Research from the Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success at the University of Southern California suggests that better support for non-tenure-track faculty members leads to better student outcomes. The project also has urged a more thoughtful, less-haphazard approach to filling the growing non-tenure-track faculty ranks. But reform has remained largely at a “standstill,” argues a new report from Delphi. Why? Because various groups, from tenured faculty members to administrators to governing board to adjuncts, lack a “shared vision for the future of the faculty.”
With “The Professoriate Reconsidered: A Study of New Faculty Models,” Delphi offers a rough outline of that collective vision, via the results of a survey of some 1,550 faculty members, administrators, accreditors and state-level policy makers. The respondents, about 1,200 of whom were faculty members, weighed in on ideas and priorities such as ideal faculty pathways; contracts; unbundling of faculty roles; promotion, development and evaluation; and flexibility. Delphi found a surprising level of agreement in responses across categories, suggesting there is common ground on which to move forward on reforming the faculty role. “Our findings dispel the pervasive myth that there is a tremendous and impassable gulf between groups’ views about the faculty,” the paper says.
A major theme that emerged was the need to maintain and restore professionalism to the faculty role, such as protecting academic freedom, offering professional development, including faculty members of all kinds in shared governance and working toward equitable pay. Responses from unionized participants did not differ significantly from those of nonunionized respondents. Participants did express practical concerns that about the feasibility of proposals such as creativity contracts, customizing faculty roles, creating more flexible roles and creating consortial hiring agreements.
“The areas of agreement identified in this study can serve as starting points for discussion, providing points of consensus to help move the greater dialogue about the future of the faculty from mere exchange of ideas to the creation of a reality,” Delphi argues.
It’s no secret that higher education in America is in a tight spot.
The cost and worth of college is a hot topic -- from dinner parties to political debates. The majority opinion is that college graduates are significantly dissatisfied with what they are receiving for the price of the “product” they receive.
Gallup released its most recent poll data of college and university alumni through its “Gallup-Purdue Index 2015 Report,” which is based on interviews with more than 30,000 graduates. This year, the survey included new questions concerning the “worth” of college. It’s time to step beyond anecdotal evidence and get our hands dirty with some data.
For those of us who fastidiously follow the headlines of Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education, we initially found that all of our hand-wringing over how the public views higher education might be justified.
Well, not really. Each of these headlines seems to insinuate that college grads are disgruntled by the cost of their education. However, if we read beyond the headlines, and take even a quick look at the numbers, we find that the sky isn’t falling.
In fact, maybe things are actually better than we imagined.
Gallup’s chart shows alumni responses to the statement: “My education from [university name] was worth the cost.” Respondents answered on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). While the headlines suggest that alumni are dissatisfied, I find myself reading these numbers differently.
Even if we assume that an answer of three (3) is indicative of “neutral,” we still find that 77 percent of recent alumni either agree or strongly agree with the statement that their college or university education was worth the cost.
I read the data this way: most grads believe that their education was worth the cost. That is good news. Even better news is that only 10 percent disagree or strongly disagree. Some additional good news is that, even though the recent graduates who participated in the survey were less likely to think their education was worth the cost, as they get farther and farther away from commencement -- as they are promoted out of entry-level positions -- their satisfaction regarding the cost of education will probably get better (as the Gallup report indicates).
The Gallup report includes significant data -- including factors that lead to student thriving.
But here is my real point: headlines matter.
In our current context bent on scrutinizing higher education, as we look ahead to report cards, and as we struggle to make a case for the import of this sector of society that has been educating citizens in America for nearly four centuries, let’s at least lead with more accurate headlines -- even if crisis sells.
Here’s what the headlines could have been:
“Is College Worth the Cost? Only 10 Percent of Grads Don’t Think So.”
Entirely different story.
Keith R. Martel is director of the Master of Arts in Higher Education at Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Penn. He is the co-author of the newly releasedStoried Leadership, a faith-based, narrative approach to leadership.
A football player at Albright College, in Pennsylvania, has been charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and attempted homicide in what witnesses describe as his stabbing a teammate multiple times with a corkscrew, The Reading Eagle reported. The player who has been accused has been suspended from the team, while the football player who was stabbed remains hospitalized.
Submitted by Jake New on October 13, 2015 - 3:00am
The University of Southern California fired its head football coach, Steve Sarkisian, on Monday after he appeared to be intoxicated at a recent game and during team meetings. In August, the head coach apologized for similar behavior at a team function that he said was the result of being under the influence of alcohol and painkillers. A player told ESPN that Sarkisian "showed up lit to meetings" on Sunday, and the university asked the coach to take a leave of absence later that day.
"After careful consideration of what is in the best interest of the university and our student athletes, I have made the decision to terminate Steve Sarkisian, effective immediately," Pat Haden, USC athletic director, said in a statement Monday. "Through all of this we remain concerned for Steve and hope that it will give him the opportunity to focus on his personal well-being."
Submitted by Jake New on October 13, 2015 - 3:00am
Wesleyan University's Office of Student Affairs is hoping to help students avoid distasteful costumes this Halloween by posting signs around campus that feature a cultural sensitivity checklist to determine if a costume is offensive. It encourages students to ask themselves whether their costumes mock cultural or religious symbols, attempt to represent an entire culture or ethnicity, or trivialize human suffering, oppression and marginalization.
"Unsure if your costume might be offensive?" the sign asks, listing the contact information for various offices and organizations on campus. "Don't be scared to ask questions."
California Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday vetoed legislation that would have required colleges and universities in the state to have minimum punishments for those found by the institutions to have engaged in rape or forcible sex acts. In those cases, suspension for two years would have been required. Proponents of the law pointed to cases where students found responsible for such acts received far lighter punishments.
In his veto message, Governor Brown said he agreed that such students should be punished, but he questioned whether the state should set standards in this area. "It is eminently reasonable to expect that discipline shall not vary based on a student's status as an athlete or a declared area of study," Brown said. "The bill, however, could deprive professionals from using their better judgment to discipline according to relevant circumstances."
It’s 2 a.m. on Friday, and I awaken and slowly consider the topic that I will teach in my class on earth science later today: global warming.
It is irrational to think there is a high probability that a licensed handgun owner will attend my class, have different perspectives than what I teach, become vitriolic, and pull out a gun and shoot me -- or worse, my students. Intellectually, I know that is unlikely. Reason, unfortunately, is not the same thing as emotion. Emotionally, I feel vulnerable standing in front of 120 students. I will be the focal point of their attention, and deep inside I am terrified.
I am frightened because I see a correlation between those who have decided there should be guns on campuses and those who deny anthropogenic global warming is occurring, despite clear scientific evidence that it is. The correlation is that, in both cases, many people are refusing to accept the facts. The fear is real because lives are being taken.
This week, I watched a video of a televised hearing on Capitol Hill in which Senator Ted Cruz questioned Aaron Mair, the president of the Sierra Club, about the veracity of warming trends. In that video, not only does the senator avoid referring to actual data sources, he frequently uses the terms “satellite data,” “facts” and “debate” to gain authority over the situation. Watching it, I suddenly realized that he had no need to cite sources and was not interested in a burden of proof. Rather, he was interested in winning because (like significant percent of the members of Congress) he is a lawyer. In the courtroom there are rules, and prosecuting attorneys do all that they can to win. At 2:20 a.m. on the morning of my class, I wonder how I should deal with any students who watched the interchange.
By 2:30 a.m., I have found a Washington Post article providing many of the particulars of what Senator Cruz omitted: direct NASA meteorological and sea surface temperature data that clearly show global warming over the same period that Cruz dismissed using (unsourced) “satellite data.”
At 3 a.m., I am integrating this new information into my lecture later that morning, but I am even more worried because I feel passionate (and that is risky). I want to argue my case, but I am afraid because just last week an angry student shot 18 students at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, nine of whom died. I arrive at work at 7:30 a.m., check my facts on NASA data online, and find from Yahoo.com that there has been another campus shooting overnight at Northern Arizona University. And, a few hours later, I receive reports of yet another one in my own state, near Texas Southern University.
So, there it is. Today, I will be the focal point of an earth science class, talking about a controversial topic that correlates politically with the issue of guns in the classroom. Most of the students began the semester with little to no interest in becoming scientists. And being mainly from Texas, a high proportion of these students are likely to disagree with my perspectives on science, education, society, economics and politics. A panicked sleep-deprived concern is that any one of 120 could be angry, might disagree with me and might have a gun. Although this is an irrational fear, campus shootings are committed by irrational, disenfranchised individuals.
It may appear that I have only two choices as to how to handle my fear. One would be to deny it and to teach my perspective on global warming with frustration and passion. Yet this strategy is actually riskier than being shot; people might listen to it because of my passion rather than because of data, logic and reason. That is, I might “convince them” that I am right and climate deniers are wrong, but that would be a tragedy because I, too, would become like a prosecution attorney concerned solely with winning. Second, I could avoid presenting my perspective, which I hold to be scientifically valid. That, however, would shortchange the students who are taking an earth science class.
So instead, I settle on a third option. I will present them with data that provide evidence for anthropogenic global warming and review the greenhouse effect as an important mechanism driving the warming trend. That represents the 97 percent scientific consensus that climate deniers won’t acknowledge. Then, I will share with them the basic contents of this essay. That is, I will lay out the ways in which I am feeling compromised in the classroom as a scientist. I will become an untrained lawyer for the defense, and then I will let them decide for themselves.
I find that this is the only option because politics in the United States has become a series of prosecutions that never rest. The playing field is somewhat unfair for scientists because we do not believe that the environment represents a “special interest”; rather, we consider it a common good. In addition, the prosecution is not taking place in a courtroom with established procedures and rules. Climate deniers do not have to rest their case; there is no summation of their argument. Should their arguments be exposed as invalid, they are free to change course and attack from another angle. It’s relentless.
I cannot be overly passionate in classroom because that too is unfair to students. The only way through this is deliberate, careful logic and shared compassion for the world. Anything else is a compromise that empowers anthropogenic global warming denial. And, with that, I must rest my case.
Steve Wolverton is an associate professor in the Department of Geography at the University of North Texas. He is the co-editor, with David Taylor, of Sushi in Cortez: Interdisciplinary Essays on Mesa Verde, published this year by the University of Utah Press.
Bryan College, in Tennessee, has set new requirements to be met before faculty members can organize faculty meetings, The Times Free Press reported. Now faculty members will need to go through a seven-step process to obtain approval to hold a meeting, and then will be required to have a waiting period of at least a week. Faculty members are noting that the new rules follow a vote of no confidence last year in President Stephen Livesay. College officials said that the new process is designed to give more legitimacy to faculty meetings.
In this country in 2015, we have had 294 mass shootings in fewer than 300 days. Some of the worst and more dramatic incidents have been at our institutions of higher learning. Two more just occurred last Friday -- one at Northern Arizona University and another near Texas Southern University. In fact, such mass shootings have been such a common occurrence that perhaps we’re becoming desensitized to the horrors of them. The initial shock seems to be followed, in a week or so, by a relatively quick return to normal life -- as if we’ve become resigned and unsure whether anything can actually be done.
What are the solutions? People who work and study at colleges and universities have offered various recommendations, some more reasonable than others.
I am a criminologist and teach at an urban university. Although I want every college and university to be a bulwark of freedom, I know we have to make some important changes to stay safe and improve our chances of surviving when an armed person comes onto a campus with the intention of doing harm. For starters, we can minimize the opportunity that these individuals can do harm. So here’s an idea.
Modern life is crowded, fast-paced, busy. When we go to public places or attend entertainment venues -- an airport, a football game, a concert -- or we even enter into many office buildings in large metropolitan centers, we are OK with passing through a metal detector or undergoing a security search, despite the annoyance and hassle.
We have accepted these forms of access control as part of our daily routine: show your ID, place your backpack on the conveyor belt, submit to a stranger looking through your things. Why do we do it? Because we believe that it works. As much as we may not like it, we accept it and usually feel safer. It is the price we pay for living in a society where we have the right to bear arms.
But something is not syncing up here. People are still losing their lives to individuals who have amassed an arsenal of weapons with seemingly few barriers. We have yet to come up with a solution, political or otherwise, to stop these murderers from doing us harm. In the wake of another shooting, some observers are quick to point to flaws in the mental-health system, while others say we need a dialogue about a culture that embraces violence. A number of stalwart citizens continue to advocate for better gun control. And others, reminiscent of the Wild West, talk about arming everyone to the teeth: if everyone is armed, then no bad person will dare to start shooting. Or so they say.
Meanwhile, we willingly, if not happily, endure security checkpoints in certain situations, while, at other times, we are totally on our own -- in a movie theater or college classroom or at a street party. Why have security in one public place and not in another? Is it just the cost?
This approach can be overcome. But first we need to analyze our commitment to access control to include virtually all public spaces -- malls, college campuses, festivals, theaters, public meetings -- not just some.
The new threshold has to be this: wherever people gather, in any number, for any reason, any duration and in any place, their security is paramount. Elementary and secondary schools are obvious sites. But we must include libraries, houses of worship, retail spaces and more. We have to take our willingness to pass through those gates -- and let that acceptance go forward as far as possible. Otherwise, the idea of feeling safe, of getting through a school day or a church service alive and well is, sadly, not realistic.
Obviously, this is going to cost a lot. But it is an investment: the payoff is in the lives saved and the families left intact, not destroyed by the trauma of another mass murder. And it would demonstrate to policy makers, in particular gun advocates, that there is a significant price to pay to better prepare public spaces and existing institutions for these times when all kinds of weapons are easily available.
Are the added security measures a slippery slope or a tragedy for our democracy? Some people would argue that embracing additional security will establish a true police state and that our freedom will be lost.
It is not wrong to worry about that. All of us should. But the more immediate problem is that innocent people are dying violently every day.
How will additional security measures change life on a college campus? Will freedom of speech and freedom of movement and association be compromised -- or even lost? I doubt it. It’s hard to imagine that a security check -- just like you would go through at a concert or a sports venue -- will destroy our ideals.
In many K-12 schools nowadays, students and adults walk through metal detectors, and bags and backpacks are passed through scanners. Some colleges and universities have instituted these systems as well. But this effort is far from comprehensive.
Initially, students, faculty members and staff members are probably not going to be at all happy with increased access control. But few people liked these new protocols when they were first introduced at airports and other sites, and they got used to it. Already, many colleges and universities in the United States require students, professors and administrators to swipe their cards to gain access to a building, and some ask for bags to be placed on conveyor belts to be screened by magnetometer or X-ray machines. Inconvenient as this might be, it is a far better option than, as some people suggest, arming people on campuses. The latter would probably lead students, teachers, staff members and administrators to be more reluctant to voice their opinions for fear of sounding controversial -- or worse, inciting and incurring someone’s anger and motivating them to draw and use their weapons.
Also, it all depends on where and how security measures are implemented, and the quality of the staff members who are responsible for managing the security checkpoints.
I am not suggesting that all colleges and universities should be gated communities, nor am I advocating that we post campus police wearing camouflage fatigues everywhere. But many higher education institutions, particularly in big cities, have extra security precautions like the ones I have recommended. And they have operated quite well.
Some may argue that this strategy is more appropriate for urban institutions that may appear to be more compact. This is not necessarily true. Think of New York University -- which is spread out among different buildings in Greenwich Village, the Upper East Side and Wall Street, not to mention downtown Brooklyn -- versus Columbia University, which is pretty self-contained. That said, campuses that are located in smaller towns or in more remote locations and effectively spread out would have to selectively choose the buildings where they want to increase access control. They might also consider cordoning off the most vulnerable buildings, if they have not already, by building some sort of fencing in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
Do not get me wrong. Implementing better security systems and protocols is not a cure-all for the far deeper systemic and complicated challenges surrounding gun ownership and use in American society. Yet none of those issues are going to be solved in the immediate future.
In the meantime, an average of close to one mass shooting a day in our country demands strong action. Improving security may be the best start. Let’s work on realistic ways that we can prevent somebody from taking more lives.
Jeffrey Ian Ross is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Baltimore. He is the editor of Encyclopedia of Street Crime in America (Sage, 2013).