NEA Higher Ed Conference

I spent last Friday and Saturday at the NEA's Higher Education Conference in Chicago and thought I'd post a report here while it was still fresh in my memory.

I suppose blog readers curious and/or critical about the NEA (I remain curious, being a relative newcomer) may first want to hear some general characterization of the attendees and tone of the conference. Compared to the academic conferences I usually attend (in classics and, strangely enough, political science), one striking feature was the range of institutions and hence range of faculty represented: not only research faculty, but community college faculty and faculty from four year schools without major research missions were naturally to be found, as were many non-tenure track faculty. Less tweed, more egalitarian. The sessions I attended were well attended and well presented, though it struck me as a bit odd that many presentations rehashed articles published in the most recent NEA Almanac of Higher Ed (here's a link the the NEA's site for this publication, though the most recent volume there is from last year). Questions and comments from the floor ran a gamut--as they do at academic conferences--from insightful to self-absorbed. In the last comment at the conference, for example, a faculty member made the excellent point that the Obama administration's plans for higher ed didn't seem to call for much in the way of faculty input, while going on and on about her own personal expertise, experiences, and credentials in a way destined to lessen anyone's interest in getting such input.

A College By Any Other Name

Update: DE story, 2/14. 

Faculty and staff in the College of Liberal Arts (CoLA) received a memo from our Dean, Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, asking our views on a name change for our college. First let me applaud her for seeking staff & faculty input. Now I'll provide it, using the blog to amplify (if only a bit) my support of what I suspect will be a losing cause: Saving the Liberal Arts. (Apologies to the non-liberal artists among you, though I hope the following will be of some interest to those outside CoLA.)

The Dean's memo began with an accurate report that the CoLA retreat (which I attended) strongly recommended a name change. I will almost avoid calling attention to the fact that the most forceful recommendation coming from our day long retreat was a name change. The Dean's memo also accurately sketches problems with our current name: let me stipulate that most students--even most current students in CoLA, not to mention potential students--do indeed have very little idea of what the words "liberal" or "arts" mean in this context.  More on that later. 

In addition to being asked whether we support a name change, we're asked to order our preferences among all possible permutations of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, with the resulting acronyms. You can come up with the list on your own. I find the need to consider each and every possible arrangement a droll example of the academic obsession with pecking order. The only name I heard mentioned at the retreat was CHAS, presumably either as a sop to humanistic types with a lingering fondness for liberal arts, or simply on the ground of euphony, though no one pointed that Hass is German for hate. Other acronyms, if pronounceable, would produce things sounding like: Cash, which would at any rate have different connotations than Liberal Arts; Shah, which might help Arabic; Saw, appropriate in an era of budget cuts; Ash, what you have after cuts; and let us be sure to give full consideration to Ass.  Of course CoLA is silly in its own right (you've no doubt heard the old one about seeking corporate sponsorship for CoLA from Pepsi, with the resulting name change, the Pepsi CoLA).

Back to the recommendation from the retreat. A name change did win the poll for the best idea at the retreat. But I think we need to qualify this recommendation in two senses. The first is that there was almost no discussion of the pros and cons of a name change, for the simple reason that there was little discussion of any single topic. The retreat, as I suppose is usual for such things, was run on the principle that the more bullet points one generates, the more work has been done. So separate groups came up with their own bullet-points, generating easel after easel of short phrases. A selection process from among the bountiful yield of bullet-points did indeed show strong support for the name change. But while this support is broad it may not be terribly deep.

Qualified Substitute Instructors

Many students have feared that the promised qualified substitutes will turn out to be yet another err... lie. Wrong! These pictures prove the opposite. Some subs might look very young, some too canine, some do not seem to feel well, but they are here!

Cheng on WSIU: Enrollment silver linings, and the end of faculty lines

[Update: Wednesday's DE covers an important discussion on "position control" (the flip side of "faculty lines") at the Faculty Senate--exactly as I was drafting this while being too coughingly contagious to appear at said meeting. I can also now recommend the comment stream to this piece as being remarkably substantial and moderate (sic!). In the same line, I shall note that Ken Anderson, the bête noire of a past comment stream, made an opportune objection about the administration presenting the Faculty Senate with a fait accompli after previously discussing multiple models for position allocation. Ok, enough French.]

WSIU today broadcast an interview with Chancellor Cheng that had been conducted last week, with the Chancellor out of town this week.  (Curiously, Jennifer Fuller neither noted exactly when the interview took place, nor where the Chancellor was off to. The interview itself was clearly conducted over the phone.) The main topic was enrollment, but there was also an interesting bit on the recherché but important issue of position control, and an interesting little segment on why students leave SIUC without degrees.

Poshard, the meal ticket, and diversity

President Poshard was on WSIU again on Monday.  I'll cover his interview in a couple of posts--though it wasn't terribly newsworthy, it did raise some issues that I will bloviate about.  Here I start at the end, with his peroration.  The next post will cover more journalistic nuts and bolts: what he said about spending on the logo & marketing, enrollment, etc.

After the break, I'll print what Poshard said when asked what his message was for new students.  If you remember, I hammered him last time for treating a college education solely as a meal ticket.  He said a bit more this time, but I'm not sure he helped his/our case any.

Cheng on WSIU: Marketing to the rescue

Chancellor Cheng was on WSIU's "morning conversation" this morning. The most striking part of the interview, for me, was the failure by Jennifer Fuller to ask about negotiations with campus unions. There was nothing at all about these negotiations in the interview. As if the threat of a faculty & staff strike (whatever you think of that potentiality) wasn't one of the more important things facing SIUC this fall. Contrast last week's conversation with President Poshard, where Poshard went out of his way to say things helpful to the administration side in those negotiations (SIU is broke; the faculty got big raises).  WSIU isn't always deaf to union issues, however: you will hear more about those negotiations next week, when a certain blogger will put on his union spokesperson cap and see how well he fares live on the radio. Yikes. At least I can still wear my pajamas on the radio.

I was also struck by a series of questions Fuller had obviously arranged in advance with the Chancellor, who had precise numbers at the ready (this pre-arrangement became clear later in the interview, when Fuller apologized for asking an unscripted question about what percentage of SIUC classrooms were smart rooms and the Chancellor didn't have a number handy). I didn't jot down the numbers fast enough myself, but that's not the point (or at least not my point). The questions were about how enrollment affects SIUC finances. The $1 million cut in state finances equals this many students; this many students would undo our "structural deficit". And we wouldn't spend a dime more to educate any of these students? Yes, enrollment does obviously impact our budget, and, yes, we need to turn around the decline in enrollment, though I think we need to have a conversation about how many students we ought to aim to serve: more isn't always better. But equating students with cash this blatantly struck me as crass. Our students are more than cash cows. Which brings us to marketing, after the break.

Poshard on the budget and the value of higher ed

I caught Glen Poshard's "Morning Conversation" with Jennifer Fuller of WSIU radio this morning.  Poshard sounded weary and rather depressed, and his main theme was the lousy state budgetary situation. The Illinois state budget is of course depressing, but Poshard's read on this continues to be rather more grim than present circumstances would seem to dictate--and indeed is rather bleaker than the view presented by Chancellor Cheng--which was itself a reflection of Poshard's initial relief that we fared as well as we did.  Poshard noted that the state is even farther behind on FY 2011 payments (which were supposed to be complete by June) than it was last year, but his deeper gloom was tied to the overall state budget picture, which remains dire despite last year's tax increase. This leads him to fear a rescission which would add to the 1.1% cut in state funding we have already received.

Poshard's depressing view of things makes sense from two perspectives. My guess, for what it is worth, is that it accurately reflects his state of mind. Certainly his tone was that of the long suffering public servant, an attitude familiar to Poshard watchers. But of course his view also makes sense as an aid to bargaining with campus unions. Playing up the state's budgetary woes helps the administration demand concessions at the bargaining table.

Southern at 142

An anonymous comment brought my attention to a rather insightful analysis of the Strategic Plan racket from the new book Fall of the Faculty, by Benjamin Ginsberg, printed in the Chronicle. It notes Walter Wendler's demise was tied to his reuse of Texas A & M planning materials in the Southern at 150 plan. One of the sides of this process I wasn't aware of was the input of accreditation groups: I believe that SIUC has been required to revise our Southern at 150 plan by our accreditors. The accreditation process, together with the big push for assessment, is part of what is driving the growth of administration across universities. Here's hoping that faculty who are participating in our current strategic planning exercise take a look at Ginsberg's analysis of how that process tends to work.

When such plans set out concrete goals and realistic means to achieve these goals, they can be real planning documents, Ginsberg concedes, but for the most part the process, rather than the glossy vague document at the end, is the real goal, and the purpose of the process is to promote the administrators leading the strategic planning and co-opt the faculty who are invited to take part. Administrators appear to be leading the institution toward a brave new future, while involving faculty and staff in their work. But the end result is often no more than a bloated mission statement, written by administrative staff. Yet faculty given a seat at the planning table are less likely to question decisions that are sourced to the plan, however vague it may be.

Campus Tour

Ok, from my secure undisclosed vacation I've been able to access stirring video of the campus tour from July 1 here:


http://thesouthern.com/vmix_98e3b050-a465-11e0-bbbc-001cc4c002e0.html


I paste in the text of the tour after the break.  The tone is obviously tongue in cheek but the facts are, well, facts.  

Books: 5th Floor

As preparation for our fabulous Show Me the Money campus tour tomorrow, at noon, starting in front of Morris library, I've been thinking again a bit about one of my favorite issues from a couple of years ago: the fact that our new library has rather fewer books than our old one did. Progress! I was even able to snap a picture today of one of my all time favorite campus signs, from the elevators in Morris:

My nine year old son, who is currently "assisting" me in typing this up, at once noted the great thing about this sign.  Son: "Why do you always have to be working on that stupid blog?"  Dave: "Check out this sign from the library."  Son: "Oh yeah, that's really cool, Dad.  But wait, so why can you only get books on the 5th floor of your library?"  Exactly.

Show Me the Money

The IEA mobilization committee is going to hold another "collective action" event at noon next Friday, July 1st, the first day of the fiscal year.  We're calling it the "The Show-Me-the-Money SIUC Campus Tour".

  

We (and yes, I'm afraid I'm involved) plan to meet in front of Morris Library at noon and proceed to other key locations including Faner Hall, Woody Hall, Anthony Hall, and McAndrews Stadium. At each stop, we'll have a brief presentation and discussion about what each place reveals about SIUC's fiscal priorities and what we see as a consistent de-prioritizing of quality education. We anticipate that the entire tour will take less than an hour. To introduce a playful element, we're encouraging people to dress as tourists, so consider pulling out your bermuda shorts and tropical shirts, and bring along your cameras. We also hope to circulate a satirical campus map. 

Commentators here are welcome to suggest their own stops and commentary for the Money Tour, whether to help us with ideas for our own tour or to get a virtual version of the tour going here.  

DE letter and guest column

In case there's anyone who reads this before the DE, be sure you catch the guest column by Robbie Lieberman, contrasting the vision offered inside the Chancellor's ceremony last week with the spirit and vision found outside, and Randy Auxier's letter on an apparent administrative effort to hijack the search for a new dean of of the College of Engineering.

The faculty on this campus appear to be getting uppity.

The business major debate

Ok, today's effort to get out of the union vs. administration bubble for a larger issue: the controversy surrounding undergraduate education in general and business majors in particular. It may be of some relevance given the argument that our administration, and indeed higher education administration in general, has grown too fond of the business model. For if business education is one of the weak links in higher ed, then it would be rather ironic were the business model guiding our administrators.

Here's a joint NY Times/Chronicle of Higher Education article on the business major, and here's a little NY Times debate follow-up (mainly defenses of business education). This debate is the latest ripple emanating from the publication of Academically Adrift (University of Chicago, 2011) by Richard Arum & Josipa Roska, who summarized their argument in a January Chronicle article (you'll need to be on campus, or log on via the library or VPN to make the Chronicle link work).

Larry Hickman on Democracy and Education

You can read the dueling DE stories on the protests and ceremony yourself (interestingly, the protests get larger front page play in the print edition but are a bit tough to spot online). But I thought I'd quickly call attention to the remarks by Larry Hickman at the ceremony, quoted (at some length) in the DE's story.  Money quote: 

“We are called on to take account and reflect on the historic achievements of democratic life. If education is about and for the promotion of democracy, and democracy is about and for the promotion of education, then we must have patterns of instruction that are aesthetically and morally thicker, not thinner."

The passages cited in the news story would appear to define both education and democracy rather too narrowly (surely there has been education, even liberal education, in non-democratic societies, and surely democracy has ends other than education). But Hickman is right to be calling us to think about higher goals for public higher education than career training.  It would be splendid if we had a Chancellor or President up to attempting to articulate such thoughts, but credit Cheng with choosing Hickman to give what sounds like an important speech. 

The Silent Majority Speaks

The silent majority has spoken up in today's DE, providing me with an easy cheap-shot illustration. 

Nixon famously used the phrase "the silent majority"of those who supported the war in Vietnam which he, of course, was earnestly attempting to bring to an end. Now there was a leader one could trust! But back to events more contemporary.

On the collective bargaining teach-in

The text of today's DE article on yesterday's Teach-In includes some pretty representative quotations from people describing the conversation at the meeting, though the headline is unintelligible and the lead misrepresents the amount of time spent talking about the possibility of a strike.  The conversation really revolved around the threat to collective bargaining at our campus, its connection to wider trends at places like Wisconsin, and how faculty and others could better articulate their side of the story.  


My favorite part of the conversation was a point the article gets to toward the end. Ryan Netzley, whose evaluation of a recent missive from the Office of the Chancellor you may have seen on a blog near you, argued that the key to winning a broader set of hearts and minds is to get beyond the financial details and the procedural issues of collective bargaining in order to articulate the rival visions for the future of the university.