, wordsmith? 

5. Top-down management?  True enough.  To the approval of most Japanese educators, universities are now moving from decision paralysis by committee to decision making from the top. The move has not been perfect, but a lot better than what went before.

And so on.

One point wordsmith does get right; do not bother to apply unless you really want the job. You will have to compete with at least 230 others. And if you share his view on how universities should operate you would not be happy anyway.

Final point. Part of the seeming jealousy that AIU inspires is  a blacklist website, on  which AIU is listed  as discriminatory because it hires foreigners on a three year contract basis.

The organizer of that site says he is careful to get his facts right, for fear of being sued.

In  that case he should start talking to his lawyers.

AIU hires all staff, Japanese AND foreign, on a three year contract basis, with the possibility of tenure to follow. In this it follows the best practice now found in many overseas universities. What’s more, when its forerunner, the original Minnesota State university in Japan,  was closed down AIU went out of its way to hire only the foreigners, not the Japanese, employed by Minnesota. It was concerned that the foreigners would face difficulty in having suddenly to find new employment.

Only now, three years later, is it asking these especially favored foreigners to submit applications for continued employment.  And they do so not in competition with Japanese applicants but with other non-Japanese nationals.

Only a very distorted mind could possibly see all that as anti-foreigner discrimination.


Concerned8.?

[devon]

Wailing,

My spouse and I would appreciate to hear more about AIU since we are acquainted with professors who have worked there and have since lamented it.

With regards

[mavirgi]

As a possible future applicant for a job at the university in question, I have a few queries for your management ( concerned 8) that many viewers in this forum might ask:

I see your university is claiming a success. Could you explain by what standards?  if that success is the case, why were all faculty and staff recently asked to reapply for their positions as stated in the initial post?

Your institution is small. does the president regularly invite professors who are not program directors in for counsel?  That would seem to be a healthy way for management-faculty communication to proceed to your institution’s advantage.

Do your program directors solicit honest performance feedback from faculty members?

Do the president and the vice president solicit honest feedback from all directors, and from members of the faculty and staff?

Does each program director interact with all members of the respective program on an equal basis, or does he or she interact only with a preferred coterie of supporters (i.e., in a manner demonstrating favoritism)? I’ve seen both scenarios, and the second really leads to disasters.

Is there an annual, anonymous review of management (i.e. president, the vice president and directors) by faculty members? At my university, everyone is open to evaluation. If professors are evaluated by students and by management, it is clear that management would benefit from constructive input by faculty about how well it is doing its job.

In the ideal, the answers to these questions would be provided openly. What is the reality at Akita International University, might I ask?

[taikibansei]

In addition to Mavirgi's excellent questions, I'd also be concerned about the wording in their job ad (found under "public universities": http://jrecin.jst.go.jp/index_e.html ).  For example:

"Subject to the results of the Education Ministry’s credential assessment, the job grade and/or the courses to teach might be changed. "

Potential applicants need to be aware that the Education Ministry (Monkasho) does not normally conduct "credential assessments" of faculty.  On the contrary, most Japanese universities simply inform Monkasho of new hires--this information is not evaluated, nor does Monkasho decide (or even advise) on faculty job grades and courses taught.  (In the heavily unionized environment of most Japanese universities, the very idea of such an attempt is laughable.) 

AIU, as a university under probation, is a special case.  Still, assuming no fire behind all the smoke of the first two posts, this is not necessarily a red flag.  However, we also have this:

"The contract includes a four-month probation period. AIU conducts an annual performance evaluation of its faculty and staff members, the results of which will be reflected in an annual salary adjustment and in consideration of any contract renewal." 

Unlike some countries overseas, contracts in Japan are inviolate and usually enforced fully even in the case of foreigners.  This, of course, makes the above conditions both unusual and more than a bit problematic. First, probation periods (when you can be fired immediately and for any reason) are almost unheard of in Japan for university faculty positions.  Second, what's the point of agreeing to a contract that allows your salary to be altered (lowered) at the whim of the administration, that (depending on the results of the after the fact "credential assessment") can leave you with a completely different faculty rank and course subject area than you agreed to originally?  I know of only one other university in Japan which offers such a combination of conditions--and I wouldn't work there either.

Furthermore, Concerned8 adds this singular statement:

"AIU hires all staff, Japanese AND foreign, on a three year contract basis, with the possibility of tenure to follow."

However, the actual job ad says something quite different: "Appointments will be made on an initial three-year (maximum) fixed-term contract basis (with possibility of renewal), beginning on April 1, 2007."

I.e., no mention of tenure (the Japanese version is even clearer on this), and indeed it is my understanding that President Nakajima is firmly against the institution of tenure.  Has there been a change of heart since your most recent ads were posted (on September 8)?  Do tell.

Finally, I should point out that I do not work at AIU.  I have, however, taught at the university level for over 18 years (tenure-track and tenured) in both Japan and the US.  There are good places for non-Japanese in this country.  AIU does not seem to be one of them.

[11113567]

The predecessor university to AIU was an American university. It was far from the best university in the States, but it was a real university. It had enrollment and financial problems because the protectionist Ministry of Education in Japan refused to certify it as a university. Thus is was ineligible for funds and students shied away. Most of the Japanese students who did come expected to graduate without studying, and thus were dissatisfied with the school.

Most of the problems described here about AIU are in fact typical of Japanese universities. Most Japanese, especially students, cannot imagine universities as places of research and education. Universities are the only vacation most Japanese get, sandwiched inbetween the high school from hell and the lifetime employment for which there is no escape. Universities are ranked not by their curricula or faculty, but by the difficulty of their entrance exams and their selectivity in admission. That is how AIU brags about itself, its selectivity in admissions.

Because the faculty (and education and research) are irrelevant, there is no incentive to hire qualified teachers or scholars, much less the best available. In fact, there is incentive to hire people who are NOT qualified, so they will not embarrass their seniors by actually knowing anything about the subject they were hired to "teach". This is particularly the case with foreigners, but is also the case with Japanese. The result is one of the most disfunctional institutions in Japanese society, one which the Ministry itself swears it intends to reform.

On the one hand the Ministry claims it wants to reform, on the other it has no idea what the problem is, or how the structures the Ministry itself maintains support that problem. As far as I can tell, the bureaucrats in the Ministry have only Bachelors's degrees, with no experience of either teaching or research. Yet they are in charge of the reform, both establishing national universities and accrediting all universities. You don't have to be a market fundamentalist to know that having that kind of bureaucracy is asking for trouble.

Consider the fact that rice farmers are well aware that they are being protected from foreign competition. Most Japanese professors, including those running AIU, are totally clueless. Like rice farming, Japanese university employment is a form of disguised welfare. Thus the Ministry frowns on hiring foreigners. What state in the US wants to import foreigners to draw welfare checks? How many British communities invite immigrants to queue for dole checks?

They want people to respect Japanese scholars the way they do American scholars, not realizing that the best Japanese scholars are working in the US. If they really wanted to improve Japanese universities, or had a clue about how to do so, they would end protectionism and demand that preference be given to the most qualified scholars. Incestuous "university journals" would be replaced with blind peer review. But such administrative reforms are not even on the Ministry's radar screen. They won't happen.

[zatroof]

Re:Most of the Japanese students who did come expected to graduate without studying, and thus were dissatisfied with the school.

While this may be true of students attending the vast majority of Japanese universities, it was/is not generally true of those attending the U.S. universities operating in Japan, such as Temple or the former Minnesota State University-Akita, upon whose campus AIU was built. Most of 11113567’s post outlines systematic problems in Japanese higher education dealt with in depth in Brian J. McVeigh’s Japanese Higher Education As Myth, required reading for anyone working or considering working at a Japanese university. However, like students attending some of the foreign universities, students attending Japan’s “international” universities have a different set of expectations, motivations and study habits. Have AIU’s unique administrative/staffing problems filtered down to their students yet? No post so far has suggested as much.

Anyway, this thread is about AIU’s work environment and it’s job ad in the CHE.

Re: AIU conducts an annual performance evaluation of its faculty and staff members, the results of which will be reflected in an annual salary adjustment and in consideration of any contract renewal.

It is my understanding that this ‘performance evaluation’ is in fact a subjective letter written solely by the faculty member’s direct supervisor. Along with the letter rationalizing it, the faculty member receives a rating ‘grade’. So effectively, there is no real evaluation instrument, per se, at least none in the sense of one with which the potential applicant would likely be familiar. This ‘grade’ is then used as the basis for the annual salary adjustment. A ‘C’ will allow one to maintain one’s salary at hiring,…or is it a ‘B’? Maybe concerned8 can clarify the specifics of the system.

Here’s an example of how the ‘performance evaluation’ can work: An outspoken and well-liked former colleague, widely regarded by both students and faculty as the resident ‘writing expert’ when I worked with him, ‘failed’ AIU’s ‘performance evaluation’. He apparently had had some disagreement with his supervisor, the English program director. His annual salary adjustment was a 20% cut. He chose to leave before his annual salary adjustment kicked in. Of course, depending on life-circumstances, others may not have that option. Presumably, those individuals could find their salaries cut an additional 20% the following year. I would imagine by that point that consideration of contract renewal would become moot.

I’ve been teaching at university level in Japan for nearly two decades. I do not work for AIU, and readily admit that my post, although from reliable sources (IMO), is second-hand information and even if 100% accurate, illustrates but a single case. I welcome concerned8, or any other concerned party, to rectify any possible misinformation in this post. It would also be of help to potential applicants as well as other educators and administrators to understand the effects of AIU’s (truly, truly unique, I believe) ‘performance evaluation / annual salary adjustment’ system on actual faculty performance, faculty, staff and administrative morale, personnel job satisfaction & retention, program continuity and student performance. Data of special interest to the job applicant would be the percentage of teachers in the various departments that receive a negative annual salary adjustment. Any light shed on these matters, I’m sure, would be much appreciated.

[concerned8]

from concerned8.

My previous post indicated that the top-down approach to AIU management was not perfect.

But it was at least better than the paralysis by committee of Japanese universities in the past.

All suggestions for improvement would I am sure be greatly welcomed by the people in charge.

Previous post was devoted to countering the gross errors and slanders by wordsmith.

I note he/she has not tried to rehabilitate himself/herself.

Incidentally, applications in response to the AIU ad now approach the 400 level.

[taikibansei]

Previous post was devoted to countering the gross errors and slanders by wordsmith.

Tellingly, wordsmith and wailing made a large number of serious accusations...yet the only you've attempted to rebut in (great) detail so far are the so-called "slanders" of the president and two vice presidents (one of latter is Japanese, the other a very verbose and defensive native speaker of English).  In regards to all the other issues raised, we have this now twice-repeated statement:

...the top-down approach to AIU management was not perfect. But it was at least better than the paralysis by committee of Japanese universities in the past.

At least this clears up the mystery of who you are! 

Incidentally, applications in response to the AIU ad now approach the 400 level.

If true (and I sincerely doubt it), this says more about dearth of quality positions for PhDs worldwide than anything else. 

While there is some truth to the negativity in 11113567's post (and the Hall and McVeigh books upon with it is based), I side more with zatroof--there is a wide variety to the teaching environments and positions here, including a number which offer professional opportunities at least the equivalent to what you will get in the States.  I.e., one does not have to accept the conditions (no tenure, no firm contract, a top-down management approach that seems abusive, etc.) of AIU or its ilk.  I certainly wouldn't move for a job that offered such conditions in the States--why people do it to come to Japan is beyond me.

Check out Debito's greenlist (see post #2) for examples of the better positions.  Feel free to PM me if you want a few more. 

[11113567]

According to concerned8:

AIU went out of its way to hire only the foreigners, not the Japanese, employed by Minnesota. It was concerned that the foreigners would face difficulty in having suddenly to find new employment.

AIU went out of its way to get rid of the token black, who was probably the most dedicated and qualified American at the school. Any blacks thinking of applying should not waste their time. AIU is reproducing all the faults of Japanese universities. If concerned8 really wanted to see a decent university in Akita prefecture, he or she would have supported accreditation for the American university that was there, instead of just another, dysfunctional Japanese university. American university governance works, the new system at AIU won't. The problems with Japanese universities are systemic, and the problems cited by wordsmith and wailing are typical.

[mehmet_shehu]

from concerned8.
Incidentally, applications in response to the AIU ad now approach the 400 level.

Yeah, and how many of those are Indians, Bangladeshis and Chinese??

Your alleged figure of 400 only makes sense if one was to actually take a look at who is applying, where from, and their credentials.

[mavirgi]

oh my...the message here seems clear. lots of aiu dirt, little support. we have mr. concerned8 defending himself and his overlord. where is the support from the current employees of this school? the ones who've been sacked en masse...the ones who have obviously done all the work these last several years and made the school a place of some renown. no defense of the innovative system? no word from them?