Pissed off I am ... because ... who cares!

The human that I am, I, too, bleed when pricked and feel that tinge of revenge when wronged.  But then the insignificance of my existence means that even that tinge of revenge is not worth any damn thing.

A long time ago, a colleague who taught literature remarked that poetry is how we deal with all kinds of emotions--I assumed it includes the emotion of being pissed off.  I was reminded of her comment as I picked up a valuable collection that I own: Poems from the Sanskrit.  I was certain that the poets of the old country, who used the mother-language of many languages, would not let me down.

They lived up to my expectations.

Varahamihira comforts me with:

The fire of envious critics' tongues
Refines the true poetic gold.
Should we not celebrate in cheerful songs
Poor fools who give us benefits untold?

Here is Bharavi:

To quarrel with them is a loss of face;
To have their friendship is a sad disgrace;
A man of sterling judgement realizes
What fools are worth, and foolish men despises.

Finally, Bhartrhari speaks for me in this:

I am not actor, nor a prince's jester,
No king's musician, nor a scheming courtier.
What place at court, then, for a man such as I am?
For neither am I a young attractive woman.

As I appreciated how much these verses consoled and encouraged me, I came across the following by Bhavabhuti, which seems appropriate as an ending to this post:

If learned critics publicly deride
My verse, well, let them. Not for them I wrought.
One day a man shall live to share my thought:
For time is endless and the world is wide.

A big salute to the poets from the old country!  I owe much to the scholar-translator John Brough for that wonderful collection.

How are college campuses like the USSR?

No, it is not any cheap shot at faculty who walk around calling each other "comrade." 
(Wait a sec, that was a cheap shot, right?  But, it is true--they proudly and loudly use the words "comrade" and "solidarity" ...)

Tim Groseclose, a political economist at UCLA, writes in the context of the faculty there rejecting a general education requirement:

While few people will say it, nearly everyone on college campuses understands that the “studies” classes are not very rigorous; nor do they have high intellectual standards.
If, however, you say something like that on a university campus, within seconds you’ll usually hear a reply such as, “No, no academic discipline is any more rigorous than any other.  It’s just that different disciplines require different talents.”
Notwithstanding how often you hear such statements, no one in the history of mankind has ever said, “Darn, I made a D in Chicano studies.  I guess now I’ll have to major in chemistry.”  In contrast, lots of people have said the opposite.  Academic conservatives—even those who are leftwing politically—understand that fact.
My liberal friend made another claim:  The same academic conservatives, although they do not think very highly of the “studies” departments, do not want to admit that fact publicly.  They understand the mob-like responses they will have to face, including being called a racist, if they do that.  ...
Thus, the current situation on college campuses is similar to the last several years of the Soviet Union.  Nearly everyone can see that the system is faulty.  But no one will dare to say that publicly.

Groseclose brings up a number of issues that those outside the academic walls, and many even inside, do not understand.  The first is that left-of-center faculty (which, by and large, includes me too, which is all the more why the "comrades" get pissed off at me, I think) can also be academic conservatives.  Conservatives in the sense of holding on to ideas and ideals that have are often considered old-fashioned anymore: such as, we are about education and knowledge and not about credentialing or inflating grades; we expect students to be self-driven and engaged; faculty will have the highest sense of integrity and will welcome differing opinions; .... you see what I mean?

The various "studies" are often--not always--much lighter intellectual endeavors.  While they are always presented as serious activities, in practice, many of the "studies" are what most students would recognize as easy A.  Further, they tend to be ideological in nature.

One disagreement with Groseclose: he writes that no one will dare to say publicly how faulty the system is.  Ahem, not me; I have been saying and writing about this for years!  Which is also why the "comrades" excommunicated me :)

A river runs through student debt and academic integrity

In an email that invites us to invest "in our future generations by making a gift today at the highest level," the president of the university, where I am privileged to be employed as an instructor, writes:

Our graduating seniors are paying the lowest tuition rates in the state while our entering freshmen are charged among the highest. Because of the disinvestment by the state in state higher education, we must revamp our tuition structure yet again to assure affordability for all students, and we are counting on you to help this special university.

Right now our graduates face significant challenges, from average loan debt exceeding $25,000 to the difficulty of starting a career that utilizes our students’ skills and education in this economy. We have done well these past couple of years by increasing student aid and scholarship from your donations and from university sources. But, to ease the financial burden on our students, we must do much better.

For once, I would like the president to first issue an apology for the misguided expenditures, like this Taj Mahal, that have then translated to unnecessary fees for students, who then go on to amass debts.  It is not that the Taj Mahal alone resulted in all of the $25,000 debt he refers to, but a dollar here and a dollar there and soon it is real money, right?

But, of course, it has never been kosher to ask such troubling questions, even within the settings of universities, which are the places that we idealize as environments for "critical thinking."  And more so for somebody like me whose sincere attempts to engage in difficult and urgent topics led to my excommunication from the flock.  I suppose if you don't drink that metaphorical kool-aid that everybody else is drinking, ...

In those years when I was engaged with the "professionals" on campus who were behaving without any sense of integrity and accountability, one colleague suggested that perhaps I should recognize that some topics are off-limits--he was sympathetic to the faculty union, whose bizarre ideas I was questioning.  I asked him if he was suggesting that I could criticize the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where billions were being wasted and lives were being lost, but that I could not criticize what was happening locally?  And, by silencing me on the local issues, weren't they enacting their own versions of Bush's insane argument of either you are with us or against us?

It shocked me when he argued that it was one thing to criticize the policies on wars but not ok to criticize the union's policies.  Yes, that was his argument!

The lack of professional and academic integrity continues to shock me, even though one would think that after all these years I will be used to such behaviors.  Maybe I should worry when the day arrives that I am no longer shocked--that will be the day that I think I should quit--it will not be worth it if I ever become so apathetic not to be shocked.

"You're cutting edge!" ... A student's compliments make my day :)

A student, "K," emails me:

You're cutting edge! Found an article about a university that gives grants to profs to make their own work available for courses so students don't have to pay an arm and a leg for text books! Interesting concept, just thought I would let you know again how much I (We, if I can speak for the college student in general) appreciate the fact that you let us learn in an economically friendly way!

Very, very rarely anymore do I use books for the courses I teach.  Instead, I make use of academic journal articles that are accessible electronically through the university's library, and an array of freely available online readings, and audio and video materials.

Not only because it is wallet-friendly for students, but also--and more importantly--because using books is so much old-style, and using textbooks is nearly primitive, for the kinds of courses I teach.

But, doing what I do is hard work because I need to be constantly on the lookout for materials that I can use in my courses.  After all, it is so much easier to merely use a textbook or two.

In addition to that kind of work, I have to deal with reactionaries--the faculty, in particular.

Five years ago, the then president of the faculty union here led an effort against online course offerings.  Yes, against.

In my reply (November 11, 2006!) I wrote in support of offering more and more online courses, and went beyond that issue alone:

I would argue that course materials belong in the intellectual commons, and not behind walls that prevent access. 

Over the past few years, I have been impressed with two important approaches in particular:

1. The idea of "Creative Commons" that Lawrence Lessig champions. 

2. MIT's venture into "opencourseware".

I am not sure if it was Lessig who started Creative Commons, but it was from one of his talks a few years ago that I became aware of it.  (More info at http://creativecommons.org/) 

This approach appeals to me because I think the more we make ideas available for everybody, the more humans progress.  I don't think that all our progress has come out of material incentives alone, which is what complex intellectual property rights regimens attempt to do.

A similar, and in fact related, venture is MIT's OpenCourseWare.  (More info at http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html)

When it was launched I remember thinking, hey, this is why the Web is fantastic: we can easily makes things available for free and easy access to people wherever they might be.  This is all the more the case when it comes to distributing knowledge to people in resource-constrained countries, which are quite a few in this world.

MIT's approach has catalyzed the development of the "Opencourseware Consortium".  (More info at http://www.ocwconsortium.org/) It has now become a world-wide effort to pool together the academic knowledge.   

... 

I also hope that the union would urge the OUS campuses to join the OpenCourseware Consortium, if a campus is already not a member.

In sending that kind of a reply, I was consistent with what I always tell students: provide evidence for your arguments, and don't simply try to dazzle me with rhetoric.  

The reply from the faculty union president was nothing but hot rhetoric; a tragic irony, given that he is a philosophy professor :)

The union isn't against online courses, or intellectual commons, but you are proceeding from a false assumption.  The material posted for online courses is not part of some intellectual commons - it is owned by the University.  They charge students money for access to it.  Under the current system, if they so desired, they could get you to do an online course once, then hire an adjunct to teach your material ad infinitum and never give you the chance to teach it again.  They could forgo adding full-time tenure-track positions to your department (in fact, they do that already!), and teach classes on the cheap using your materials and perpetual adjuncts.  They could even reduce the number of tenure-track faculty, replacing them with adjuncts.  Colleges and Universities all over the country are in fact doing this.  We want the University to add full-time tenure-track faculty (with Ph.D.s) to meet student demand, and they don't want to do it because better qualified people cost more per class.

 

This isn't about intellectual commons - it is about universities being able to exploit faculty, especially adjuncts, and about ensuring the highest quality of instruction. 

Seriously, did he not see a major flaw in his own argument?  If the worry is about the university packaging up a course content and having an adjunct teach it ad infinitum, and eliminate the need for full-time faculty, then couldn't the university simply make use of the wide range of course materials, including syllabi, from  prestigious universities like MIT, which provide the same materials for free through the OperCourseWare project, instead of commissioning me to develop them? 

The net result: students, like the one who emailed me, are severely shortchanged by faculty who believe that higher education is only about them, instead of focusing on the only thing that really matters: student learning.

I suppose all I need is an email or two from students, and that is enough to make a Don Quixote out of me tilting at the academic windmills :)

Thank you, "K."

ps: the news item that "K" came across, which prompted her to email me?  This one:

the University of Massachusetts at Amherst recently launched the Open Education Initiative, which will award grants to faculty members seeking to develop low- or no-cost course materials as an alternative to traditional textbooks.

Hmmm .... I didn't even get a grant to do what I have been doing for years :)

The news item also adds this:

Librarian Marilyn Billings says the project will eventually aim to make open education resources “accessible to anyone, anywhere.” 

I wonder whether the faculty union leaders read such materials at all!

Or, perhaps those "leaders" serve as classic examples of Kahneman's "illusion of validity"

How faculty (intentionally) avoid critical conversations about academe

The university's computing services are after the few people like me who are yet to migrate to Google mail that the rest of the campus has transitioned to ... which is when I thought it might be worth spending time looking at the importance of deleting old emails once and for all. I read one email in a folder titled "Senate" and it became obvious that I will have a tough time deleting them all, and will end up migrating all those old emails to Gmail.

The excerpt below is from an email I had sent in June 2003--more than eight years ago--to the incoming president of the faculty senate.  As I re-read it, the feeling is of crushing disappointment that all these are the issues that academe is dealing with even now and we never bothered to tackle them, when all these were so obvious even to a moron like me!

A few days after I sent the email, a big time faculty-leader pulled me aside in the corridor and told me point-blank that the issues I was raising for discussions were within the purview of the faculty union, and that I needed to understand that the only role for the senate was to discuss curriculum.  What a shame!

i suppose that over the next couple of weeks you and the exec. team will put together a work plan for the next year.  may i request consideration of the following?

in my understanding, the higher ed system is rapidly changing.  in addition to the directly influencing acts such as drastic reductions in public spending on hr.ed., larger discussions such as liberal arts v. professional ed., traditional models v. the univ. of phoenix model, etc., are having, and will continue to have, significant impacts on hr. ed as we know it.

it seems like there is a rapidly evolving "new reality" that we faculty need to understand.  perhaps librarians are at the forefront in terms of experiencing the "new reality" that technology, in addition to other factors, is shaping for the profession.  yet, most of these discussions are happening outside the university, and very little is being deliberated by faculty bodies such as the academic senate.  but, faculty bodies, such as our senate, rarely take the lead to figure out what these may mean for their respective campuses; what these may mean not for the next year but for years down the road.

it will be neat if we can discuss at the senate these dynamic events that are happening outside.  in other words, to have the academic senate explore what the future may hold for WOU and how faculty may have to start thinking about that future.  while this will be separate from how the administration and the OUS perceive of the future, i am sure the senate's deliberations will be well received by them. 

examples: will we have to prepare for a future that could sharply change the lecture/discussion/assessment model of today?  all these may lead us to a different paradigm of teaching and learning.  if so, then how do we deliver the content in a new teaching/learning model?  what could be those changes and how can WOU's faculty prepare for those changes?  what do these changes mean for an incoming assistant professor who is joining us for a thirty-year period? 

perhaps this is too broad a discussion.  but, that is precisely my point--that faculty, as individuals and as a body, are perhaps not addressing these issues that form the context within which we conduct classes.  addressing these larger issues will help us in many ways.

thanks.

More on screw the students, and taxpayers too :(

A few days ago, I blogged about the fiscal mismanagement at my own university, and further worried that we are not any exception but that similar stories abound at many, many public colleges and universities.

The good news is that the agenda for a university-wide meeting lists similar issues:

Last year’s strong ending financial position will be significantly deteriorated by deficits in both years of the current biennium. The principal reasons are a 25% decrease in state appropriations compared to the last two biennia, significantly higher salary and benefit costs due to negotiated salary increases and PERS rate increases, and a flattening of enrollment increases. Future risks include further declines and reductions in the state’s revenue forecast and uncertainty of future enrollment numbers. Clearly, now is the time to continue our efforts for being in a much weaker fiscal position for the beginning of the 2013-2015 biennium.

That is the good news--that these issues will be discussed.

The bad news: how come the financial picture was overlooked when those higher salaries and benefits were re-negotiated?  And it should have been obvious even then that the state allocation would decrease, and that the economy was nowhere near any rebound, right? 

"Clearly, now is the time" ... nope, clearly the time was back in early 2009. At least in late 2009. Or at least any time in 2010.  Why not even in mid-2011?  "Now is the time" is ... oh well :(

PS: there is no point going to the meeting.  The believers will recite the same narratives, and a subset of those believers will ask me to please shut up :)

"Thanks for your alternative teaching"

When a student has a positive comment about my teaching, that is often enough to carry me through the term.

We are barely at the halfway mark this term.  Class ended and students were rapidly exiting the room, when one student, while slowly packing up her backpack, said "thanks for your alternative teaching. I really like this."

It caught me off guard for a simple reason that while in the past I have heard comments that my approaches are not quite conventional, nobody had ever complimented me on my teaching as an "alternative" style.  I suppose I am "alternative" even when many of my colleagues mistakenly think that I am a rabid Republican!

I wanted to make sure I hadn't misheard the student. "Say that again" I told her as we both stepped out of the room.

"I just wanted to say that I like your alternative teaching style."

"Oh, thanks, if you think this is an alternative style, then you will like all my classes--they are all the same way" I said.

"I feel like puking when I see scantron sheets" I added.

"Me too. I thought I was the only one who felt that way" the student responded.

Such compliments, from those who truly matter, more than compensate for the "please shut up" that I hear from my faculty peers who simply couldn't fathom why I wouldn't shut up and sign the f*ing form :)