Author Questions the Goals of Strategic Planning and Wonders Whether Faculty and Administrators Are Really Working Together

The following are very brief summaries of the work of James L. Wood, Chair, of the Department of Sociology at San Diego State University.  His work puts in critical perspective some of the recent trends in academic administration. 

Are Faculty From Venus, and Administrators From Mars?
In “C.P. Snow Revisited: The Two Cultures of Faculty and Administration,” James Wood points out the growing divergence between stated goals of administrators and traditional goals of teaching.  Underlying his argument is the notion that the goals of the faculty in the classroom vary considerably from administrative goals. 

Much of his work focuses on the impact of distance learning on Higher Education.  Some of the issues he raises concern these recent trends:  1) “a call for ‘learning instead of teaching,’ whereby distance learning -- learning from a physical distance -- is the model.  This call often comes from the same administrators who call for better teaching;” 2) a demand for “outcomes assessment” of learning, often in the form of multiple-choice testing, often originating from the same administrators who call for better writing from students; 3) “the commodification of higher education whereby ‘products’ (courses) are ‘purchased’ (through distance learning) for “consumption” (obtaining a Digital Diploma Mill degree);” and 4) the spiraling dependence on “underpaid part-time instructors instead of full-time, tenured faculty.” 

Wood does an excellent job of outlining potential problems as well as suggesting solutions.  These solutions include:  insistence among the voters on laws that require in-class instruction as a significant portion of courses counted towards degrees; laws that protect the intellectual property rights of the faculty; a return to a reliance on full-time tenure track professors rather than vulnerable contingent labor; and laws that “mandat[e] minimum levels of national and state budgets dedicated to public higher education.” 

Intrigued?  The entire article is available through a link on our web site /aaup, under the Hot Topics section. 

Problems with Strategic Planning
In a second article, “The Faculty, Strategic Plans, and the Business Model for Higher Education,” James Wood discusses the recent trend towards business-oriented strategic planning and its implications in Higher Education. 

Wood argues that such planning is an attempt by business to control Higher Education in order to “make colleges and universities more receptive to immediate business interests.”  Also, he argues that strategic plans often call for the purchase of expensive technology which fuels business in two ways:  by creating a need for their product, and by creating loyal consumers among the professoriate who then make private purchases of such technology. 

Wood puts forth some other controversial and interesting claims in his work, including that “strategic plans are aimed at weakening the faculty,” especially the concept of shared governance.  He also questions whether strategic planning is even in the interests of business as a whole.  I encourage you to read the rest of his work--available on-line through a link on our web site /aaup, under the Hot Topics section. 

Each of these articles deserves consideration in the discussion of our project here at Western.  I hope I have enticed you to read more. --Katy Wiss v

National AAUP President takes a stand on Contingent Labor & the Consumer Metaphor of Learning

AAUP President, Jane Buck, delivered an address at the Annual Meeting of the AAUP in June 2001, entitled Full-time Students, Part-time Faculty.  (The full text is available at http://www.aaup.org/01ambuck.htm).  Her remarks basically address the impact of contingent academic labor on our students’ education.  Buck points out that in 1987, 33% of the faculty were part-time.  Current estimates are between 43% and 46% nationally. 

Of course, part-timers are “highly qualified and dedicated members of the profession, but they are often stretched beyond any reasonable limit by their exigent schedules.”  Part-time faculty are a necessary component of Higher Education—providing expertise in areas not provided by the regular, full-time faculty But, who could blame an underpaid, overworked instructor, vulnerable to being fired, for “cutting corners”?  As a result, the negative impact on students and quality of education is sharp, and not the fault of the contingent faculty member.  Part-timers rarely have office space, a phone or access to a PC.  They are rarely available to provide office hours to students.  On the other hand they are usually only evaluated by students.  Buck points out that there are too many of them to undergo a peer review.  Few can claim the protection of academic freedom, as they are not tenurable, making them vulnerable to firing and non-academic pressures, such as “pleasing the customer”—in other words grading based on personality and likeability rather than a stronger learning experience.  Buck argues that this trend is a subtle attack on tenure. 

One of Buck’s strongest points concerns turning the “customer” metaphor back on the market model, “If we are to accept the language of the market place and speak of our students as customers, let's be clear about what they are buying. They are buying an education that, at a minimum, will teach them to think, to participate fruitfully in the larger society, and provide a measure of personal satisfaction. Even those whose primary purpose in attending college is to obtain marketable professional skills will benefit from the rigorous application of reasonable standards. Employers value literacy, numeracy, disciplined thought, and hard work, qualities that are learned in an atmosphere where faculty are not penalized for demanding the best from their charges.” 

Buck offers solutions:  “If students are customers, let them demand a high-quality product, truth in advertising, a list of ingredients, and warning labels. Colleges and universities, in order to achieve or maintain accreditation should be required to disclose the percentage of courses taught by contingent faculty and others ineligible for tenure, the disparities between the CEO's compensation and that of junior faculty members, the proportion of the operating budget devoted to instruction, and the compensation of support staff. “  Also, “tenured faculty must reach out to their contingent colleagues by demanding reasonable compensation; the conversion of contingent positions to tenure track positions, where appropriate; and their inclusion in collective bargaining units.” 
--Katy Wiss v