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

[Berkut]

This sounds like a terrible bill, but only because it is very likely idiotic to have these kinds of things decided at the state level.

I would support more general standards restricting public universities freedom in employing adjunct in roles that are more typically filled by full professors, but let the schools themselves decide how to meet that standard.

[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.

[Berkut]

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.

I don't have a problem with it being legislated really - so much about public higher education is legislated and funded, and those constraints often create perverse incentives. You need more regulation to account for those perverse incentives, since the market will not or cannot.

[grumbler]

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.

This could be something less universal that it appears:  Professor Gene Nichol of the UNC law school is an outspoken critic of the state's republicans and makes over $200,000 per year (plus free housing) for teaching one class and heading the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.  remembering that this is a proposed bill that hasn't made it out of committee yet, it could easily be one or a few irritated legislators firing a shot across that professor's bow.

[The Brain]

This is a crushing load. I can't believe NC expects their professors to go to perform such Herculean feats...

This is inhumane.

This.

[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.

I don't have a problem with it being legislated really - so much about public higher education is legislated and funded, and those constraints often create perverse incentives. You need more regulation to account for those perverse incentives, since the market will not or cannot.

The market has historically had little or nothing to do with how well a university functions.  I don't think that legislating decisions which have historically been made by Deans, Senates and Board of Governors of Universities makes any sense.  The underling premise is that legislators know more about how a university ought to be run than the people who run universities.  I see no evidence of that.

[Berkut]

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.

I don't have a problem with it being legislated really - so much about public higher education is legislated and funded, and those constraints often create perverse incentives. You need more regulation to account for those perverse incentives, since the market will not or cannot.

The market has historically had little or nothing to do with how well a university functions.  I don't think that legislating decisions which have historically been made by Deans, Senates and Board of Governors of Universities makes any sense.  The underling premise is that legislators know more about how a university ought to be run than the people who run universities.  I see no evidence of that.

No, the premise is that legislators, at least ideally, have different concerns than Deans and Boards of Governors, and those concerns better align with what the concerns of those who are providing the funding (the taxpayers).

The Dean, for example, may not care as much about providing the best possible undergraduate instruction for English 101 as opposed to building a new baseball stadium, whereas the taxpayers might consider it more important, and hence the legislators are there to represent their interests. All in theory, of course.

It isn't about who knows best, but about competing interests and incentives.

For private schools, of course, your point is perfectly well taken. They have private funding, and hence there is no reason for the state to be involved in their running at all, since a private school has no mandate to server the public interest*.

But if you want that sweet, sweet public cash...you have to handle the not so sweet public oversight and scrutiny.

*The radical increase in the use of public funds to pay for tuition through pell grants and federal and state student loans kind of screws this up, however. Which is why we should (IMO) pretty much ditch those programs and replace them with direct assistance to public universities instead.

[grumbler]

No, the premise is that legislators, at least ideally, have different concerns than Deans and Boards of Governors, and those concerns better align with what the concerns of those who are providing the funding (the taxpayers).

In fact, we have a whole thread full of people arguing that college administrators don't know what they are doing.  many of them are the same people who here argue that the college administrators are the smart ones, and the legislators the dumb ones.

As usual, the truth probably lies between the two positions.

[Berkut]

No, the premise is that legislators, at least ideally, have different concerns than Deans and Boards of Governors, and those concerns better align with what the concerns of those who are providing the funding (the taxpayers).

In fact, we have a whole thread full of people arguing that college administrators don't know what they are doing.  many of them are the same people who here argue that the college administrators are the smart ones, and the legislators the dumb ones.

As usual, the truth probably lies between the two positions.

Indeed. Generally, if your position is based on the premise that those who you may not agree with are just plain stupid, it is likely that the one not thinking isn't those who you think are all just stupid.

Legislators react to the incentives placed on them, and college administrators do the same. I have no problem with legislators, again in theory, placing restrictions and rules around how those who spend public money spend that money. There is a pretty well developed process in place to try to make sure that they do so in a reasonable manner. It is called politics.

This "law" is pretty clearly never going to be passed in any kind of form similar to what it is in now, because that process would not allow it, and as you pointed out, it is likely not even written with an intent of being passed to begin with, so it is actually a pretty terrible example of "ZOMG TEH POLITISHUNS ARE ROONING OUR SKOOLZORS!" anyway.

[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.

I don't have a problem with it being legislated really - so much about public higher education is legislated and funded, and those constraints often create perverse incentives. You need more regulation to account for those perverse incentives, since the market will not or cannot.

The market has historically had little or nothing to do with how well a university functions.  I don't think that legislating decisions which have historically been made by Deans, Senates and Board of Governors of Universities makes any sense.  The underling premise is that legislators know more about how a university ought to be run than the people who run universities.  I see no evidence of that.

No, the premise is that legislators, at least ideally, have different concerns than Deans and Boards of Governors, and those concerns better align with what the concerns of those who are providing the funding (the taxpayers).

The Dean, for example, may not care as much about providing the best possible undergraduate instruction for English 101 as opposed to building a new baseball stadium, whereas the taxpayers might consider it more important, and hence the legislators are there to represent their interests. All in theory, of course.

It isn't about who knows best, but about competing interests and incentives.

For private schools, of course, your point is perfectly well taken. They have private funding, and hence there is no reason for the state to be involved in their running at all, since a private school has no mandate to server the public interest*.

But if you want that sweet, sweet public cash...you have to handle the not so sweet public oversight and scrutiny.

*The radical increase in the use of public funds to pay for tuition through pell grants and federal and state student loans kind of screws this up, however. Which is why we should (IMO) pretty much ditch those programs and replace them with direct assistance to public universities instead.

Why would a Dean of a Faculty care about building a new Baseball stadium?

Your notion that the interests of the taxpayer should heavily influence how a university is operated is asserted but I don't understand why you think it is a good idea.  I am not sure what the interests of taxpayers might be in relation to running a university.  It might be that a taxpayer may have an interest in defunding faculties that a taxpayer might perceive as not adding directly to the economic health of their area.  Is that a good way to run a university?

[Valmy]

Why would a Dean of a Faculty care about building a new Baseball stadium?

Maybe it is the architecture department.

[crazy canuck]

Why would a Dean of a Faculty care about building a new Baseball stadium?

Maybe it is the architecture department.

[Berkut]

Heavily influenced? So we are into the strawman/semantics game?

I am out.

[Martinus]

This is a crushing load. I can't believe NC expects their professors to go to perform such Herculean feats...

This is inhumane.

This.

[crazy canuck]

Heavily influenced? So we are into the strawman/semantics game?

I am out.

And well you should.  If you think that legislating these sorts of decisions based on the point of view of the taxpayer isn't heavily influencing something then there really is no point in trying to continue.