Nothing less than sabotage. :bleeding:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2015/04/north_carolina_education_bill_it_would_require_public_university_professors.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
Quote
A Good Professor Is an Exhausted Professor
A North Carolina education bill would be a disaster for research and pedagogy.
By Rebecca Schuman
In higher-ed parlance the herculean act of teaching eight courses per year is what's known as "a 4-4 load" or, alternatively, a "metric ass-ton" of classroom time. And yet a new bill currently under consideration in the North Carolina General Assembly would require every professor in the state's public university system to do just that. The results would be catastrophic for North Carolina's major research universities. The region known as the Research Triangle—Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, so named because of the three "Research-I"–level universities that anchor it—would quickly lose two of its prongs—the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University—were this bill to pass. And it just might.
According to the official press release from its sponsor, Republican state Sen. Tom McInnis, Senate Bill 593—called "Improve Professor Quality/UNC System"—would "ensure that students attending UNC system schools actually have professors, rather than student assistants, teaching their classes." Another result would be more courses taught by fewer professors. But that shouldn't matter, according to Jay Schalin of North Carolina's Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, who recently explained to the Daily Tar Heel that "the university system is not a jobs program for academics." What the bill's supporters either fail to realize—or, more likely, realize with utter glee—is that this bill actually has nothing to do with "professor quality" and everything to do with destroying public education and research. Forcing everyone into a 4-4 minimum (so ideally an excruciating 5-5, I guess?) is a "solution" that could only be proposed by someone who either doesn't know how research works or hates it. It's like saying: Hey, I'll fix this car by treating it like a microwave.
Teaching college, especially if you're good at it, isn't particularly hard. But it does take time—and those 75 minutes in the classroom are the least of it. There are the office hours (which most students eschew for for professor as 24-hour email concierge); there's the prep (anywhere from two to 10 hours for one class meeting); and then, of course, there are the hours upon hours—upon godforsaken hours—of grading. Four (or five!) courses, even with the shortcuts afforded by a teaching assistant here and there (which most people don't get), are a full-time job in and of themselves.
A course load that high leaves little if any time for serious research: You know, trivial stuff like professor David Margolis' team investigating potentially lifesaving HIV drugs; professor David Neil Hayes' work on cancer genomics; and professor Bruce Cairns' leadership of one of the only burn centers in North Carolina. These folks may also be spectacular pedagogues, but they were not hired to teach. And honestly I don't care how good of a teacher someone is if he saves the life of my burned child—and neither, I am betting, do you. (These all happen to be professors of medicine, but SB 593 makes no provisions about professional or graduate schools. Its text quite clearly says "all professors." I learned attention to detail and reading comprehension in college, from professors who had reasonable course loads.)
At any rate, if you think SB 593 is about "improving" instructional quality at all, you are either a cynic or a sucker. As UNC law professor Michael Gerhardt put it to me, this bill is "politically driven, and not pedagogically driven. The political forces have aligned against the public university system, as well as the public schools more generally"; the right's goal is to "redesign it, weaken it, narrow it, redirect it. Some would be quite happy to close it all down."
Whether or not the stated goal is to "close it all down," that will definitely be the result. The professors forced into a 4-4 will simply pick up their research—and the labs where that research gets done, and those labs' workforces, much of them nonacademics, Mr. Schalin—and move them somewhere that will fund them. With the inevitable cratering of UNC–Chapel Hill and NC State, the Research Triangle will become the Research Dot, and the 50,000 individuals North Carolina currently employs in Research Triangle Park—a massive conglomerate of nonacademic research labs located where it is precisely because of its proximity to Duke, UNC, and NC State—will have their livelihoods put in danger. It's easy to sneer that the university isn't a "jobs program" until you have to answer for your state's brain drain.
SB 593 would also herald the unwelcome but not unexpected casualization of even the highest strata of UNC's research professors, forcing them to take on similar teaching loads (albeit with marginally better pay) than the adjuncts who currently shoulder a majority of this country's postsecondary instruction. The North Carolina debacle-in-waiting serves as abject proof that, as tenured history professor and Slate contributor Jonathan Rees has written recently, adjunctification moves upward as well as downward. "Working conditions will gradually drift towards the level of the least compensated among us, not the best," he writes. "What's that you say? You think you're special? You do research? Tell that to every professor at a public university in North Carolina."
Indeed, if the UNC schools implement a systemwide 4-4 minimum with "success"—that is, if somehow tuition revenue doesn't drop—there will be little to stop other meddlesome, ignorant state legislatures from following suit. This will accomplish nothing less than the wholesale obliteration of the public research institution and relocate all of America's best scientific minds—and their labs and their discoveries—to the elite private universities. Want to grow up to be a molecular biologist, Iowa farm girl? Do you dream of studying in a world-class engineering school, inner-city Michigan boy? Better hope you get into—and can afford—Princeton or MIT.
I reached out to Gerhardt because I wanted a North Carolina legal expert to tell me to calm my hormones, that this bill is a silly anti-intellectual showpiece with no chance of passing. My hormones were not calmed. "I don't know," he told me after a pregnant pause. "I think there's enough antipathy toward UNC and enough skepticism about UNC and education that [if SB 593 passes] it won't surprise me." It won't surprise me, either—but perhaps if enough people start to recognize the disingenuous doublespeak of this kind of "improvement" legislation, the bill will be the last of its kind instead of the first.
Well, it's certainly a bad idea for STEM professors.
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).
Tim, could you give an executive summary of what exactly the proposal does? This is slate so they seem to be hyping it but do not offer any concrete information, at least in the first few paragraphs.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2015, 03:43:00 AM
Tim, could you give an executive summary of what exactly the proposal does? This is slate so they seem to be hyping it but do not offer any concrete information, at least in the first few paragraphs.
It says right in the second sentence, the bill would require every professor at state universities to teach 8 classes a year.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2015, 03:43:00 AM
This is slate so they seem to be hyping it but do not offer any concrete information, at least in the first few paragraphs.
There's your problem. Timmay is like some of my slower students, who don't seem to realize that not everything on the internet is true. Slate, Wired, blogs... all of them are highly dubious sources of information, and should never be cited here except as part of a point-and-laugh thread.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2015, 03:43:00 AM
Tim, could you give an executive summary of what exactly the proposal does? This is slate so they seem to be hyping it but do not offer any concrete information, at least in the first few paragraphs.
Drastically increase teaching workload, which will come at the expense of research output.
I don't know how the US academic system works, but if it is anything like the UK system, then that will have an adverse effect because funding, reputation and career progression result from research, not teaching.
Incidentally, if you look up the statute, you will see that what the bill does is not what Slate claims (no surprise), but rather it says that salaries of NC professors will be based on the assumption that they teach a full load, and will be reduced if they don't. Salaries can be supplemented by research endowments to make up the difference. In other words, the state only pays salaries when the professor is working in education.
Unsurprisingly, Slate fails to note that 4 courses (12 class sessions per week) is the expected workload for a full-time professor at pretty much every university. They define the standard as "Herculean" because they know their regular readers are idiots and will believe their bullshit.
Quote from: Warspite on April 23, 2015, 06:16:33 AM
Drastically increase teaching workload, which will come at the expense of research output.
I don't know how the US academic system works, but if it is anything like the UK system, then that will have an adverse effect because funding, reputation and career progression result from research, not teaching.
This isn't a "drastic increase." In 2012, UNC professors taught an average of 3.7 courses per semester. http://www.popecenter.org/acrobat/pope_articles/faculty_teaching_loads.pdf (http://www.popecenter.org/acrobat/pope_articles/faculty_teaching_loads.pdf) For tenure-track professors, the level is lower, to be sure, and this will need to be taken into account in the law (because tenure depends on research and publication more than teaching), but all the "herculean/drastic/sabotage" language is unwarranted.
One of my college fraternity brothers, who is afull professor at the University of Michigan, makes little of his salary from teaching the two or so courses per year that he teaches. Most of his salary comes from his research grants. All of the pay for his graduate students comes from grants, as well.
This is a crushing load. I can't believe NC expects their professors to go to perform such Herculean feats...
This is inhumane.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2015, 06:35:00 AM
Quote from: Warspite on April 23, 2015, 06:16:33 AM
Drastically increase teaching workload, which will come at the expense of research output.
I don't know how the US academic system works, but if it is anything like the UK system, then that will have an adverse effect because funding, reputation and career progression result from research, not teaching.
This isn't a "drastic increase." In 2012, UNC professors taught an average of 3.7 courses per semester. http://www.popecenter.org/acrobat/pope_articles/faculty_teaching_loads.pdf (http://www.popecenter.org/acrobat/pope_articles/faculty_teaching_loads.pdf) For tenure-track professors, the level is lower, to be sure, and this will need to be taken into account in the law (because tenure depends on research and publication more than teaching), but all the "herculean/drastic/sabotage" language is unwarranted.
One of my college fraternity brothers, who is afull professor at the University of Michigan, makes little of his salary from teaching the two or so courses per year that he teaches. Most of his salary comes from his research grants. All of the pay for his graduate students comes from grants, as well.
Hmm. That paper you cite actually claims that the official reporting of teaching loads is inflated, using ASU as an illustrative case study of what it claims is a system-wide problem:
Quote... because it appears that many other schools in the system have average teaching loads inflated similarly to Appalachian State's, practices and data in the entire system must be examined to see whether problems and inaccuracies exist throughout.
Neverthless, I don't know anything about the NC education system - I was only providing a one line summary of the article for Marty. I agree with you that the article is written in something less than an impartial, analytical style.
Quote from: Warspite on April 23, 2015, 09:43:08 AM
Hmm. That paper you cite actually claims that the official reporting of teaching loads is inflated, using ASU as an illustrative case study of what it claims is a system-wide problem:
In terms of what is actually taught, the number is inflated, but it would be the inflated number that would count in the NC bill, so the inflation doesn't mean much for the comparisons we are making.
I didn't realize that you were summarizing the article, not expressing an opinion, so my response to you isn't actually in response to you at all. :Embarrass:
Holy fuck, I'm agreeing with Grumbler. I'm not bothered that more professors of Gender studies are forced to actually teach classes rather then write articles that inevitably end up in the Internet cesspool that is Slate.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2015, 06:24:41 AM
Unsurprisingly, Slate fails to note that 4 courses (12 class sessions per week) is the expected workload for a full-time professor at pretty much every university.
No it isn't. Not in R1 institutions.
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 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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2015, 07:51:56 AM
This is a crushing load. I can't believe NC expects their professors to go to perform such Herculean feats...
This is inhumane.
This.
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 01:09:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 01:09:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2015, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 01:09:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
:huh:
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Why would a Dean of a Faculty care about building a new Baseball stadium?
Maybe it is the architecture department.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2015, 03:01:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Why would a Dean of a Faculty care about building a new Baseball stadium?
Maybe it is the architecture department.
:lol:
Heavily influenced? So we are into the strawman/semantics game?
I am out.
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2015, 01:43:09 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2015, 07:51:56 AM
This is a crushing load. I can't believe NC expects their professors to go to perform such Herculean feats...
This is inhumane.
This.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2015, 03:35:18 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2015, 06:05:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
I agree with CC. The universities should have a large degree of independence and discretion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2015, 06:23:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2015, 03:37:27 AM
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.)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2015, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 23, 2015, 08:21:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2015, 03:37:27 AM
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. :thumbsup:
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2015, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2015, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on April 24, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2015, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on April 24, 2015, 08:32:59 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2015, 06:05:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
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.
I believe they are in fact, governed by the state as well. A University may be able to set policy for itself (a lot government agencies can do this), but ultimately it is run by the state.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
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.
In the US, it already has for a very long time- it's just that usually it's answerable to the executive branch in the form of the various states' commissioners for higher education instead of the legislative.
Even there, though, state legislatures have been calling shots with conditional funding for quite some time now- what's unusual is just to see this level of micromanagement. But then again, I come from New Jersey, where teachers at all levels are pretty much constantly battling the state government on the right to dictate how they operate their schools.
I think that people are naive if they think laws like this haven't been proposed (and, probably, sometimes even passed) in other states and countries. While higher education is a disaster in many places, I know of nowhere it is a disaster because lawmakers wanted university professors to teach more university students.
I very much doubt that this law is going anywhere, anyway. The NC legislature would seem to have no incentive to drive the best-qualified research professors out of state (and those would be the ones impacted, since the teaching-type professors already teach close to the required load anyway).
Quote from: dps on April 24, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2015, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
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.
Interesting. What universities to you know of where the line is not as clear as I am suggesting?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2015, 01:15:45 PM
Quote from: dps on April 24, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2015, 10:24:26 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2015, 07:34:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
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.
Interesting. What universities to you know of where the line is not as clear as I am suggesting?
Google is your friend. First hit for "state legislature interference in universities" is http://www.aaup.org/article/responding-legislative-interference-university-governance#.VT6ejiFVhBc (http://www.aaup.org/article/responding-legislative-interference-university-governance#.VT6ejiFVhBc) which gives examples from Texas and notes that
Quote... legislatures, not satisfied with the role of oversight and audit, are increasingly using statutes to intrude directly into governance at the campus level with almost no meaningful input from faculty.
The second hit is http://www.aaup.org/article/publicized-instances-interference-law-school-clinics#.VT6fiiFVhBc (http://www.aaup.org/article/publicized-instances-interference-law-school-clinics#.VT6fiiFVhBc) and notes a number of instances (in a very specialized area), dating back to 1975.
The third hit is http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=aulr (http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=aulr) is a 2004 mongraph entitled "Legislators in the Classroom: Why State Legislatures Cannot Decide Higher Education Curricula." It describes various state legislative initiatives to breach that line you say exists.
I could go on, but you get the point. While state legislatures have generally held back from trying to dictate to universities (they are not crazy and have other more pressing issues), there have been any number of cases which provide exceptions to that rule. The line is not at all "clearly drawn" except in Michigan (and maybe a few other states, though only Michigan is singled out in the results I scanned), which has a constitutional prohibition on the legislature interfering in university operations.
Ah, so I was correct. The distinction I described is, or was, present in the US and now there is some controversy that legislators are crossing the line. Thanks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2015, 03:59:24 PM
Ah, so I was correct. The distinction I described is, or was, present in the US and now there is some controversy that legislators are crossing the line. Thanks.
Correct. The line is not as "clearly drawn" as you believed. You're welcome.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2015, 04:02:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2015, 03:59:24 PM
Ah, so I was correct. The distinction I described is, or was, present in the US and now there is some controversy that legislators are crossing the line. Thanks.
Correct. The line is not as "clearly drawn" as you believed. You're welcome.
You mean the line has been clearly crossed. The fact we can identify the line as having been crossed undermines your argument that it was not clear in the first place. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2015, 04:16:53 PM
You mean the line has been clearly crossed. The fact we can identify the line as having been crossed undermines your argument that it was not clear in the first place. ;)
You are going to try to weasel out of this no matter how many experts tell you you are wrong, aren't you? :lol:
I'm done. The cites I gave make it clear that many state legislators don't see the line that is drawn so clearly in your dreams. Weasel away, but realize that everyone recognizes the weasel.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2015, 06:51:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2015, 04:16:53 PM
You mean the line has been clearly crossed. The fact we can identify the line as having been crossed undermines your argument that it was not clear in the first place. ;)
You are going to try to weasel out of this no matter how many experts tell you you are wrong, aren't you? :lol:
When an expert tells me I am wrong I will consider their opinion.