next »

[cgfunmathguy]

And now a couple thoughts, first on the topic of "knowledge creation."  I think what the OP is suggesting is that the pressures of "the game," and in particular the "publication game," has resulted in a situation where much of what academics churn out in terms of those publications that go on the CV is not really about knowledge creation (or dissemination).  It's about manufacturing a product.  And once you learn how to produce a "marketable" product, it's easy to keep on doing so.  But, publishing articles is NOT the same creating knowledge.  So we need to get back to some more honest and fundamental understanding of what "research" is and how one goes about doing it and how one shares the fruits of research. 

As I said before, I really believe this is discipline-specific. OP suggested that the suggested actions be taken "across the board." This is counter-productive, at best, in some disciplines.

[temporaryname]

And now a couple thoughts, first on the topic of "knowledge creation."  I think what the OP is suggesting is that the pressures of "the game," and in particular the "publication game," has resulted in a situation where much of what academics churn out in terms of those publications that go on the CV is not really about knowledge creation (or dissemination).  It's about manufacturing a product.  And once you learn how to produce a "marketable" product, it's easy to keep on doing so.  But, publishing articles is NOT the same creating knowledge.  So we need to get back to some more honest and fundamental understanding of what "research" is and how one goes about doing it and how one shares the fruits of research. 

As I said before, I really believe this is discipline-specific. OP suggested that the suggested actions be taken "across the board." This is counter-productive, at best, in some disciplines.

I worked once at an institution that had three separate categories (and separate requirements for tenure) for tenure-stream faculty who were 100% teaching, 100% research, and a teaching-research mix. In practice it didn't really work as well as it looked on paper, but I think that was mainly because the administration only very rarely authorized a hire for one of the 100% categories.

I've often thought since I was there, though, that there's something to be said for letting people fully specialize where their passion is if they want to. That approach might allow the OP's suggestions to be finessed somewhat, though at the cost of making the implementation of the ideas more complicated.

[abuflletcher]

What's the basic math involved in having "professors" teach all classes (we'll worry about the definition of professor in a moment)?  Can we come up with some basic ratio of professors per students as a starting point?  For example, could 100 full-time "teachers" handle all the courses for a typical university with 1000 students.  And if that number is correct (which I'm not in anyway claiming it is) then is that number scalable such that 1000 full-timer could handle 10,000 students?

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there is a basic economic ecology whereby X population of students can (in theory) support Y population of professors. 

[alleyoxenfree]

What would happen if we focused on teaching and service for tenure, and on publications only to be promoted?  Essentially, why don't we put publication in a category where it brings goodies we all want (full professor, travel funds to present) but doesn't become the rack-em-up trivialities that we've come to know and love?

We also need to begin hiring development people who have track records of bringing in funds that build programs - instead of hiring development people based on the dollar amounts they raise which are too often only for us in some unneeded project.  Older buildings can be renovated rather than brand new ones built and no one needs an AIG Distinguished Chair of Business Ethics.  The current trends in development encourage development people to move institutions constantly rather than sticking with a college, getting to know donors and faculty, and being able to make a strong case for donations based on real college need.

[fiona]

Who is the "we" in all these suggestions?

The Fiona

[abuflletcher]

Who is the "we" in all these suggestions?

The Fiona

We the People (of academia).

[nordicexpat]

So, in short, abolish adjuncts and fake adjuncts (= grad instructors) and increase teaching loads slightly. Hire only full-time tenured or tenure track (or, perhaps, long-term, renewable contracts ala Dean Dad) faculty responsible for instruction and for most governance.

I'm not necessarily against rethinking the current model of higher education, but I am curious how the initial hires would be made under this proposal. If people don't really get teaching experience until they have have their first job, and if the job is for instruction and goverance rather than research, on what basis would a search committee decide on the list of candidates to interview out of all the possible applicants?

[abuflletcher]

What would happen if we focused on teaching and service for tenure, and on publications only to be promoted?  Essentially, why don't we put publication in a category where it brings goodies we all want (full professor, travel funds to present) but doesn't become the rack-em-up trivialities that we've come to know and love?

I like this idea, but would like to replace "publications" with "research."  There's too much focus on publication as the sole realization of research.  Research can lead to publication but research might also lead in other directions.  There have to be other measures of "being an active researcher." 

[tenured_feminist]

What would happen if we focused on teaching and service for tenure, and on publications only to be promoted?  Essentially, why don't we put publication in a category where it brings goodies we all want (full professor, travel funds to present) but doesn't become the rack-em-up trivialities that we've come to know and love?

I like this idea, but would like to replace "publications" with "research."  There's too much focus on publication as the sole realization of research.  Research can lead to publication but research might also lead in other directions.  There have to be other measures of "being an active researcher." 

Um, yes. The bean counters have decided that they are called "grants," preferably with large overheads that the research foundation can suck up. And increasingly at my R1, they are becoming an independent metric of success such that, even a scholar with an outstanding publication and teaching record is subject to criticism if s/h/it cannot demonstrate that s/h/it has obtained them.

[sibyl]

What's the basic math involved in having "professors" teach all classes (we'll worry about the definition of professor in a moment)?  Can we come up with some basic ratio of professors per students as a starting point?  For example, could 100 full-time "teachers" handle all the courses for a typical university with 1000 students.  And if that number is correct (which I'm not in anyway claiming it is) then is that number scalable such that 1000 full-timer could handle 10,000 students?

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there is a basic economic ecology whereby X population of students can (in theory) support Y population of professors. 

Assume a university
on a semester calendar
with 100 professors
on a 3:3 load (no course releases, no sabbaticals)
and 1000 students
taking 10 courses a year, or 5 per semester.

That's a 10:1 student/faculty ratio, and an average class size of 16.67.  That's very good.

Assume that the students pay $10,000 annually in net tuition
and that 50% of all tuition revenues are devoted to faculty compensation.
That means that the average total compensation (salary plus benefits) is $50,000.  That's not so good.

Let's give some sabbaticals (one semester every six years), though no course releases, and raise compensation to $80,000.  We'd have to raise tuition to $16,000 and raise the average class size to 18.32.  Class size is still good, and sabbaticals are good, but tuition is high and compensation is not great.  

If you have other assumptions, let me know and I'll plug them in.

(By the way, it is absolutely scalable.)

[emerson_scholar]

So, in short, abolish adjuncts and fake adjuncts (= grad instructors) and increase teaching loads slightly. Hire only full-time tenured or tenure track (or, perhaps, long-term, renewable contracts ala Dean Dad) faculty responsible for instruction and for most governance.

I'm not necessarily against rethinking the current model of higher education, but I am curious how the initial hires would be made under this proposal. If people don't really get teaching experience until they have have their first job, and if the job is for instruction and goverance rather than research, on what basis would a search committee decide on the list of candidates to interview out of all the possible applicants?

Fair question. As it happens many people from the Ivies and their ilk get hired without any teaching experience whatsoever, as hiring committees get blinded by pedigree and ignore the lack of real experience. But since research trumps all, it doesn't really matter.

I was thinking more along the lines of "student teaching" -- such that graduate students would be assigned to faculty to act as TAs, but that would mean being involved in the design of the syllabus (or at the very least meeting with the faculty to discuss how and why an existing syllabus was designed the way it was), writing lectures and designing sectional discussions, the occasional delivery of lectures, and helping out with advising, grading, etc. This takes more work for the faculty member, but if we claim to be "mentoring" our "apprentices" that is what it takes. I know that I would have benefited much more from this system than the one that threw me into the deep end of the pool and said swim. I learned how to tread water and dog paddle, but never how to actually swim efficiently or effectively. Ideally departments and universities could also call upon graduate students to be more involved in governance, so long as that doesn't become abusive.

Finally, new T-T hires should be ideally be given a course release or two their first year and assigned a faculty mentor or two to help them adjust to their brave new world. Throwing new T-T hires into the pool and yelling at them when they don't immediately start doing the butterfly isn't exactly the best instructional method.

[emerson_scholar]

Assume a university
on a semester calendar
with 100 professors
on a 3:3 load (no course releases, no sabbaticals)
and 1000 students
taking 10 courses a year, or 5 per semester.

That's a 10:1 student/faculty ratio, and an average class size of 16.67.  That's very good.

Assume that the students pay $10,000 annually in net tuition
and that 50% of all tuition revenues are devoted to faculty compensation.
That means that the average total compensation (salary plus benefits) is $50,000.  That's not so good.

Let's give some sabbaticals (one semester every six years), though no course releases, and raise compensation to $80,000.  We'd have to raise tuition to $16,000 and raise the average class size to 18.32.  Class size is still good, and sabbaticals are good, but tuition is high and compensation is not great. 

If you have other assumptions, let me know and I'll plug them in.

(By the way, it is absolutely scalable.)

Thanks, Sibyl!

I assume your numbers assume this is a fully private model, with no state subsidization involved? How big an endowment, and how much endowment draw-down per year?

How about this idyll:

200 faculty
3/3 load (no course releases)
one semester sabbatical every six years (extension of sabbatical through outside funding)
2600 students
FOUR courses taken per semester
Average faculty salary of 80k/year

FWIW, I think 16k/year tuition is pretty darn reasonable for the latter model of yours, if you compare this to current private colleges that charge around that (if you can find any).

[tenured_feminist]

How do you all plan to get the administrative work of a department done without course releases?

[madhatter]

What's the basic math involved in having "professors" teach all classes (we'll worry about the definition of professor in a moment)?  Can we come up with some basic ratio of professors per students as a starting point?  For example, could 100 full-time "teachers" handle all the courses for a typical university with 1000 students.  And if that number is correct (which I'm not in anyway claiming it is) then is that number scalable such that 1000 full-timer could handle 10,000 students?

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there is a basic economic ecology whereby X population of students can (in theory) support Y population of professors. 

Assume a university
on a semester calendar
with 100 professors
on a 3:3 load (no course releases, no sabbaticals)
and 1000 students
taking 10 courses a year, or 5 per semester.

That's a 10:1 student/faculty ratio, and an average class size of 16.67.  That's very good.

Assume that the students pay $10,000 annually in net tuition
and that 50% of all tuition revenues are devoted to faculty compensation.
That means that the average total compensation (salary plus benefits) is $50,000.  That's not so good.

Let's give some sabbaticals (one semester every six years), though no course releases, and raise compensation to $80,000.  We'd have to raise tuition to $16,000 and raise the average class size to 18.32.  Class size is still good, and sabbaticals are good, but tuition is high and compensation is not great.  

If you have other assumptions, let me know and I'll plug them in.

(By the way, it is absolutely scalable.)

To keep your class size up so that the ratio is supportable, you have to severely restrict the number of majors and courses. Perhaps there are no electives -- in fact, no choice whatsoever. Students are enrolled in lockstep cohorts and may not deviate from the planned curriculum.

[emerson_scholar]

How do you all plan to get the administrative work of a department done without course releases?

We already do this. Our chair doesn't get a course release, merely a tiny bump in salary.

To keep your class size up so that the ratio is supportable, you have to severely restrict the number of majors and courses. Perhaps there are no electives -- in fact, no choice whatsoever. Students are enrolled in lockstep cohorts and may not deviate from the planned curriculum.

Can you flesh this objection out more? My current institution has a ~10:1 ratio of students to faculty and we have no problem with numbers of majors or electives. Our problem, rather, is under-subscribed classes. Some classes have over 80 students, some have under 6. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, however, in which case I apologize.