I keep reading that this age of digital textbooks is right around the corner, but it never seems to materialize. Maybe this time, that prognostication is correct? I certainly am starting to see the signs of it at JBU and in my own work.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i14/14a02901.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Monday, November 24, 2008
Who needs profs when you have computers?
Some of the more sci-fi conjecturing in this story don't make a lot of sense to me, but when they point out how revolutionary computers have been just in the last decade in how we in the academy operate, I wonder whether these ideas are more than mere flights of fancy.
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i14/14a01301.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i14/14a01301.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Informal tutoring trumps formal mechanisms?
One of the interesting asides I heard at the CIC conference last week was that tutoring efforts in general are not really more effective than not having tutoring sessions available, at least at residential institutions like ours. I’d seen other studies to that effect, so that point wasn’t the surprise. The reason the presenters offered for the seemingly strange result was the surprise. When the researchers followed up in focus groups, the students at residential institutions who didn’t use tutoring services quickly explained that they get informal, “free” tutoring in the evenings from someone down the hall, so why bother seeking out the “official” tutors through the regular institutional channels. Take away the formal tutoring, and the use of these informal mechanisms just increased, but add more formal mechanisms, and you didn’t get much additional bang for that buck since most of the “real” tutoring continued to take place in these informal contexts.
Those doing the investigating took that information and responded in two ways. First, they focused their official tutoring mechanisms on commuter students, those at off-campus sites, and those who in general were not part of the residential community and didn’t, therefore, has as much access to these informal networks. Second, they developed a system of “trained” students in all of the residence halls who could help with math and writing skills in particular. There would be, for example, a “trained” math student on each floor of each residence hall who would have a special sign on his or her door (a star, in this case) to denote someone who could help with these kinds of informal, late-night tutoring. These two changes significantly increased the effectiveness of their tutoring and remedial services without adding much cost. Something to think about.
Those doing the investigating took that information and responded in two ways. First, they focused their official tutoring mechanisms on commuter students, those at off-campus sites, and those who in general were not part of the residential community and didn’t, therefore, has as much access to these informal networks. Second, they developed a system of “trained” students in all of the residence halls who could help with math and writing skills in particular. There would be, for example, a “trained” math student on each floor of each residence hall who would have a special sign on his or her door (a star, in this case) to denote someone who could help with these kinds of informal, late-night tutoring. These two changes significantly increased the effectiveness of their tutoring and remedial services without adding much cost. Something to think about.
"Free market" budgeting in higher education?
A lot of higher education institutions have been experimenting with cost-center budgeting in which each individual unit gets to keep a certain percentage of any revenue generated but also is responsible for making cuts if revenue from that area declines. Here's a recent example at the University of Cincinnati.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/11/cincinnati
As someone who has pushed for exactly these sorts of measures at JBU, I can certainly relate to the kinds of conversations these efforts are generating. We so far have decided to do this kind of work only on the margins (our ancillary budget process and our Grad budgeting "boat"), in large part because our units are not autonomous in which the academic unit responsible for cost would also be responsible for revenue generation. Those efforts are separate (academics and admissions), so if academics can only partner with (not run) the revenue generation side, it doesn't make much sense to have them fully responsible for the cost side as well.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/11/cincinnati
As someone who has pushed for exactly these sorts of measures at JBU, I can certainly relate to the kinds of conversations these efforts are generating. We so far have decided to do this kind of work only on the margins (our ancillary budget process and our Grad budgeting "boat"), in large part because our units are not autonomous in which the academic unit responsible for cost would also be responsible for revenue generation. Those efforts are separate (academics and admissions), so if academics can only partner with (not run) the revenue generation side, it doesn't make much sense to have them fully responsible for the cost side as well.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Review of "Rethinking Faculty Work"
Read the book and heard the main author, Ann Austin, present at the CIC. The basic argument appears to be that technology and social changes are all creating a much different academic world than the one we were previously accustomed to. As a consequence, we need to be much more flexible and transparent in our various hiring, development, and teaching efforts.
Since I work at a small institution that emphasizes (or at least believes itself to be emphasizing) flexibility and innovation, I didn't find too much new and exciting in this book or this presentation, but it was nice confirmation that what we're doing at JBU is on the right track.
Since I work at a small institution that emphasizes (or at least believes itself to be emphasizing) flexibility and innovation, I didn't find too much new and exciting in this book or this presentation, but it was nice confirmation that what we're doing at JBU is on the right track.
Creating a sabbatical/severance pay fund?
One of the institutions I talked to at the CIC (much bigger and with more resources) does something like the following, translated into our JBU context.
1) A portion (1/6th?) of each faculty member’s salary is withheld each year into a separate pot.
2) If the faculty member passes both three-year formal evaluations and/or the next promotion review, then that professor can do one of two things with that full-year’s salary that has accumulated.
- Take a one-year sabbatical at full pay with the saved money being used to hire a full-time replacement.
- Keep working but get a one-time bonus of the equivalent of a full-year of pay.
3) If the faculty member does not pass the formal evaluation at the three year mark, they would be let go with the equivalent of a half-year’s salary as severance pay. If that person fails the 6-year evaluation or the promotion review, that person is let go with the equivalent of a full-year’s salary as severance pay.
4) I didn’t follow up on the details to determine what would happen if someone left of their own volition at any point in this process.
My sense is that this institution didn’t implement this policy by holding back more and more money over time but by diverting salary increases over time into this sabbatical/severance pay fund. Not sure if this is a feasible and even intriguing option for JBU, but it’s a direction I’ve never heard of before, hence my noting it here.
1) A portion (1/6th?) of each faculty member’s salary is withheld each year into a separate pot.
2) If the faculty member passes both three-year formal evaluations and/or the next promotion review, then that professor can do one of two things with that full-year’s salary that has accumulated.
- Take a one-year sabbatical at full pay with the saved money being used to hire a full-time replacement.
- Keep working but get a one-time bonus of the equivalent of a full-year of pay.
3) If the faculty member does not pass the formal evaluation at the three year mark, they would be let go with the equivalent of a half-year’s salary as severance pay. If that person fails the 6-year evaluation or the promotion review, that person is let go with the equivalent of a full-year’s salary as severance pay.
4) I didn’t follow up on the details to determine what would happen if someone left of their own volition at any point in this process.
My sense is that this institution didn’t implement this policy by holding back more and more money over time but by diverting salary increases over time into this sabbatical/severance pay fund. Not sure if this is a feasible and even intriguing option for JBU, but it’s a direction I’ve never heard of before, hence my noting it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
