Quick Takes: Call to Reform Engineering Education, Yale Rejects 'Score Choice' on SAT, English Class Robbery, Ontario Union Adjusts Boycott Stance, Data on Study Abroad, Mormon Shift at U. of Utah, $245,000 to Teach a Single Course
Engineering education needs an overhaul, and must do a better job of introducing students to the actual practice of the profession, says a new report from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The report calls for programs to have "a professional spine" in which each year includes "practice-like experiences," and for an emphasis on how concepts are used and connected. Further, the report calls for more education that shows how engineering fits into the world. These changes will require considerable new thinking about course and program structure, and who teaches, the report suggests.
Yale University announced Thursday that it will require applicants to report all SAT scores, as the College Board has required in recent years, not just selected scores, as the College Board is now allowing students to do. The College Board announced in June that it would let applicants decide which scores to report. Board officials said that they were trying to reduce student stress with the "Score Choice" program, but critics said that this move might be of particular help to wealthier students, who can afford to take the test repeatedly and to pay for coaching. Yale apparently agrees. A statement from the admissions office said: "A complete testing history provides us with some of the context required for making the fairest assessment of each applicant, always remembering that test scores are merely one element in a holistic evaluation. We believe that our policy maintains a more level playing field for low-income students who cannot afford repeated testing or the expensive test preparation that often accompanies it. We also hope that this policy will help to discourage excessive testing and help to simplify testing issues for all of our applicants, reducing the anxieties that some students may feel when trying to weigh complicated new strategies for enhancing their testing profiles."
An armed man entered an English class at LeMoyne-Owen College on Thursday and seized wallets and purses from the 18 students and instructor present, The Memphis Commercial Appeal reported. The college was briefly locked down after the incident, but then resumed operations.
A union that represents some graduate and teaching assistants at Ontario universities has adjusted its call for a boycott of Israeli academics as a way to protest Israel's actions in Gaza. Many Canadian academics have criticized the boycott call as unlikely to do any good and as a move that is antithetical to academic freedom. While leaders of the union have specifically talked about cutting ties to Israeli academics who do not condemn their government's actions, the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees issued what it was calling a clarification of its position -- and saying that it now wants to boycott Israeli academic institutions, not individuals.
The Forum on Education Abroad is releasing its State of the Field Survey for 2008 today. Among the findings, 75 percent of institutions reported that they are actively attempting to send larger numbers of students abroad each year. Rising costs – both for student participation and program operation and administration – topped the list of challenges. In an issue of particular interest of late -- given the conflict in Gaza and concerns over the fate of study abroad in Israel -- 77 percent of colleges described the U.S. State Department Travel Warnings as critical factors in deciding whether to run programs or allow students to study abroad in a particular location. In 2006, 83 percent said the same.
The University of Utah has created a graduate fellowship in Mormon history and culture. That may not seem surprising, given the university's location near the center of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But the university has historically been seen as hostile to scholarly work on Mormons so the fellowship is being viewed as a significant shift, The Deseret News reported.
Steven Hoch hadn't even served two months as provost at Washington State University when he left the position following an altercation with another administrator. Now, his contract is allowing him to be paid $245,000 for teaching a single course, the Associated Press reported. The topic is the Russian revolution.
Comments on
Quick Takes: Call to Reform Engineering Education, Yale Rejects 'Score Choice' on SAT, English Class Robbery, Ontario Union Adjusts Boycott Stance, Data on Study Abroad, Mormon Shift at U. of Utah, $245,000 to Teach a Single Course
U of Utah and Mormons
Posted
by John K. Wilson
at collegefreedom.orgg
on January 16, 2009 at 7:55am EST
I've never seen any evidence that the U of Utah is hostile to Mormons; quite the contrary, the U of Utah refused to hire a highly qualified scholar of Mormon studies because he had been excommunicated (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon296.html). The question is, will the pro-Mormon Church bias at the U of Utah continue to be imposed on candidates for this fellowship?
Former Administrator Salaries
Posted
by Working Professor
on January 16, 2009 at 9:45am EST
At least at Washington State University, the former provost had legitimate tenure and is a proven scholar-professor-researcher.
The former president of the University of Kentucky who retired from that office about nine years ago continues to hold a tenured faculty appointment as an associate professor and at the adjacent community college system -- and draws an annual salary of about $220K plus full benefits each year, year after year, all paid by the U of K -- but nowhere is listed as teaching ANY courses. How ironic that many university presidents and boards deplore tenure -- yet bestow it on themselves, with no teaching and no accountability. Perhaps INSIDE HIGHER ED should look into this case -- and others, given that campus budgets are allegedly stretched nowadays.
UNEQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
Posted
by Keith Johnson
on January 16, 2009 at 10:50am EST
So ex-administrator Steven Hoch is being paid $245,000 (plus benefits, no doubt) for teaching one course. This case is very instructive (pun intended), and should not be forgotten.
CEOs in the US have come under scrutiny for paying themselves more than 400 times the salary of the lowest paid employees of their corporations. The Japanese CEOs seem to do quite well earning 40 times their lowest paid employees' salaries, but these highly varying (over time and across nations)inequities have long been justified with claims that the CEOs work is oh, so much more responsible and demanding than the work of the lowly. Hoch's case is instructive because it puts the lie to such claims, for he is being paid 100 times the pay of an adjunct (approximately, including the fact that an adjunct has no benefits) teaching a single course. The inequity remains even though the adjunct and Hoch (earning 100 times more) are doing exactly the same work with the same responsibilities. So another explanation is in order. Pecking order possibly?
Don't expect full-time faculty to get too upset at this glaring inequity, however, for they too are earning several times the salary of an adjunct, although their work may include additional responsibilities. In a system organized around such inequities (a pecking order) everyone is focused on keeping their place on the hierarchical ladder's rung and its advantages, so the entire system remains operative even when almost everyone recognizes that it is unhumane to all.
Hoch's $245,000 course on the Russian revolution may provide the answer; under what conditions will the lowly rise up and revolt against such inequities? Steven Hoch, ex-provost, could provide the answer in 2009 acedemia as well as 1917 Russia. Steve?
The Academic Boycott
Posted
by A Canadian Observer
on January 16, 2009 at 10:50am EST
To clarify on the point of CUPE-Ontario's resolution to support the BDS (Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanctions) Campaign:
The original motion came from the Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee and was developed by CUPE's International Solidarity committee. This motion, as the BDS campaign has done in the past, calls for a boycott of academic institutions, not individuals.
The CUPE-Ontario President largely screwed this up by incorrectly implying that the boycott would be focused on individuals. However, the actual resolution has not changed at any point.
CUPE Ontario
Posted
by "un-disproportionate"
on January 16, 2009 at 10:50am EST
Last I checked, Israel was yanking Jews from "occupied" areas so that they can be unoccupied; In the linked article "Ryan said, “We too have condemned the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. However, these and Israel's disproportionate response – the loss of innocent lives that has horrified the entire world – are only the latest developments in a decades-long conflict that will not end without sustained international pressure to end the occupation and work for a negotiated peace." It would do CUPE some good to help in the negotiations to settle this as the Egyptions is doing now -- telling Hamas to stop shelling Israel. So is CUPE saying Israel should fire back the same kind of rockets Hamas is shelling them with? Is that "proportionate"? Let's use CUPE's disproportionate notion in a basketball analogy, you know, something easy and not complicated so that it is easily understood: one team has a 7-foot, tall, 320 lbs (sorry no metric here) center and the team dominates and win all games and the championship. Other teams beaten, meanwhile, boycott the league saying that the championship team has a "disproportionate" advantage. Well, you may draw your own academic freedom of expression to compare the two, and yes, they are "apples to apples" if you let your academic artistic freedom of expression allow you to.
Ontario Boycott
Posted
by mcwilliams
on January 16, 2009 at 10:50am EST
Doesnt anyone protest the rockets fired into Israeli communities by Gaza? Who advocates for the poor residents of Gaza who are used as human shields by those firing the rockets?
More SAT whining
Posted
by Bob at State U
on January 16, 2009 at 11:45am EST
Elite colleges are angry that the SAT is taking away some of their leverage by allowing students to report whichever test scores they prefer. Let’s see how much potential hypocrisy is involved here. The SAT says it is trying to reduce student stress but maybe its real concern is the growing influence of the ACT, which already allows the selective reporting option. Elite colleges have been telling us how the SAT’s are only one factor in its decisions and students shouldn’t overly worry, and supposedly they only count the best scores anyway. If so, why are they fuming over this relatively small change in policy? At the same time, the colleges like to describe how each application is lovingly considered as a whole, so you’d better believe they’ve been looking at those less favorable scores along with the best ones. Admissions officers wave the flag of disadvantaged students being hurt by the policy change (while, by the way, charging up to $100 a pop for applications). But isn’t it similarly true that the current report-everything SAT gives an advantage to students who can afford coaching upfront before their first exam, whereas under the new policy disadvantaged students can try the exam early for the experience, without being, well, disadvantaged in the process? You can also apply for a waiver of the test fee. The SAT traditionally told us that coaching and repeated exams did not make much difference anyway, an assertion long since obliterated by, as they say, facts on the ground. So, the game continues. The policy will help more students than it hurts. As for Yale, how are they going to check?
Israel univeristy boycott
Posted
by ste ve
on January 16, 2009 at 11:45am EST
So, where was the boycott against Palestinian colleges(and Syrian, Iranian one too, since Hamas is their proxy) when they began indiscriminately lobbing rockets into Israel, not knowing where they would fall? Where was the boycott over the Palestinian suicide bombers who intentionally targeted Israeli civilians? Where is the boycott over the fact that Hamas uses its own civilians as shields?
Nuts!
Israeli Boycott, etc.
Posted
by John Slimick
, Assoc Prof Computer Science
at Univ of Pittsburgh at Bradford
on January 16, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
This is probably not the right place to discuss the continuing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, I would like to add the following: If Israel and the others cannot find a peace accord based on the military actions we have seen and are seeing, the probability of ethnic cleansing comes closer and closer. There may be other approaches to peace, but I believe that everyone has been in the resolution-by-military action box so long that there is no chance of peace other than my first sentence.
Appropriate response?
Posted
by dundermifflin
on January 16, 2009 at 4:30pm EST
So let me see, The students object to a "disproportionate" response. So if Hamas fires two rockets killing 20 Isreali citizens...the response by Isreal should be to to fire two rockets killing 20 residents of Gaza...?
I don't know how to respond to this absurdity.
We should not be okay with any attack using any number of rockets and killing any number of civilians.
However, if someone started lobbing rockets at me, it would get tiresome very quickly if it went on every day for an indefinate period of time. To get them to stop, I am pretty sure my reponse would not be "proportionate". My response would be just enough to try to take away their ability to do so as evidenced by no more rockets being fired at me.
I don't get that when Isreal defends themselves after they have been hit by rockets, that they have to justify themselves. But then it is people like the students union that give Hamas the encouragement to keep going.
By all means lets blame the Isreali Universitys. I am sure that Isreali leaders will quake in fear that academics will not be allowed to speak at colleges in Ontario.
Real smart.
"Ruling Class" Academics
Posted
by Prof Ed
on January 16, 2009 at 4:30pm EST
When "Working Professor" noted: "How ironic that many university presidents and boards deplore tenure — yet bestow it on themselves, with no teaching and no accountability," what they really deplore is teaching and the real work that goes with it.
I learned of a former ex-chancellor who had a similar golden parachute with a token one course assignment. He was able to hire an adjunct to teach that---easy to do when you collect six figures and pay about $4K for someone else to do your assigned job.
This isn't about work or students; it's about maintaining a patronage system.
Dundermifflin
Posted
by DFS
on January 21, 2009 at 6:10pm EST
Perhaps you, then, can explain this insanity:
http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/
What is wrong with our campuses? With our society?