A North Carolina education bill would be a disaster for research and pedagogy

[Razgovory]

It seems slightly odd to me that a matter such as the funding of professors re: teaching load would be legislated at the state level.

Or legislated at all.

Most of the higher education institutions are run by the state.  They exist because of legislation.

[crazy canuck]

It seems slightly odd to me that a matter such as the funding of professors re: teaching load would be legislated at the state level.

Or legislated at all.

Most of the higher education institutions are run by the state.  They exist because of legislation.

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with CC. The universities should have a large degree of independence and discretion.

[MadImmortalMan]

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

That's the usual way it's done and probably is also in NC. But I mean the state isn't going to just fund something and look away. There will always be oversight. The fact that it's politicians is a flaw in the arrangement, but they're the ones with the money.

[Berkut]

I agree with CC. The universities should have a large degree of independence and discretion.

That isn't agreeing with CC, that is agreeing with the status quo.

[Ideologue]

Ide, you should read: http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Liberal-Education-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/0393247686

Your condemnation of liberal arts is one of your dumbest views (and God knows you have a shitload of those).

I don't condemn the liberal arts as such, for I obviously have some fondness for history.  However, I condemn, in order: 1)debt-funding a liberal arts education that is bound not to have a ROI comparable to other, similarly-priced programs; 2)the idea that since the liberal arts teach hard-to-define soft skills like "critical thinking," they're a public good (that should still be funded by individual debtors), so let's not look to closely at all those numbers, like the disconnect between history degrees and jobs for history majors; 3)the notion that the liberal arts are sacred, rather than essentially reified hobbyism that can't be easily commodified for the benefit of the wider society (at least the fine arts teach skills); and 4)that the pedigree of the institution offering a soft-skills degree is not in 99 cases out of 100 the most salient positive quality of that degree.  I also have many objections about the way they're taught.  (My own history program was a joke, for example: I had the opportunity to read some of my fellow students' papers, and they were high school level garbage citing Wikipedia as a fucking source, yet those papers got the same As that I did even though I was using primary sources and much, much deeper research in general, solely because they were written in coherent English... usually.  I expect it's the same throughout the sub-elite education system, which is a dysfunctional mess.  I actually half-expect it's not terribly better at the elite schools in their liberal arts programs.)

I do agree that it's a dumb view to hold, or at least a dumb one to espouse, because my girlfriend is a Ph.D. student.  (However, her doctorate is being funded and she's going to an elite university, so not all my objections to libarts education apply.)

[dps]

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

That's the usual way it's done and probably is also in NC. But I mean the state isn't going to just fund something and look away. There will always be oversight. The fact that it's politicians is a flaw in the arrangement, but they're the ones with the money.

I don't know if it has anything directly to do with this bill or not, but there was an academic scandal at UNC that apparently had gone on for about 15 years.  Part of that scandal involved a professor not teaching classes that he had been paid to teach, and basically everyone who signed up for those classes getting A's.  There was a lot more to the scandal, but that was part of it.  As I said, I don't know if it had anything to do with inspiring this proposed law, but I think that requiring someone to actually teach a class they're being paid to teach and requiring that a class that students sign up for and receive a grade for actually exists is a pretty minimum amount of oversight.  And clearly, the administrators of UNC had failed to provide even that minimum.

Which doesn't, of course, mean that this bill is a good way to provide needed oversight.

[grumbler]

Ide, you should read: http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Liberal-Education-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/0393247686

Your condemnation of liberal arts is one of your dumbest views (and God knows you have a shitload of those).

I don't condemn the liberal arts as such, for I obviously have some fondness for history.  However, I condemn, in order: 1)debt-funding a liberal arts education that is bound not to have a ROI comparable to other, similarly-priced programs; 2)the idea that since the liberal arts teach hard-to-define soft skills like "critical thinking," they're a public good (that should still be funded by individual debtors), so let's not look to closely at all those numbers, like the disconnect between history degrees and jobs for history majors; 3)the notion that the liberal arts are sacred, rather than essentially reified hobbyism that can't be easily commodified for the benefit of the wider society (at least the fine arts teach skills); and 4)that the pedigree of the institution offering a soft-skills degree is not in 99 cases out of 100 the most salient positive quality of that degree.  I also have many objections about the way they're taught.  (My own history program was a joke, for example: I had the opportunity to read some of my fellow students' papers, and they were high school level garbage citing Wikipedia as a fucking source, yet those papers got the same As that I did even though I was using primary sources and much, much deeper research in general, solely because they were written in coherent English... usually.  I expect it's the same throughout the sub-elite education system, which is a dysfunctional mess.  I actually half-expect it's not terribly better at the elite schools in their liberal arts programs.)

I do agree that it's a dumb view to hold, or at least a dumb one to espouse, because my girlfriend is a Ph.D. student.  (However, her doctorate is being funded and she's going to an elite university, so not all my objections to libarts education apply.)

I wish you luck defeating those straw men.

In the meantime, I view pretty much all of your moaning posts as shtick, not meant to be taken seriously.  if I am wrong, don't tell me; I have a relatively high opinion of you that would be ruined if I thought you meant your moaning to be taken seriously.

[crazy canuck]

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

That's the usual way it's done and probably is also in NC. But I mean the state isn't going to just fund something and look away. There will always be oversight. The fact that it's politicians is a flaw in the arrangement, but they're the ones with the money.

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

[dps]

There is a distinction between being created by the state - all public universities fall into that category, and being run by the state.  I am not familiar with universities being run by government.  I am familiar with statutes which create the university and gives powers to a university president, board of governors, and senate to run the university.

That's the usual way it's done and probably is also in NC. But I mean the state isn't going to just fund something and look away. There will always be oversight. The fact that it's politicians is a flaw in the arrangement, but they're the ones with the money.

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

I'm not sure that the line has even been as clearly drawn as you suggest, at least not when it comes to American state universities.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure that the line has even been as clearly drawn as you suggest, at least not when it comes to American state universities.

[Sheilbh]

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

Exactly. To me it's like the legislation setting out the working week of police officers. It just isn't their job.

[Berkut]

I agree.  Public universities still have to convince politicians that overall funding to the university should continue/be increased.  But this bill steps over the line from the government acting as a funder to the government making operational decisions as to how the university will function.

Exactly. To me it's like the legislation setting out the working week of police officers. It just isn't their job.

No question - unless of course the police officers all get together and agree that they should all work 20 hours a week.

Oversight is not the same as running.

[Sheilbh]

No question - unless of course the police officers all get together and agree that they should all work 20 hours a week.

A university academic's job generally isn't to teach. That's part of it, but frankly a pretty small part. To my knowledge they are never assessed on their teaching skills (and some of mine were shocking), they are assessed on their research. If you look at any university staff page it'll tell you their research output and their interests - not so much about their teaching.

I remember having a young-ish tutor who moaned about the fact that he really enjoyed teaching but the pressure was very much on research and getting his first book out (as a young doctor he needed a publishing contract before he could even be hired).

If these are purely teaching colleges then I can see the issue. Then unless there's strong evidence that these academics just aren't working I don't think this is justifiable - even then I don't think the legislature needs to get involved beyond maybe having a procedure where a university's management could be brought under more direct control.

Edit: Looking at the people who taught me at Uni, aside from lectures (which they'll do maybe one a fortnight if that) their teaching of undergrads is about 4 hours a week. Which is also about as many contact hours as I had as an undergrad.

[Berkut]

Shelf, I am not arguing that THIS legislation is good, it is obviously bullshit.

Just disputing the idea that a state legislator is beyond the pale by interfering with how a university the state funds under any circumstances.

Those who provide the funding get to have a say in how the money is spent. A public university is there to serve the public good, and the means by which the public expresses what they consider to be the public good is through their elected officials. So if some set of people hired by the state to run the school are not aligning the priorities of the school with the priorities of the public, then it is perfectly reasonable to "interfere", at least in theory.