TubeNet

Hi All

I heard a rumor floating around that I was going to be leaving UMass. Just wanted to help put that to rest - I am NOT leaving UMass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks
Matt

Then why has the dean of LFA posted your job?

He didn't say he had a job, just that he WASN'T leaving...

...not sure about Dean of LFA - have not seen that term used at our school...


...also just got off the phone with our department head; he confirmed that there is no vacancy!!!!

Thanks
Matt

Sorry Matt, just couldn't help myself...

matt if u r the visiting assistant professor... who is the 'non visiting' professor of tuba at umass?

Hi All

Will try to clear things up a little bit...

The term "visiting" has caused a lot of confusion for us and for people at other universities as well. Some have incorrectly thought that it meant that the faculty member is part time, and that they are only hired for one year. We have 18 full time faculty members with the "visiting" designation. The designation simply means that the position is not tenure track (many schools have gone this way). That does not mean that the possitions are perpetually open. Usually if the faculty member does their job as they should, they would be reappointed for another term - I can say that I have been reappointed and that there is no vacancy at this time. Often people fear that since these positions are not tenure track, that there must be turnover every year or two. Some of our "visiting" professors have been on faculty since 1998 (have recieved numerous reappointments)- so there is longevity and continuity as well.

Hope this clears some things up - if you have specific questions please feel free to email me!

Thanks
MG

Matt is right, universities are going to "visiting" or "ad interim" designation for many positions, especially in music. It allows administrors to keep the faculty positions flexible. "Visiting" professors usually enjoy the same privledges as those in tenure track positions (benifits, promotion, merit raises) but don't have to jump through the tenure hoops. The downside is that the position could be eliminated for any reason.

I was a visiting faculty member for eighteen years. That's a heck of a long visit.

bloke wrote:Seems to me that quite a few such "visiting/in-residence/adjunct" faculty are hired for their artistic abilities and many seem to be stronger at the skills for which they are hired than some of the "tenure track" folk.

The fact that Matthew and Ed are/were such folk seems to back up my observation.

bloke "but the fact that I am one of these types sort of effectively negates both the Ed and Matthew examples "

Oh dear...this again.

It may well be (in fact, it SHOULD be) that "visiting" professors are hired for a different skill set than tenure track faculty. So, it should not be surprising if the visiting faculty are "stronger at the skills for which they are hired than the 'tenure track' folk"".

If they are not...someone has screwed up.

And, of course, folk who get hired as "visiting" (like Bloke) tend to value those skills more highly than they value the skills of "tenure track folk".

I think that Bloke is being INTENTIONALLY dense - but others are genuinely confused about this. The fact is that tenure-track faculty are not hired SOLEY on their abilities to DO the things that they teach - or even SOLEY to be good at teaching the things that they don't do as well as other folk. They have other duties, and need other skills. It's THOSE duties, and skill sets, that get you tenure .


Using an analogy i've (over)used in the past - this is why Mickey Mantle was paid very highly during his playing days....but Billy Martin continued to be paid for managing long after he lost the (lesser!) skills on the field.

On to other things....in my opinion, any school that routinely hires people to very long "visiting" positions is being a little shady. It's very bad form to have someone on the payroll for 10 years....and at the same time assert the right to terminat the job with very little notice (for no cause other than that "we found someone better")

One (not necessarily the most important) of the purposes of "tenure" is to provide "job secutity" and prevent employers from cherry picking the most productive years of an employee's career. If someone in a "visiting" slot is really behaving like a long-term employee, and their job description is indistinguishable from a "tenure track" job - then it's dishonest (plain and simple) to use the "visiting" slot in that way.

To my way of thinking, a "visiting" appointment should be for a fixed term, and should explicitly disallow repeated appointments. "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" is not the basis for an honest relationship

"Terminal" degrees always holds a rather negative connotation to me ie: You can hold several doctorates, but the last one you get before you deplanet is a "terminal" degree...

I always thought that "terminal degree" is how long you have to wait at the airport.

sloan wrote:...
On to other things....in my opinion, any school that routinely hires people to very long "visiting" positions is being a little shady. It's very bad form to have someone on the payroll for 10 years....and at the same time assert the right to terminat the job with very little notice (for no cause other than that "we found someone better")

One (not necessarily the most important) of the purposes of "tenure" is to provide "job secutity" and prevent employers from cherry picking the most productive years of an employee's career. If someone in a "visiting" slot is really behaving like a long-term employee, and their job description is indistinguishable from a "tenure track" job - then it's dishonest (plain and simple) to use the "visiting" slot in that way.

To my way of thinking, a "visiting" appointment should be for a fixed term, and should explicitly disallow repeated appointments. "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" is not the basis for an honest relationship

Almost every job in the private sector operates under the principle you decry. One must continue to prove themselves in their job or they can be replaced by someone who will do a better job, and companies do not need a reason to fire someone, as long as they are not using race, age, gender, or any of the other 'protected' classifications as a reason for the firing.

On the other hand, I think the reason for tenure is to promote free and open discussion of ideas without the risk of being punished for expressing those ideas, no matter how stupid or offensive they may be to others. I think that these types of discussions add value to society by starting dialog about topics that might not otherwise get discussed.

I do agree that keeping people in non-tenure track positions as a way to avoid having to provide those people with the full benefits of employment is disingenuous. There is a long history in universities of giving professorships to people who's credentials demonstrate knowledge and skills even if they don't have a specific degree. I know several people who are in tenure track positions, or who have recevied tenure recently who "only" have masters degrees, but have years of relevant experience, or other credentials.

lern 2 spel

snorlax wrote:

sloan wrote:It may well be (in fact, it SHOULD be) that "visiting" professors are hired for a different skill set than tenure track faculty. So, it should not be surprising if the visiting faculty are "stronger at the skills for which they are hired than the 'tenure track' folk"".

What does that say about colleges???

It says that colleges are not orchestras.

sloan wrote: Oh dear...this again.

... The fact is that tenure-track faculty are not hired SOLEY on their abilities to DO the things that they teach - or even SOLEY to be good at teaching the things that they don't do as well as other folk. They have other duties, and need other skills. It's THOSE duties, and skill sets, that get you tenure .

Doc, I'm generally inclined to like you personally, but when this subject comes up you always remind me of the "jox & cheer-liters" (I misspellt those on purpose ) in high school. I was always amazed that they had appointed themselves as the "cool" kids, and those that didn't measure up against THEIR priorities were outcasts and second-class citizens. Who the HELL came up with the notion that certain skill sets are deserving of tenure while other skill sets are not? And while YOU may not consider teaching undergrads the fundamental purpose of a university, I'll GUARANTEE you that -- at least if you teach at a state-funded university -- the people footing the bill think that's EXACTLY what the university is there for. All that other stuff -- professing their field, and advancing the universe of knowledge and understanding and what-not -- has value; but taxpayers, by and large, don't consider that even CLOSE to the level of importance of preparing a generation of accountants, computer programmers, nurses, engineers, etc.

I'd love to go much further on this topic, but to do so would be to tread on the forbidden. Suffice to say that if the rest of the world is asked -- daily -- by their employers, "what have you done for me lately", I don't see any reason why university faculty who WORK FOR THEM shouldn't have the same requirement.
____________________________
Joe Baker, who can't help thinking of the recent (protected) comments by a tenured prof of his own alma mater, The University of Texas.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

Joe Baker wrote: ____________________________
Joe Baker, who can't help thinking of the recent (protected) comments by a tenured prof of his own alma mater, The University of Texas.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

<img src="http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/course ... althus.jpg" width="100"> = <img src="http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/images/faculty/Pianka.jpg" width="100"> ?

bloke wrote:

...On the other hand, I think the reason for tenure is to promote free and open discussion of ideas without the risk of being punished for expressing those ideas...

...and you think this actually *happens a lot on kollij camp-eye?

*and here I refer to the 12%-15% of kollij 'fessers whose societal attitudes are not in lockstep with those stereotypical attitudes that have been 'burned into' the other 85% in their years of in'doctor'nization"

Whether or not it happens is another point. That is still the primary professed reason for the system. I do think that open discussions happen, but the majority of people in this profession have common perspectives, limiting the breadth of those discussions at times.

snorlax wrote:Serious question with my answer:
Does an individual become a better teacher because they have "scholarly publications"?

In most cases, I would say there is no connection. Many refereed publications exist solely to "get people published" and are read only by a handful of other academic scholars. Many people write on topics that are so un-related to undergraduate education as to be useless in an undergraduate classroom.
In cases where people are teaching graduate students, or teaching only in the limited area of their expertise, then perhaps publication in "scholarly journals" is warranted.

Perhaps education would be in a better state if undergraduate faculty could concentrate on TEACHING and leave the "scholarship in refereed journals" to those who teach graduate students.

Additionally--if you think we get into some stinking matches here on TubeNet, go read "scholarly journals" in the fields of literature and many of the social sciences...we are, in comparison, some tame boy&girl scouts here...

As someone 3/4 of the way through a Ph.D. in IS, which is considered a social science (go figure) I have often had the same thought. Absolutely nothing that I have done in any of my doctoral seminars nor anything I have read in the "top" journals in my field have anything to do with what I am teaching in the classroom. If I hadn't spent 25+ years in the field I would not be able to teach any of the undergraduate, or even masters level classed that I am or will be teaching, such as database concepts, information systems development, and IS management. This is not true in all fields, but seems very true in this field. In other words the only thing that a Ph.D. will do for me is to allow me to get a tenure track position.

Again, this is different in many other fields, such as computer science, physics, engineering, or other natural sciences.

... And while YOU may not consider teaching undergrads the fundamental purpose of a university, I'll GUARANTEE you that -- at least if you teach at a state-funded university -- the people footing the bill think that's EXACTLY what the university is there for.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I might disagree with this?

But, I wonder...where does that leave music "teachers" who continue to spend a considerable amount of time advancing their performing careers?

The point I was addressing (18 year "visiting assistant professor" jobs) is that offering (or accepting) an entry level position on an indefinite basis is bad policy. It's bad for the people who accept such jobs, and it's bad for the institutions that offer them.

In any job, in any profession, if you take a job with the attitude that you are well qualified for that job and are satisfied with holding that precise job forever...you are already "dead wood". You have defined yourself (or allowed someone else to define you) as a day laborer.

Universities (and to a lesser degree colleges...and to a lesser degree Conservatories and other trade schools - like Law and Medicine) understand this a bit better than industry (but many companies understand it, too). I would love to keep my undergraduates longer than 4 years, and REALLY love to keep my PhD students longer than 6 years, but it's simply not a good idea. The key idea is "up or out".

The job is always about growing into the NEXT position - not clinging to the current position because you are really, really good at it.

Individuals who ARE growing need to insist that the institution recognize that. For university faculty, that means tenure. Now...tenure is a VERY complicated issue - one way to look at it is the transition from doing a job laid out by someone else to being one of those doing the designing. If you'd like...moving into management.

Part of the ethics of a good university is that junior faculty should consider it to be part of the job description to prepare themselves to be qualified senior (tenured) faculty. So, in a real sense - if you're not interested in growing into the next job, you are not performing adequately in your current job.

This, by the way, is a good way to judge colleges and universities. Schools that have a strict caste system of "graduate research faculty" vs. "undergraduate teaching faculty" a generally doing an inferior job. The best places have faculty who publish bleeding edge research AND teach freshman. And consider BOTH tasks to be "fundamental" to what a university is all about.

People in both areas may complain that it would be more efficient to concentrate on only ONE of those two activities (in fact...someone did that in this thread). Well...they may be right, but somehow I don't think "efficiency" is the goal.

Also...I think they are wrong - but perhaps that's another topic.

Doug@GT wrote:

Joe Baker wrote: ____________________________
Joe Baker, who can't help thinking of the recent (protected) comments by a tenured prof of his own alma mater, The University of Texas.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

<img src="http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/course ... althus.jpg" width="100"> = <img src="http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/images/faculty/Pianka.jpg" width="100"> ?

Actually, your math is a tiny bit off.
<img src="http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/w ... es/mao.jpg" width="100"> + <img src="http://hnn.us/resources/mengele.jpg" width="100"> + <img src="http://www.portalplanetasedna.com.ar/stalin.jpg" width="100"> + <img src="http://todayinliterature.com/assets/por ... 99x198.jpg" width="100"> = <img src="http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/images/faculty/Pianka.jpg" width="100">

sloan wrote:The job is always about growing into the NEXT position - not clinging to the current position because you are really, really good at it.

And yet there are people who have spent their adult lives growing -- both in and out of the ivory tower -- and have a wealth to offer, but face a cold shoulder from the university powers that be. My Mother-In-Law is the perfect example of this. She holds a BA in literature, MS in Biology, MA in Old Testament, Ph.D in Geology, and is ABD on a Th.D. She has worked (among many jobs) as an exploration geologist for an oil company, a field archeologist, and a minister. At the collegiate/university level, she's taught English Lit., Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament, and Biology (she's taught all of those except English Lit. at Baylor University in the last five years). But she is now 60+ years old, and her formidable growth is mostly behind her. Besides, she is the primary care-giver for her 90-year-old mother. She hasn't the time or energy to do meaningful research or publishing, if she HAD the inclination. What she wants is to share what she's gained with others, in a classroom. But the best she can hope for at this point is adjunct faculty. She was doing this, but she has just resigned because she can make more money -- which she needs to support herself -- working as a church secretary. What a travesty!! This intelligent, broadly experienced person with a lifetime of experiences has more to offer young people than any prof I ever had. She even has the terminal degree! But to use the terms you've used (she hears virtually the same thing when she applies for university openings) since she's already DONE her growing, she isn't wanted.

Conversely, I had profs in my university days who were clearly chosen for their ability to do research, and had no business trying to communicate their knowledge to undergrads (in some cases, they could scarcely communicate with anyone). They simply hadn't the communicative skills to impart their knowledge to others, especially others who were far behind them in their field of study. Such professors do incalculable damage to their students, even as they climb the tenure ladder.

So yes, I think teaching and research should be separated. Some are capable "doublers", and should be encouraged to engage in both research and instruction of undergrads; but those who can only do one or the other -- due either to natural or cultivated abilities, other responsibilities, or whatever -- should be allowed to apply their knowledge and effort where it does the most good.
____________________________
Joe Baker, who doesn't expect to sway Doc Sloan...