University of Massachusetts rumor...

[TubaRay]

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

[Lew]

...
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.

[sloan]

lern 2 spel

[sloan]

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.

[Joe Baker]

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

[Doug@GT]

____________________________
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"> ?

[Lew]

...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.

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.

[sloan]

... 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.

[Joe Baker]

____________________________
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">

[Joe Baker]

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...

[windshieldbug]

<img src="http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/images/faculty/Pianka.jpg" width="100">

Apparently this gentleman would like to hand out quite a few unearned terminal degrees...

[Rick Denney]

lern 2 spel

You mean, like "soley"?

Rick "who never complains about spelling except when under the influence of evil spirits" Denney

[Rick Denney]

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.

The story of your mother-in-law is precisely what Sloan is complaining about. She was hired as a permanent entry-level employee (aka adjunct professor) and was therefore never allowed to build a career out of it. Furthermore, her (lack of) status meant that her age worked against her.

But on your last paragraph, I go the other way. I think universities that hire faculty in tenure-track positions who are incapable of teaching are missing one of the three necessarily elements of being a good faculty member. It should not be easy to get a job for life. It should take more than one skill. It should require being a capable doubler (or tripler).

The three components of an academic career are teaching, research, and service. Too many universities (including my alma mater) focused too much on research, with the result that teaching suffered. But when teaching suffers, students eventually go elsewhere. My alma mater has had to reinforce its teaching capability to try to shore up declining ratings in my field, though they have been very successful in research.

Service usually includes those things that are not teaching but that are directly beneficial to students. For example, one of my good friends, an engineering professor at UT-Arlington, is the faculty advisor for two student chapters of professional societies, judges at two different kinds of student competitions (which frequently requires him to travel widely--at his own expense), and provides academic counseling. He also maintains an active involvement in professional societies (NOT research societies). Being a good teacher is not necessarily what it takes to do good service--it takes both.

Universities that hire professors who can't teach or who won't serve their professions undermine their own future.

(And to go back to Sloan's first statement--the one where he misspelled "solely"--adjunct professors are hired to fill a particular gap in one particular part of those three required academic traits. Many hire "research engineers"--essentially a research consulting job--and many hire adjuncts solely to teach. A music school might need a few professors to cover the breadth of music teaching, service, and research commensurate with the size of their school, but still need teachers of specific instruments and hire them as adjuncts, for example. Or, a university might hire an adjunct to cover heavy teaching assignments while they justify and fill a new faculty position.)

There is a difference between technical fields and the so-called "liberal arts." Technical fields are more deterministic. Music professors teach students to do what? To be better performers? Do you need a university to do that? Do we need more "better" performers? But the students in those programs, if they are well-taught, often leave the univerisity with the mental equipment to make their way in life--doing something. Those who learn a trade have only that, and even when it pays well it may play out (Joe, you and I both know this better than many musicians!)

Too many in the liberal arts have been so infused by group-think prevalent in those fields that they have undermined their own academic futures. Technical fields are less likely to be judged by the public, but they can be just as doctrinaire. They don't give their students the mental equipment to make their way. Eventually, students won't put up with it. And many professors are just awful. But the opposite extreme is just as bad, where professors, instead of holding to their own group-think, are forced to hold to external-policy-maker-think. Which you find the least offensive depends on who you happen to agree with at this moment.

People are sinful and corrupt by nature, and being smart is no cure. The stupidity I see at universities doesn't seem particularly more foolish than the stupidity I see in corporate America, or in Congress. They are just a little less likely to get fired for expressing it (though they'll get fired easily enough if they go too far against the group-think).

Rick "who sees both sides of this discussion" Denney

[Cameron Gates]

Dr. Sloan,

I happen to like the idea of Universities "cheaping out" on faculty costs - particularly in their music and other fine arts departments. The reason being that universities generate far too many "music majors" in their music departments (please see the thread in which I coined the term "performance lite") than can later find taxpaying jobs as *musicians. Looking at the other side of the coin, if someone who does not expect to receive retirement/medical/etc. benefits can suppliment their professional "performance" income by filling in a little gap in some university's marginal-esque music department, does that actually "strenghten" or "weaken" that university?

I care not whether people pursue their artistic interests/passions in private music conservatories, but when resources are taken away from MY family's hopes/dreams/future (i.e. resources) to pay for many of these "impossible dreams", THAT'S when I believe I have a right to shout out about it.

bloke "who believes that it may be quite possible that far too many government-funded universities offer 'fine arts' programs that (supposedly) claim to lead their graduates towards professional careers"
______________________________
*Frankly, I just dunno if Universities, statistically, are kickin' out enough school band directors each year to fill those jobs (??), but if they are not I would just as soon prefer that some high schools did without band directors - rather than encouraging nonchalant folk (through "band scholarships", etc.) to go into this particular field which requires so much dedication and sacrifice, and which requires so many different specialized skills.

Ditto. You sir have nailed it.

Bloke for leader.

[sloan]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that X-majors must spend their lives as X-ians to be considered a "success" (either for themselves, or for the department that produced them).

How many philosophy majors forge careers as professional philosophers?

How many math majors go on to become professional mathematicians?

Answer: surprisingly few!

Why should we judge the quality of a Music department by the number of undergraduate majors who turn into professional musicians?

As for adjuncts teaching practical skills - I don't advocate hiring more tenure-track faculty to teach those classes - I advocate ripping those courses out of the course catalog and firing all of the "professors" who teach such drivel. If people want instruction in playing an instrument, let them contract with proprietors of private studios.

We have a SOMEWHAT SIMILAR (note: NOT an exact parallel) in my field. Bad CS departments offer lots of courses with titles like "Programming in FORTRAN", "Programming in COBOL", Programming in C", "Programming in Java", etc. And...they tend to hire adjunct faculty (or, worse, grad student instructors) to cover these classes.

I've said it before (and been castigated for it - but I'll say it again, anyway): any undergraduate student who goes to college to learrn a trade is living in a dream world. The student, and perhaps the college, is running a scam to get money out of the parental units.

The good news is that no student "learns a trade" in even the most industry-oriented department in the most career-oriented junior college. Somehow or other, whether they want to or not, students come out with an EDUCATION (granted..some are better educated than others).

Enlightened companies know this and run their own in-house training programs. Graduates learn the trade on the job - which is a damn good thing because the trade CHANGES every 5 years. Anything you learn in school which is directly applicable to your job has a half-life of about 3 years.

Companies want to hire college graduates NOT because they have learned anything specific - but because they have demonstrated that that can complete a long term project (graduating!) and perhaps because they have probably learned how to learn (or have demonstrated that they already knew how to to that before entering college).

I don't even mind so much when degree programs crop up with job titles in them (you know - Accounting, Music Performance, Engineering, etc) Even these bogus fields can provide the basis for a good underrgraduate education. What I object to is the notion that everyone in these programs must take a job in that field and make a career of it.

As for what "the people" think they are paying for when taxes support higher education, well...that's politics and I'll leave that to the politicians. Suffice it to say that politicians have been known to stretch the truth. After all, they were all philosophy and history majors.

People don't always get what they vote for. And sometimes that's a good thing.

[The Impaler]

...but if they are not I would just as soon prefer that some high schools did without band directors - rather than encouraging nonchalant folk (through "band scholarships", etc.) to go into this particular field which requires so much dedication and sacrifice, and which requires so many different specialized skills.

Sad day. Having spent three years of my life as a high school band director and seen the impact that music has on young people, how it enriches (or even sometimes completely changes) their lives, I sincerely hope and pray that your little scenario never, ever comes to be in our country. For me, the life of a musician is lifeless and meaningless if it is not passed on and shared with younger generations. I can only hope that more and more and more young musicians will have a passion for music education...

[MartyNeilan]

Having spent three years of my life as a high school band director and seen the impact that music has on young people, how it enriches (or even sometimes completely changes) their lives, ...

Cale,
With all due respect, I think some of your attitude is skewed because of your experiences teaching in the Texas system. Most school systems are not like that by a long shot.
Next week, I have an interview with a school system that has less than 20 members total in their high school band, and the low brass consists of a single trombone and an electric bass. They do not even leave the stands at football games. It is blatantly obvious that neither the students nor the administration at that school system GAS about music.
This feels like "deja vu all over again" but that is currently the only opening in the greater area. I genuinely wish I could find a school system that actually supported their music program. Maybe those directors never leave
Perhaps if you were to spend a few years in places like this your perspective may become more realistic.