This is mostly for my American readers - be forewarned.
I wrote last year about a plan put forward by Rick O'Donnell, a controversial "consultant" hired by the state of Texas (hint: Gov. Rick Perry, apparent 2012 presidential hopeful, wanted this guy.) to study the way public universities work in Texas. Specifically, O'Donnell came from a think tank that had very firm predetermined concept about higher education: Faculty are overpaid slackers that are ripping off students, and research is not of value in the educational environment. O'Donnell has written a report (pdf) about this topic, and he's shocked, shocked to find that he was absolutely right. By his metrics of number of students taught and research dollars brought in, he grouped faculty at UT and Texas A&M into "Dodgers, Coasters, Sherpas, Pioneers, and Stars". Pioneers are the people who bring in big grants and buy out of teaching. Stars are the people who bring in grants and teach large lecture classes. Sherpas are mostly instructors (he doesn't seem to differentiate between instructors and faculty) who lecture to large classes but don't bring in grants. Dodgers teach small classes and don't bring in grant money. Coasters teach small classes and bring in some grant money.
I wrote last year about a plan put forward by Rick O'Donnell, a controversial "consultant" hired by the state of Texas (hint: Gov. Rick Perry, apparent 2012 presidential hopeful, wanted this guy.) to study the way public universities work in Texas. Specifically, O'Donnell came from a think tank that had very firm predetermined concept about higher education: Faculty are overpaid slackers that are ripping off students, and research is not of value in the educational environment. O'Donnell has written a report (pdf) about this topic, and he's shocked, shocked to find that he was absolutely right. By his metrics of number of students taught and research dollars brought in, he grouped faculty at UT and Texas A&M into "Dodgers, Coasters, Sherpas, Pioneers, and Stars". Pioneers are the people who bring in big grants and buy out of teaching. Stars are the people who bring in grants and teach large lecture classes. Sherpas are mostly instructors (he doesn't seem to differentiate between instructors and faculty) who lecture to large classes but don't bring in grants. Dodgers teach small classes and don't bring in grant money. Coasters teach small classes and bring in some grant money.
This is the exact incarnation of what I warned about in comments on my old post. This analysis basically declares that all social science and humanities faculty that teach upper division classes are worthless leeches (small classes, no grants) sponging off the university. People in the sciences and engineering who teach upper level classes aren't any better, unless they're bringing in multiple large research grants. Oh, and apparently the only metric for research and scholarship is money.
Nice. Perry, by the way, also appointed Barbara Cargill to run the state board of education. She's a biologist who wants evolution's perceived weaknesses to be emphasized in public schools, and she also was upset because the school board only has "six true conservative Christians" as members. I guess Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists need not apply. Update: It looks like Texas has dodged creationism for another couple of years. Whew.
"At UT Austin, adjuncts and teaching assistants teach a majority
ReplyDelete(52.7%) of undergraduate credit hours"
"Most departments give a professor “released time” if they are elected or appointed to a position of leadership in their professional association."
"In most research universities professors get their travel and expenses for one meeting a year and any meeting where they are on the program to give a paper."
I wish I had a job at UT Austin...
Sherpas are mostly instructors who lecture to large classes but don't bring in grants.
ReplyDeleteHey Doug,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that classifying faculty in those categories undermines certain academic areas/departments. But, on the other hand, being a physics grad student currently at UT, I cannot completely reject the idea that some professors fit the lower categories. And from what I can see (by talking to their grad students, people in their lectures, etc) it isn't clear they are serving any useful purpose anymore (I can give you names, if you want, but I remember one occasion in which you deleted some posts that had explicit names).
Anyways, I do think that academia is tricky when trying to define what is productive and what is not (especially when reduced to teaching load and research grants) but that doesn't exclude the idea that there's some significant waste taking place even in top places.
This analysis basically declares that all social science and humanities faculty that teach upper division classes are worthless leeches sponging off the university.
ReplyDelete