tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286589958667011923.post7248055160679134389..comments2024-01-23T14:26:57.748-07:00Comments on THE DAVID R. KELLER CHAPTER OF THE AAUP / AFT AT UVU: Shared Governance and the UVU "White Paper"Scott Abbotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01782322856303315648noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286589958667011923.post-30743479347504136912011-09-13T16:45:01.977-06:002011-09-13T16:45:01.977-06:00Re: Alan's insightful comments, excerpt below ...Re: Alan's insightful comments, excerpt below op-ed piece by U of U Prof Norm Jones and assistant commissioner Phyllis (Teddy) Safman in 26 Aug 2011 SLTrb (link below): "Profs 'subversive' to old ways of teaching"<br /><br /> ".... The real"subversion" comes in economic models which put inexperienced professors into classrooms because they are the least expensive. We have dedicated teachers, but the importance of their work is ignored by measuring effectiveness in numbers of bodies processed instead of learning quality." ....<br /><br />http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52450373-82/utah-education-students-faculty.html.csp <br /><br />Peace,<br />Bob RobbinsScott Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782322856303315648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286589958667011923.post-62336753396564686752011-09-13T16:44:27.090-06:002011-09-13T16:44:27.090-06:00There are a couple of potential problems with the ...There are a couple of potential problems with the White Paper. Like David I have some problems with "data‑driven" but possibly for a different reason. Data‑driven seems to be the new in phrase, seemingly scientific and full of meaning but in fact quite ambiguous and in practical usage anything but scientific. Indeed, the phrase "data driven" like the similar phrase "cost benefit analysis" has come to mean in practice a narrowing of perspectives to a few easily countable items that either consciously or unconsciously skew to a conclusion privileging a corporate or money driven (and hence easily countable) perspective. In the academy this translates to courses that are 1. popular with students and 2. directly and simplistically applicable to the immediate workplace. We favor narrow technocratic solutions over educating.<br /><br />The problem with this is it does not address long‑run needs or needs or benefits that are not easily placed in bean‑counting mode. I have long been struck by the fact that philosophy majors do better in law school on average than any other major. Yet, philosophy is not sold by us as a practical major. Why is this? Why do we say that computer science is practical and job related and philosophy is not?<br /><br />We, the faculty are part of the problem. We have failed to adequately make the case for education for the long haul, educating the whole person living out an entire life. This is not good for the individual, it is not good for the university and not good for society.<br /><br />We not only need to keep degrees and courses within faculty purview, we also need to do a better job of demonstrating why a liberal education (and I use this broadly to include the sciences, social sciences, etc.) is among the most practical and useful of degrees. And, I would fight any attempt to make the process overly data driven unless I had a very clear idea of what was being counted, how it was to be assessed and what perspectives were embedded in the data. I am not a Luddite and I am not against data or data analysis. But I am against the subterfuge that often attends a data drive process. As the cliche goes, "the devil is in the details" and with data the devil is often well‑hidden and well‑disguised.<br /><br />Alan ClarkeScott Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782322856303315648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286589958667011923.post-80319327555761088292011-09-13T16:41:19.528-06:002011-09-13T16:41:19.528-06:00I agree with Bill that a stronger statement may be...I agree with Bill that a stronger statement may be in order asserting that the curriculum, including degrees, are and should be the prerogative of the faculty. This is not only tradition, but I believe this is supported by policies, accreditation statements, and legal precedent.<br />Peace,<br />Bob RobbinsScott Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782322856303315648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286589958667011923.post-65856099340278396212011-09-13T16:40:37.704-06:002011-09-13T16:40:37.704-06:00Good that you bring this up, Scott. It seems to me...Good that you bring this up, Scott. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to end with a stronger statement that "plans for the Academic Program Review Committee must explicitly provide for faculty governance of the curriculum and appropriate faculty input in consideration of new degrees."<br />Bill EvensonScott Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782322856303315648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8286589958667011923.post-28102115779492937152011-09-13T16:40:04.581-06:002011-09-13T16:40:04.581-06:00I agree with your statement. It's late, but I ...I agree with your statement. It's late, but I would perhaps attack the notion of "data‑driven": many very high‑quality Liberal Education degrees would not be in very high demand but might contribute greatly to the academic fiber of the campus.<br /><br />Most of the degrees in the IDST area probably fit into this category. And even my own area‑‑Philosophy.<br /><br />The Faculty perspective in the decision process would bring this up, probably.<br /><br />*****<br />David R. Keller, Ph.D.<br />Professor of Philosophy<br />Director, Center for the Study of Ethics<br />Utah Valley UniversityScott Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782322856303315648noreply@blogger.com