The UVA Aftermath
As you may remember, last summer, the Board of Visitors at the University of Virginia attempted to push out UVA President Teresa Sullivan, basically because the corporate hacks on the Board didn’t think Sullivan was committed enough to leveraging synergies and proactive leaderocracy and such. It was a gigantic disaster that was beaten back because of widespread protests. The American Association of University Professors (my union which provided me with outstanding representation when URI attempted to disown me last fall. Let me tell you people, there is nothing as great as union representation. Which is why employers want to destroy unions) has issued a report after an investigation. The report doesn’t present a lot that’s new exactly, not surprising since the Board was so blatant and open about why they wanted Sullivan gone. But it does get at what it portends:
The breakdown in governance at the University of Virginia documented here was only partly a result of structural failure; indeed, the board ignored its own recently adopted guidelines on presidential evaluation. In much greater measure it was a failure by those charged with institutional oversight to understand the institution over which they presided and to engage with the administration and the faculty in an effort to be well informed. It was a failure of judgment and, alas, of common sense.
You should definitely read the whole thing if you are interested in these issues.
This is all part of the corporate strategy to turn universities into corporations, with all the meaningless lingo, profit-hoarding at the top, and lack of respect for employees that entails. Boards don’t just not understand what universities do and how they are run, they don’t want to know. They are attempting to transform them into the same institutions that brought you The Great Recession, The Housing Bubble, Unsustainable Debt, and all your other favorite economic entertainments.
I have no illusion that I will retire as a professor. Not because I am going to leave voluntarily. And not because I won’t get tenure. Because the job won’t exist. Just yesterday we were talking about MOOCs and how corporations and states are applying the shock doctrine to higher education. This is the end of academic employment, with no benefits to anyone but highly-paid administrators and corporate investors. When Sullivan was reinstated, that was a small victory is a longer battle that we are losing–the battle to retain the world’s greatest higher education system. In the 9 months since the UVA debacle, I’ve seen no evidence that suggests I’m wrong.
I go to UVA. I couldn’t figure out why students got all excited about this, but some did. (It’s easier to see why professors cared.) All of us will be gone in a few years so who cares what functionary is assigned to steer the ship?
Fun fact: Sullivan canceled school during the hurricane last semester for two days. The hurricane didn’t even hit Charlottesville; it drizzled on day one and day two was cloudy.
Because the new model of education that you are increasingly receiving is worse than it used to be, precisely because things like this happen.
I’m in no position to judge that, nor are any of my classmates. And you have a strong bias in claiming that distance education will be subpar now and subpar forever. So I’m not quite convinced and certainly not enough to care if Sullivan got canned.
Well, you will be in a position to judge it when your kids are in school and face a far worse education system.
I also encourage you and your classmates to examine their student debt loads and ask why that is.
I would like a citation to Erik’s claim that distance education will be subpar forever. Or even that all kinds are subpar now. (Indeed, it’s easy to find counterclaims from Erik in that prior thread!)
The fact that cdernem either does not or cannot do this suggests that perhaps Erik might have a point about the quality of education s/he is receiving.
I’ve spent the last 15 years of may career as an instructional designer for distance courses. I would have left 5 year ago had I could have afforded it. Most online courses are inferior.
What started as outreach to students who were at serious distance (hundreds of miles here in the west) for their first year has morphed into most-disciplines, all-the-time phenomena. I’ve seen some great online courses and some travesties. The majority are still inferior to face-to-face instruction.
Some courses are suited to distance, some are not. Some levels (freshman through grad school) are suited for some disciplines.
The problems I see are lack of judgement in deciding what to put on line and the time necessary to train faculty and develop the course. Mistakes are made in administrative expectations (online courses function best at 15-25 students).
The biggest problem, for those courses and levels that are suited for online delivery is developing courses so that the instructor is prepared and adapts the material. Slapping course notes online doesn’t work. Quizzes and discussions and exams need a different approach. There’s good research on how people read online and etc (effects of interpreting visuals and text together, for example).
Add to that the expertise needed to imbed audio, visuals and video devolves to expensive tech help.
Most of this is not done. Faculty and courses are not seriously supported.
Indeed. Another way to say this is that for online education to be done well, as more resources have to be put in than face-to-face education requires. Which kind of negates the whole reason administrators and for-profit businesses are interested in it.
I can’t agree with this (and RM’s comment below) enough. I work with a fairly successful distance leaning program (high school, largely remedial/credit recovery), and the biggest difference between this program and other, far less successful initiatives around here is the level of manpower and resources thrown at the problem in terms of keeping class sizes small while providing adequate support to the students to ensure that they are actually participating in the classes. Some of the latter may be less necessary at the post-secondary level, but the need for interaction between students, instructors and other students cannot be underestimated.
“I’m in no position to judge that, nor are any of my classmates. ”
In other words, you’re ignorant, so it’s OK.
Frankly, you *deserve* a good reaming by neoliberalism.
You are getting a credential, and the value of that credential depends on the reputation of UVa in the future. You have a large stake.
The best example of this is how the value of a Stanford degree soared after Silicon Valley money hit the place. It was not called “the Farm” in the 50s for nothing.
Well, it depends. Do you think a diploma from UVA deserves more respect than one from the University of Phoenix? Because the corporate-tilted board is looking at UP’s profit margins and feeling envious.
U of Phoenix profit margins may be in danger.
I don’t know about deserves; I’m here because it does. And if UVA adopts distance education after I’m gone, then that’s fine, especially if it’s widely adopted. Probably the drop in ‘quality’ will be pretty proportional and UVA won’t be hit any worse.
You’re not concerned about a drop in quality as long as everywhere drops in quality equally? I.e., you don’t care about absolute rather than relative quality?
That’s rather sad. At least, Yglesias pushes a quality for quantity/cheapness trade off (e.g., with the clothing analogy).
Strange.
Have fun in twenty-five years explaining that you got your degree before UVA turned into McUniversity, and try not to grind your teeth when you realize you’re going to pay $45,000 for the online master’s degree your career now requires. Planned obsolescence is a great feature.
If your argument is an example of the sort of critical thinking skills UVA is imparting then I think there is already a problem. Look, here’s how it goes: an undergraduate degree can deliver several things. It can be a status indicator– that is, it can serve as a credential. It can be a place to acquire a set of tools, or to commence acquiring a body of knowledge. It can be a wicked cool place to hang out and party for 4 years. I suppose there are other things as well, but for now let’s focus on the middle one. If you are at a school to learn something– the ostensible reason we attend college– then the quality of the instruction is important. Good faculty are important. And good faculty are not interested in working at schools where the governance is won’t allow them to do the work that they want to do. A crisis in leadership like that at UVA drives away quality faculty, and it doesn’t take very long for a school to take a hit on its reputation that it might take years to reacquire. The University of Phoenix comparison may be inapt– the gap there is pretty big. It won’t be so big in ten years if UVA moves more towards on on-line model, because then what the institution will have become will be a very fancy warehouse for a lot of spoiled rich kids who are getting the same thin gruel of instruction that the U of Phoenix students are getting.
The problem is that all of those get rolled into one. If you were forced to hire a tutor before taking the GED, would that not be seen as a boon to the tutoring industry at the expense of individuals who don’t need them? It’s hard to get upset about MOOCs in light of the serious flaws in higher education.
Except that the serious flaws in higher education are caused by the same people that want to bring you MOOCs.
^ This. I think we all agree that online/distance learning can be incorporated into an effective system of higher education. What’s at issue here is the corporate, profit seeking motives of the people running the show in higher education these days.
Well, perhaps we have different ideas about what the flaws are. Things like requiring a law degree before taking the bar exam or managers and HR departments using a college degree as a floor for applicants weren’t created by the same people who want to bring you MOOCs. And MOOCs aren’t all being pushed by corporate profit seekers. For instance, I don’t get the impression that it’s the case with Open Yale, Edx, or the Khan Academy.
“Things like requiring a law degree before taking the bar exam or managers and HR departments using a college degree as a floor for applicants weren’t created by the same people who want to bring you MOOCs.”
I don’t think this is what Erik had in mind with “serious flaws in higher education.” Those are serious flaws with, well, a lot of things, starting with the fact that employers no longer want to be responsible for training their employees.
Chatham: “If you were forced to hire a tutor before taking the GED…”
Last I heard, the GED is for people who dropped out of high school, so that makes sense (although what really happens is that they go to – you know – classes).
Because you dropped out of high school you should be forced to pay for a tutor you don’t need? How does that begin to make sense? I’ve known people who have passed the GED with self study, I have no idea why making them pay for a tutor would have improved the situation.
No, and please don’t put words in my mouth. Obviously, if you don’t need a tutor, then paying for one is unnecessary. I was referring to the idea that if you are studying for the GED, then you are responsible for getting whatever help you need.
if UVA adopts distance education after I’m gone, then that’s fine
“Because fuck you, Jack – I got mine.”
aka Clarence Thomas’s personal motto.
cdernem, please contact me! The current student Board member’s term expires June 1. Your interest in short-term thinking and I-got-mine-ism would make you a very attractive candidate. You might be able to join us in wrecking a great public university. Good eats, too.
You in?
You win this time, internet. Next time I, too, will set fire to the lawn.
UVA student, huh?
You don’t care about subsequent students being able to have the experience that you had? Or at least, from a purely self-interested perspective, the possible devaluing of your degree in the market if things go downhill?
This makes me value my undergrad environment. We had our problems (including the overvaluing of technological everything that I and others brought up on the MOOC thread), but at least we gave a crap about what whether the next generations of students would be able to have experiences as good as what we had. We were actually really good at caring about that.
Ha, “retire.”
Indeed.
I think there will always be room for people like you in US academia. People like me, however, were completely weeded out long ago. But, I really enjoy all the stories about the decline of US higher education because that means that relatively African higher education is improving in status.
Easy on the persecution complex!
I commented about this extensively here earlier, so I’ll just summarize my main point from the earlier one:
Back in the 70′s, when I went to college, the students had the old cars, and the Professors, and handful of Deans, had the newer, or new, ones.
By the time I returned to be an Adjunct Professor there in the mid-to-late 90′s, most of the old cars belonged to the professors, and the students, the new layers of Administrators, and the Deans, had the newer, or new, ones.
And when I returned for a reunion last year, I talked to the Professors I still knew, and they told me that things had only gotten worse.
Back then, I knew my Dean personally. Now, they say, students are lucky if they even ever get to meet theirs – at least on a ono-on-one basis.
The money goes straight from the students, their parents, and loans, into administration.
The rich get richer, the Professors are in an economic limbo, and the students… well, who cares, as long as the money keeps flowing in, and up?
i don’t know enough about the economics of universities to have much of value to add on that score, but i do know enough about one-percenters to know that ignoring guidelines (even recently adopted ones)when they get in the way is just par for the course.
The things wrong with higher edcuation in this country are simply symptoms of the things wrong with the country, and the world. I don’t know if that’s comforting, or not.
Very much not. All that is solid really is melting into air this time, including all the things that managed to resist this fate until the metastatic growth of finance capitalism. The destruction and demoralization that has been wrought on all non-financial institutions and values is enormous and likely to be irreversible.
I think you’ll find that all that is solid is melting into the ocean this time around… With any luck, we’ll all drown/starve in a ‘freak’ ’100-year’ storm/drought before all of society collapses in a dusty heap.
Yeah, that too. I think I need to drink more. A lot more.
I would really, really like to read about URI’s behavior during that whole ridiculous kerfluffle. Various search combinations on the blog (erik/pike/loomis/URI/university/support/tweet/NRA/incredibly-stupid-depths-to-which-society-has-fallen) are yielding only an SEK rhetoric piece…Can you talk about it, if it wouldn’t put you at risk? Would be interesting, too, to hear about specific positive union actions first-hand; I don’t know many people in unions and even fewer who have actually needed the union to support them. WAIT – are you saving it for a “This Day In Labor History” post?
This. I too would be interested.
I suspect Mr. Loomis thinks it would be impolitic do go into it, but I would like to hear about it as well, and certainly more about the union’s role. As someone who politically and theoretically is a union supporter, but currently feels that my own workplace’s union (I’m in a nonunion position) has been behaving irresponsibly and to their own detriment (not the fault of the unionized staff), it would be pleasant to read some contemporary and positive This Day in Labor History stuff.
He’s actually already written the post, which will be released in 100 years automatically onto the blog.
Otherwise, he might dilute the meaning of “history” in the title.
History is yesterday.
Technically, but from a pedagogical point of view I think we need some time to get perspective. Generally I say about 50 years to put enough space between events and ourselves to get some sort of objectivity. Unfortunately, I have noticed that for instance honors students here all want to write on events that have taken place since the Fourth Republic was established (1994). If I could I would make 1966 (Nkrumah’s overthrow) the most recent date that they could do research on. Stuff that took place when I was older than them does not really have the distance needed for historical perspective.
Actually, it doesn’t sound like the Board itself could tell you why they wanted Sullivan gone. It just seemed leadershippy to them.
Sullivan was cool to the board’s proposed idea of aggressively expanding UVA’s online presence, including MOOCs. Several members of the board, having been the recipients of good fortune in the business world, became convinced that this qualified them in every area of human endeavor, and they thoroughly violated their own procedures and asked Sullivan to resign. Because she’s just The Help, and should know her place when her betters speak.
From the report:
“Several members of the board, having been the recipients of good fortune in the business world, became convinced that this qualified them in every area of human endeavor”
I don’t think it’s so much that these people simply “became convinced” of their ability to solve any of the world’s problems, as much that there’s pretty much a whole industry dedicated to flattering the rich and convincing them of such things. It’s probably a lucrative field. I’d hate to think people do it out of an actual belief that it’s true.
I hear that Curt Schilling is interested in technological innovation in higher education.
Erik, you seem to be arguing for the status quo in higher ed. I don’t think that is sustainable. You see the same thing in K-12 reform. If you want to see what is going to happen to higher ed, look at K-12 (and I don’t mean testing, I do mean agreeing on common understandings of what we want out of education systems (ie standards), connecting incentives within systems to those outcomes, and expecting the system to define quality and its value-added). Reform is comming to higher ed. Unless you can construct a narrative for change to counter what you call the “corperate strategy”, that is not an argument for the status quo, then the “corperate strategy” reform narrative will win.
My narrative is that the corporate strategy is obviously going to win. So we might as well document it.
In so many places it already has. :(
The University of Illinois Classics department was eviscerated in my last year there. They didn’t bring in enough funds and they started offering “Early Retirement”. Most everyone with tenure had no economic choice but to take it. It went from some 20 professors/faculty to 10.
My best professor is still working there for $30,000 a year because when she signed on they hired her as a lecturer and then told her that they had to let her go if they didn’t cut her pay in half.
Blech.
Right now, it’s Classics and German that are taking it hard. The rest of the humanities and a large chunk of the social sciences will follow.
Reichart, I don’t see how your comment makes any sense. Because we’re making ill-conceived changes to K-12 education, that means we should ahead and make ill-conceived changes to higher education? (Though MOOCs are a much worse idea than standardized testing.)
If the US decided to dynamite all of its factories, your comment would be the equivalent of stroking your chin and saying “Well, change is coming — we’ll have to dynamite all of the warehouses as well, since the alternative is the status quo.”
I think some good old fashioned demonizing of the people and organizations involved in funding all that bullshit is a good first step. A second step would be too point out that’s an all-out attack on traditional, small-town America.
The stupid fucking Democrats ought to be able to understand that helping destroy the people and organizations who support you on behalf of people and organizations who’ll always prefer the Republicans and get on making some attack ads for 2014 where serious-voiced political announcer person intones about how Michelle Rhee is trying to steal your child’s future and unless you vote for random D congressman, she’ll get away with it. Demonize education reformers and tie them to congressional Republicans, you kill two birds with one stone.
“You see the same thing in K-12 reform. ”
What we see in K-12 is:
1) The SES of the school district matters most – tell me the rankings of a state’s districts in wealth/income, and I’ll their school quality rankings, to a very high degree. This, of course is heartily ignored by ‘reformers’.
2) The ‘reform’ movement is so full of sh*t that their eyeballs are brown. They basically come down to corporations who want the money, billionaires f*cking the world because they can, and sometimes because they want more money, neoliberal hacks giving ideological cover, bribed politicians, and lazy media taking the side which more money.
This. All the bullshit about teacher accountability and whatever else is just that.
Yes, after a long, deep worldwide recession brought on by a willfully myopic financial class that considers profit maximization the end all and be all of human endeavors, it’s important alter the structure of higher education to conform to their preferences. Change must come.
The most astonishing thing in the whole story was the feckless incompetence of the Board of Visitors. All 16 members were political appointees, all appointed because they were big campaign donors (the Governor makes the appointments). None had any experience in higher education. You’d think you’d want one or two presidents or provosts from other schools. Perhaps a dean from a graduate school, maybe even a department chair. Nope. Lawyers, financiers, business people. Dragas herself has a BA and and MBA from UVA and inherited a real estate development company. It was like a roomful of ambassadors to Luxembourg.
UVA is one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, a “public ivy” with a reputation for commitment to undergrad education that no other state university could match. And the contempt that the governors (of both parties) showed in their appointments to its board, to the point that they apppointed a rich kid whose daddy gave her a construction company to be the rector, is just astonishing.
In fairness, I believe they just appointed her to the Board and the Board elects the Rector and Vice Rector.
But otherwise, yeah. Kaine’s performance on this is exactly as shameful as McDonnell’s, and Warner reputedly pulled strings to get Dragas’s reappointment confirmed. Sometimes there really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference.
Lawyers, financiers, business people.
Priests of the state religion, in other words.
Everything old is new again. Welcome to the 14th c. with business as the new theology.
It ain’t neofeudalism for nothing.
This puts it very well. When the only argument someone can give for their proposals is “Change is inevitable!”, odds are very good that said someone is a grifter.
Also: “Doing nothing is not an option.”
“If we want things to stay the same, things will have to change!”
We may have to give up some education to protect Education.
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.”
The new here is the role that the Anne Neal played in briefing new Board of Visitor members for the various state schools and in defending Dragas. Anne Neal runs a right wing group called ACTA. Her briefing is at
http://www.schev.edu/bov/2011/NatIssuesinHE-Neal.pdf.
What ever happened with Bill Wulf? Was his resignation reversed? Is he teaching again? Is his wife (Anita Jones) still there? Various online pages say he is at UVa, but they’re all undated.
Wulf has always been a hero of mine. I worked with him some when I was in the OS group at Prime and in the Ada community, and did a whole chapter on Hydra when I was teaching an OS design course at VA Tech.
Dragas hasn’t given up – they never do, do they?
“In recent weeks, the conflict hit a boiling point. Days after Virginia lawmakers confirmed Dragas’ reappointment to the board in January, the rector sent the president a lengthy and detailed list of goals to meet this school year.
“Sullivan, apparently incensed, responded by sending the entire board an email arguing that the 65 goals constitute, among other things, “micromanagement.”
““The sheer number of goals is close to impossible to achieve, especially with only five months left in the academic year,” Sullivan wrote in a Feb. 6 email obtained by The Washington Post. “I am not averse to stretch goals, but I also do not care to be set up to fail.””
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/at-u-va-tension-builds-between-dragas-sullivan/article_d0bc0e60-8db5-5d8d-bb5e-9f48009edb48.html
[...] that college exists solely to put people in “useful” occupations. I think the push to turn universities into corporations (“with all the meaningless lingo, profit-hoarding at [...]