Tomorrow's Professor Blog

Folks:

The posting below examines limits on tolerance in academic discussion.   It is from Chapter 2, Promoting a Spirit of Pluralism on College Campuses in the book, How to Talk About Hot Topics on Campus: From Polarization to Moral Conversation by Robert J. Nash, DeMethra LaSha Bradley and Arthur W. Chickering. Published by Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741 [www.josseybass.com].  Copyright © 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. A Wiley Imprint 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741-www.josseybass.com All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT:Learning in 140- Character Bites

Tomorrow’s Academia

When Should Intolerance Replace Tolerance?

All of what we have said regarding the promise of pluralism in the academy does not gainsay the following difficulty: whenever groups or individuals, in the name of one absolutism or other, overstep the line between a respectful listening and clarifying and a disrespectful pontificating and ridiculing, then there will be times when intolerance must replace tolerance in order to preserve the principle of tolerance. This is the most difficult challenge regarding the paradox of pluralism on college campuses. Who decides what is safe and unsafe? What are the acceptable limits of tolerance and intolerance of strongly held (and expressed) religious, social, class, political, and cultural views? Again, who decides? What do we do when two or more implacable belief systems collide, and when all the learned conversation has led to one stalemated result? This is the unyielding conviction that the Whole Truth resides in only one point of view, and that therefore all competing truths are lies, heresies, or apostasies that must be repudiated and expunged, regrettably by any means necessary.

Is Rorty (1999) right when he says that we must always use “persuasion rather than force” to deal with “people whose convictions are archaic and ingenerate”? Who determines the guidelines for what beliefs are archaic and ingenerate? More important, what do we do when all the civil dialogue and attempts at persuasion end, and the shouting (or worse) begins? Unfortunately, we have no definite, once-and-for-all answers to such daunting questions that will please everyone. And neither does anyone else, including Rorty.

Here is Walter Lippman, writing in 1955 (cited in Hunter, 1991, pp. 238-239) on a guideline for pluralistic dialogue in a democracy, one that we find compelling even today:

If there is a dividing line between liberty and license, it is where freedom of speech is no longer

respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit the

ignorance, and to incite the passions, of the people… What has been lost in the tumult is the

meaning of the obligation which is involved in the right to speak freely.  It is the obligation to

subject the utterance to criticism and debate.  Because the dialectical debate is a procedure for

attaining moral and political truth, the right to speak is protected by a willingness to debate.

Although, as we have said, we prefer the word “conversation” to “debate,” because it is less adversarial and dichotomous – guided more by a wish to reconcile and integrate than by a need to fight and win – we agree essentially with Lippman.  We believe that in a democracy and on a college campus, people have a right to speak freely on the issues about which they care so deeply.  However, this right carries with it the corollary obligation to allow others to converse and to disagree, and vice versa.  Moreover, people’s right to freely express their views also entails that they speak about their strong beliefs in a way that engages rather than enrages, so that others might hear from them rather than fear them.  This means that no single voice is to be granted special a priori moral privileges in the pluralistic conversation.  All participants possess the same rights and must exercise the same responsibilities. The outcome of this type of conversation should always rest on the merits of the views expressed.

This means:

* Stop blaming and start affirming.

* Do more listening and less telling.

* Engage, don’t enrage.

* Feel deeply and be passionate, but don’t vent.

* Explain, don’t complain.

* Let go, don’t hold on.

* Request, don’t command.

* Turn down the volume and turn up the sensitivity.

* Be curious, not furious.

* Inquire, don’t require.

* Appreciate the process as much as the product.

* Remember that in the moral conversation less is sometimes more.

* Let generosity trump animosity.

Furthermore, we must always be prepared to repeat this conversational process over and over, as often as necessary.  If any one of us refuses to accept mutually agreed-on rules of moral conversation on a college campus, then, sad to say, we must be sent into exile. Why? Because we have freely chosen to forfeit our right to be part of the ongoing conversation about any number of controversial topics on a pluralistic college campus.  We have chosen to communicate via conversation stoppers rather than conversation starters.  We have elected to silence others.

Finally, it is vitally important to have a clear understanding of what type of speech might be considered extremist enough  to justify exiling or marginalizing a particular participant in the conversation. What does one do, for example, with the infamous Holocaust denier, whose opinions might threaten the “safety” of some others in the moral conversation?  Actually, extreme cases like the Holocaust denier are relatively rare in our experience in leading moral conversations.  We try to be clear up front in the moral conversation that “extremists” of all kinds will be relegated to the margins of conversation if their speech continues to be corrupt, immoral, incorrect, cruel, or harmful, especially if it persists after participants have made a number of gentle, respectful interventions that might include challenges, clarifications, and valid counterexamples.  Such moral descriptors as “corrupt,” “cruel,” or “harmful,” of course, represent value judgments that, at the very least, ought to be contested. Thus each descriptor will need strong justification on the part of the conversational leader.

But who exactly are these “extremists”? Does this group include, along with Holocaust deniers, members of the Jesus seminar (and Thomas Jefferson), who deny the existence of a historical Jesus; speakers against white privilege who deny their own intellectual, aesthetic, and Judeo-Christian privilege (along with their wealth and fame earned from doing “multicultural guild gigs”); atheists who deny the existence of Jerry Falwell’s and George W. Bush’s God; those members of Congress who at the outset denied the existence of WMDs in Iraq; or Rush Limbaugh, who denies the threat of global warming; and who know who else? The Holocaust deniers are actually an easy case because they are so extreme. They choose to ignore sound, irrefutable historical evidence, they possess patently harmful ideological agendas, and they function primarily to incite hatred against Jews, against whom their animus knows no bounds. But as our examples here show, there are other deniers whose rights to free speech, no matter how inflammatory, are not so easy to dismiss.

Philosophers have a saying: moral positions based on extreme cases make poor candidates for generalizability, because they are relatively rare and, at first glance, seem to be clear-cut. In contrast, the devil resides in the details of less extreme cases where moral ambiguity and honest differences of opinion are the norm. The principle of the paradox of pluralism is bothersome precisely because it provides no easy, one-size-fits-all answers to the question of how to deal with the controversial views of a variety of contrarians, True Believers, and controversial thinkers, some of whom might actually be on the cutting, albeit unpopular, edge of an issue. This is one of the reasons why pragmatists and postmodern philosophers eschew sweeping generalizations about truth and, instead, approach each truth claim on a case-by-case basis.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

Folks:

The posting below is a review by Thomas C. Logan of the book, Higher Education and the New Society, by George Keller The review originally appeared in Planning for Higher Education. July-September, 2009. Planning for Higher Education.  37(4): 43-45.  © 1998-2009 by Society for College and University Planning (www.scup.org). Reprinted with permission. Planning for Higher Education book reviews appear at: (www.scup.org/phe).

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Scheduling course work in ways which encourage  students   to stay up-to-date in their work

Tomorrow’s Academia

Higher Education and the New Society – Review

George Keller needs no introduction to Society of College and University Planning (SCUP) members or readers of Planning for Higher Education (PHE). Most of us knew him as the father of “academic planning;” the author of Academic Strategy (Keller 1983), likely the most influential book ever in the field; and the founding and long-time editor of PHE. And yet, it is important to keep in mind who George was and all that he accomplished in the realm of academic planning as one ventures into this, his last book. Certainly not his greatest literary accomplishment, this book must still be counted as a monumental attainment-monumental in its call for radical structural change in American higher education and monumental because it was written while George carried on a valiant struggle with leukemia. The book, not published until shortly after his death, is superbly written and intentionally provocative; it manifests George’s passion for and dedication to higher education as well as his willingness to offer radical solutions for difficult challenges.

For those who had the privilege of hearing George Keller present at SCUP annual meetings in his later years, the landscape of this book-really an extended essay-will be familiar. Fascinated as he was with educational change, in this little book he is sharply focused on the breadth, magnitude, and pace of contemporary social change. He had earlier concluded that American higher education needed to recognize “that the society has been going through revolutionary changes and that new, outside forces require educators to rethink and redesign some of their operations” (p. xi). Here, while defending American higher education against charges that it has persistently resisted change-he clearly delineates numerous significant changes-he nonetheless chides his colleagues about the kind of change initiated in contrast to the kind needed: “Change in higher education can no longer be incremental. It must be fundamental and structural” (p. xii).

After lamenting the fact that most historical analyses of American higher education have been “remarkably insular” (p. 3)-that is, detached from their full social and historical context- Keller identifies two kinds of social transformation with which American higher education needs to deal: (1) the movement away from a more agrarian, small town, local, and self-reliant society toward a more urban, corporate, educated, liberated, and international social life with greater emphasis on “equality of gender, race, and ethnicity, dependence on numerous entitlement programs, lessened moral taboos, and e-mail and Web pages” (p. 5) and (2) a more recent “collection of fundamental shifts, new conditions, technological innovations, and changing behaviors” (p. 6).

Keller devotes nearly half of the book to cataloguing and chronicling a plethora of social changes that appeared to him to be eroding the social fabric of America. Demographic changes abound: everything from declining fertility rates in developed countries to “an inexorable aging” (p. 10) of the population in many countries, to burgeoning (nearly uncontrolled) immigration in the United States, to the “crumbled” (p. 19) nuclear family and the decline of traditional family life, all with dire consequences too numerous to mention. Second among the drivers of change is technology or, in Keller’s  mind, the communication (digital) revolution of the 20th century with its ubiquitous impact on both research and teaching in higher education. Keller identifies economic change broadly conceived as the third driver of social change, noting that the “growth of America’s economy in recent decades is a chronicle of astonishing success” (p. 41). Focusing particularly on the 1970s-a decade he selects as showing the greatest transformational change since industrialism unfolded on the American scene-he cites the rise of global competition and international terrorism; an excess of “blunders, lapses, and failures” (p. 47) in U.S. government and politics; and the “rending of the nation’s social fabric” (p. 48)-drugs, sex, divorce, teen pregnancy, and abortion-as causes of a notable economic softening. By contrast, he also notes a monumental shift from domestic capitalism to a more international market economy and from industrial and service labor to knowledge work. In the midst of the decline of the old, Keller finds the foundation stones of a succeeding and unprecedented 30-year growth spurt, an era of prosperity in which the United States “performed admirably” (p. 56). At the same time, American higher education reshaped itself into four segments in response to socioeconomic change, with each serving an identifiable national need: (1) research universities (public and private); (2) elite liberal arts colleges; (3) the “huge, polyglot array of state colleges and universities, polytechnic institutions, proprietary schools, and regional, often underfinanced private colleges” (p. 59); and (4) community colleges and struggling private colleges. And finally, Keller touches briefly on the fourth driver, sociocultural change, emphasizing particularly the “press toward full equality of opportunity for all” (p. 61) since the 1970s. Noting the significant gains made by African-Americans, women, handicapped persons, gays and lesbians, and immigrants, he counters with a perceptive critique of excessive individualism and self-centeredness that manifests itself in a lack of common learning in higher education and a growing division among classes in the society at large.

Having thus chronicled at some length the elements of transformative change on the American scene, Keller then turns in three shorter chapters to higher education’s response to change. He concurs with higher education’s critics regarding the failure of governing boards and presidents to monitor the external environment in a systematic way and the lack of clarity and strategic focus in governance. We have done well in modernizing the admissions/recruiting process, but have not done well in responding to the needs of most adult learners. And, the response to “the torrent of immigrants” (p. 72) and “the dissolving nuclear family” (p. 73) has been half-hearted and ill-conceived. As for technology, higher education’s responses have served administrative process well, but have resulted in subtle losses of learning on the education side. Keller finds similarly mixed results in the higher education response to economic change: neither business nor government leaders have been satisfied. Efforts to contain costs have been minimal and a number of cost-cutting endeavors have actually reduced productivity and quality. Finally, “egalitarianism” (p. 86), for all its positive potential, has engendered a level of “political correctness” (p. 85) that has “lifted political transformation above the age-old importance of objectivity, the pursuit of truth, and fairness to all sides of life’s complex issues” (p. 87).

What should come next? While Keller credits higher education with modest institutional and educational changes in response to transformative social and economic change, these changes are simply too modest to satisfy the old master. He concludes that “only through considerable and profound restructuring can U.S. higher education continue to serve the nation in a powerful way” (p. 90). For his model, Keller selects the 1870-1910 era-an era when stronger central leaders inspired a “pluralism of academic emphases” (p. 94) by preparing youth for the world of work, infusing them with a sense of service and the importance of character, pointing them toward humanity’s and our nation’s highest achievements, and preparing them to create new knowledge. In the end, he concludes that “a bold, inventive structural overhaul of higher education” (p. 96) is imperative: “massification” (p. 98)- expansion of access-demands both different institutions and different pedagogy, faculty, and educational goals; the information technology revolution demands a total renovation of instructional methods, processes, and formats-in short, superior teaching; the “throng of new competitors” (p. 99) requires a transformation of delivery models; and the needs of business and society at large require a change in basic purposes from knowledge for the sake of knowledge  to education in service to society, the economy, and a higher quality of life for all people.

And how is all this to be accomplished? In response to this ultimate question, Keller reiterates an earlier observation about making segmentation a blessing rather than a burden. The solution, he writes, is “to structure America’s higher education system for a mass of students who range from the brightest, most gifted, and intellectually keen to those who mainly want a good job and are underprepared for demanding undergraduate studies” (p. 111). Yes, Keller boldly proposes a purposeful refocusing of the evolving higher education segments-research universities, elite liberal arts colleges, career-oriented public and private colleges and universities, and community colleges and nonselective private colleges-by societal purpose, maybe even by social class to be served. To complete this radical restructuring, Keller strongly urges three specific structural innovations: (1) responding to the needs of adult students by creating “two universitiesŠwith different purposes, schedules, and faculty” (p. 118) on many campuses; (2) rethinking departments and disciplines with an emphasis on wresting control of curriculum, purposes, degrees/outcomes, and governance from traditional disciplines and turning them to the service of institutional effectiveness; and (3) revising cost structures by firmly establishing three-year degrees and four-semester, year-around operating schedules and by professionalizing big-time athletics.

Having set out to right a conceptual wrong perpetrated by generations of commentators on higher education-the failure to integrate higher education with its social and economic context- Keller concludes with a plea for a radical transformation of the purposes and structures of American higher education. In traveling this challenging road, one encounters not only an exceptional array of facts, factors, and provocative ideas presented in an engaging manner, but also confronts an enlightened professional’s sense of awe and a concerned elder statesman’s sense of trepidation (even, at times, disdain) in the face of such transformative change. Moreover, the pace and tenor of the book are sometimes uneven: voluminous chronicling at times juxtaposed with a lack of deep and penetrating analysis; the persuasive power of hard evidence sometimes jarred by the intrusion of strong but unsubstantiated opinion. Now and again, one is left too with a sense of incompleteness, of a more fulsome manuscript intended but never to be completed. In the end, though, this is an engaging, exciting, and stimulating journey and one to be recommended to all who would characterize themselves, like George Keller, as academic planners, designers, or builders.

Reference

Keller, G. 1983. Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

–

Folks:

The posting below gives seven practical rules for junior faculty success. It is by Shala Mills, J.D., chair and associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas. Email: samills@fhsu.edu The article appeared in The Department Chair: A Resource for Academic Administrators, Fall, 2009, Vol. 20, No. 2. For further information on how to subscribe, as well as pricing and discount information, please contact, Sandy Quade, Account Manager, John Wiley & Sons, Phone: (203) 643-8066 (squadepe@wiley.com). or see: http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-DCH.htm

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Talking Yourself Up – How to Score Points During an Interview and What to do After it’s Over

Tomorrow’s Academia

How to Succeed in the Academy: A Chair’s Advice to Junior Faculty

During fifteen years on a state university campus serving in administrative and faculty positions, I have observed dozens of faculty across disciplines as they were hired, fired, retired, promoted, or disciplined. Quality teaching, scholarship, and service are important, but there are other commonsense rules that are sometimes overlooked by junior faculty burdened by the stress and anxiety of the tenure and promotion process.

As a department chair I frequently look for material I can discuss with my faculty during orientation, annual review, and monthly faculty development meetings. To aid chairs and other administrators in mentoring their junior faculty, this article offers seven reliable rules they can share with their new faculty to help guide them to success in the academy.

Rule 1: Know Yourself

Professional success and satisfaction depend in large part on the right fit. To find it, you must know yourself. Of the myriad higher education settings available, which is best for your strengths, interests, and values? Are you better suited for a large flagship university with a thriving graduate program, or a small private liberal arts campus focused on undergraduates? Are you more interested in working with the best and brightest students in elite programs, or is your heart in finding promising minds among largely first-generation college students? Is your primary focus on scholarship or teaching? Is civic engagement or service-learning important to you? These are just a few of the questions you must answer to find the right fit for your academic future.

Your graduate experience should have prepared you for a professional environment where you will be happy and productive. You should have directed your job applications to institutions that fit your experience, skill set, and professional objectives. You will not serve yourself for your institution well in an environment that neither plays to your strengths nor resonates with your values. Much of the frustration I have observed in higher education has been the product of someone taking a position in an institution that was a poor fit.

Rule 2: Know What Is Expected of You and Deliver It

Most of those I have seen fail in academia have been individuals who did not deliver on expectations. Such colleagues did not carry out their assigned tasks, failed to finish degrees or certifications required for their position, violated institutional policies or procedures, disregarded regulations, or outright broke the law. Your position description provides the first glimpse into your department’s expectations. Understand what the department hired you to do, and deliver. As departmental and institutional needs change, your position description may change as well. Keep current on what your administrators expect from your position as it evolves over time.

Most institutions require an annual statement of responsibilities, and this provides an opportunity to review expectations on a regular basis. Similarly, your year-end review provides a chance to reflect on your performance and articulate how it was an attempt to live up to expectations. It is also a chance for you to understand your chair’s perspective on your performance and clarify his or her expectations for your position.

Know and stay in compliance with all institutional and departmental policies and procedures. Guidelines regarding tenure and promotion are certainly among those with which you should be familiar, but do not overlook other requirements that relate to your  professional success. Scrutinize your faculty handbook, departmental guidelines, memorandum of agreement (if your campus has collective bargaining), and other documents that contain regulations to which you will be expected to adhere.

Teaching, scholarship, and service are the common components of a faculty member’s position. You should be familiar with all policies regarding these three areas of performance. You should also master any policies related to other tasks you will likely be assigned. If you serve as an academic advisor, you will need to be an expert in your program and degree requirements and be familiar with policies, offices, and technologies that relate to academic advising. If you sponsor a student club or organization, master everything related to guiding the group in accordance with university regulations.

Rule 3: Further Your Institutional and Departmental Missions

The most successful members of the academy understand the missions of their institution and department and find meaningful ways to further these missions. Understand any performance agreement your institution has with any oversight bodies. Listen to your administrators to learn which projects or concerns seem to be their greatest priorities. Can your discipline or department be an asset in addressing those needs and concerns? Can your research interests further progress in one or more priority areas?

Institutional and departmental support, financial and otherwise, tends to follow projects and performances that further institutional and departmental goals. As a result, faculty who are innovative in supporting those goals are generally rewarded for their efforts. If you have followed Rule 1 and share common values with your institutional and departmental missions, then you should find Rule 3 both rewarding and productive.

In contrast, faculty who work against the institutional and/or departmental missions generally find themselves at odds with their administration and frustrated in their work. Excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service will not save your career if you are actively undermining institutional or departmental goals. If you find your institutional mission anathema, reflect on whether the problem is the integrity of the mission or because you are not a good fit for your institution.

Rule 4: Never Lie

Nothing destroys administrative confidence in a faculty member more surely and completely than deceit. An administrator may continue to have faith in a faculty member who is learning to be a better teacher, developing a coherent research agenda, or finding a way to meaningful service. But discovering that a faculty member is a liar is a death sentence in terms of administrative confidence. Bottom line: Do not deceive your administrators, colleagues, support staff, or students. Once the people you work with lose confidence in your veracity, you may find it difficult, if not impossible, to ever regain their trust.

Rule 5: Respect Everyone

Be collegial in all your working relationships. Sycophantic behavior is not the goal. Rather, avoid creating antagonistic relationships. You do not have to be gregarious and outgoing. You do not always have to agree regarding disciplinary, departmental, or institutional concerns. But you should treat everyone in your work environment with respect. That respect should not be accorded to your administrators and senior faculty only. It is something that everyone you encounter deserves, whether they are faculty, students, staff, or custodians. Respect the work of others. Respect their time. Know their names, acknowledge their efforts, and show appreciation for the work they do.

Collegiality extends to students. We can hold students accountable without treating them with disrespect. A lack of collegiality with students can lead to diminished effectiveness in the classroom, a negative reputation as a teacher, and poor teaching evaluations. These, in turn, may negatively affect other important outcomes such as recruitment and retention in your department. Even when students have behaved in ways that require disciplinary action, you must continue to treat them with respect even as you hold them accountable for their actions. And always keep in mind that part of respecting students is respecting their evaluation of your performance.

Rule 6: Pick Your Battles

It is unreasonable to assume that you will never have workplace conflict. Whether it is a disagreement over the direction of a new project or an impasse over a curriculum change, you will inevitably run into situations where your integrity requires you to stand your ground on something. Indeed, your institution needs your integrity. You may be the one person who can bring to light the weaknesses in a flawed proposal. But be cautious.

Choose your battles wisely, don’t engage conflict too frequently, and always consider such engagement in light of the other six rules. It is rarely worthwhile to take positions that are at odds with legal precedent or university policy (unless, of course, you are chal- lenging that very precedent or policy; if so, you must understand the uphill battle you fight). Carefully consider whether your position is at odds with the institutional or departmental mission (and again, if you are challenging that mission, understand that you are the underdog). If you have a problem with an individual at work, talk to that person, not about them. When you must be critical, aim at the problem, not the person. Hear others as you would wish to be heard-with respect. You can, as the saying goes, disagree without being disagreeable.

Rule 7: Own Your Mistakes

We all make mistakes, some more serious than others. You are not infallible. Even the most successful careers have their share of errors. So when you make a mistake, own it, do your best to make things right, and learn from the experience. Looking at your mistakes as an opportunity to gain valuable experience will serve you far better than trying to cover them up, lie about them,or shift blame.

Conclusion

Department chairs who offer this practical advice to their junior faculty members can help them achieve success in the academy. By combining these seven rules with quality teaching, scholarship, and service, new faculty are likely to find themselves enjoying a rewarding and well-supported academic career.

*        *        *        *        *        *        *

NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

Folks:

The posting below provides a look at engineering education in Eastern Europe and is from the Summer 2009 issue of f ASEE Prism. It is by  by Thomas K. Grose, Prism’s chief correspondent, based in the United Kingdom.  http://www.asee.org/prism/. Copyright © 2009 ASEE, all rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Scoring on Sabbaticals

Tomorrow’s Academia

_______________________________

SHADOWED BY THE PAST

Outmoded Soviet-era practices still hamper teaching and innovation in Eastern Europe.

Imagine a gasoline-powered car that offers excellent fuel efficiency and very low emissions. That’s the promise of a hot new technology called HCCI, or homogenous charge compression ignition. HCCI internal-combustion engines forgo spark plugs to ignite the gasoline/air mix, relying instead on compression, like diesel engines. HCCI engines are tantalizingly close to commercial fruition, but a few hurdles must first be overcome. For instance, “controlling the combustion is a nightmare,” says Csaba Tóth-Nagy, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Hungary’s Széchenyi István University. He has patented possible solutions, but finds he can’t market them. Most venture capital comes from abroad – “I’ve not really met a Hungarian venture capitalist,” Tóth-Nagy says glumly – yet he doesn’t expect much help from either the government or universities in connecting with investors.

The frustration voiced by Tóth-Nagy is not uncommon among entrepreneurial engineering educators in Eastern Europe. Nearly two decades after the former Soviet Union crumbled, leaving member and satellite states to their own devices, many of these formerly communist countries are still grappling with the transition to market capitalism. Their once impressive engineering schools, no longer called upon to produce technocrats for lumbering, state-run heavy industries, are not yet geared to a 21st-century, knowledge-based economy. Many young graduates lack the skills and flexibility needed by high-tech industries. And when innovative engineers like Tóth-Nagy emerge – he did his graduate work in the United States – the money and support aren’t there to turn their inventions into commercial ventures.

Although many of the region’s economies expanded rapidly on being freed from the restrictions of state planning, not all of them used that newfound wealth to adequately fund engineering and science education or academic research. And those that did spend didn’t always spend wisely. The result is a patchy record. Poland and Romania have improved facilities. But Hungarian engineering schools still have too many overlapping departments and too much bureaucracy, which wastes resources. The Czech Republic, though it has one of the area’s healthiest research and development budgets, is still dogged by a creaking academic infrastructure.

A Bright Spot in Estonia

There are notable exceptions to this picture. “People lump Eastern Europe as one place, but really it is not homogenous,” explains Yiannis Pavlou, general manager for National Instruments, Eastern Europe, based in Budapest. “The key difference among countries is funding.”

Consider Estonia. There, government funding for engineering and science remains a “high priority” and – so far – safe from cuts, even though the global recession has ravaged Estonia’s economy, says Jakob Kübarsepp, academic vice rector of the Tallinn University of Technology. Moreover, the state funds several programs to help academics commercialize their research. Six years ago, it partnered with the university to open a technology park on campus, which is currently incubating around 150 high-tech hopefuls.

And then there’s Bulgaria. The University of Sofia’s classrooms and labs were state of the art when Orlin D. Velev earned his Ph.D. there in 1996. No more. “Now it is really starting to fall apart,” says Velev, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at North Carolina State University. Engineering has lost prestige in Bulgaria; smart young people have been gravitating to law and business. State support for engineering and science education has nosedived since Velev’s days there, along with demand for engineers – even though, before the current slowdown, Bulgaria’s market economy was booming.

Meanwhile, the twin mallets of the credit crunch and recession are pummeling the region. While no country has escaped the pain, some are faring better than others. Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic are among a handful of states that may sidestep the worst of the downturn. Poland’s economy may even grow 1 percent. Anemic? You bet. But, it’s still growth – a rare commodity in this global slowdown. By contrast, Hungary’s GDP is expected to fall by 5 percent. The outlook in Romania, Croatia, and Latvia is similarly bleak.

The extent to which the recession will affect efforts to fund, rejuvenate, and upgrade engineering education in Eastern Europe remains a hard call this early into the downward spiral. Most schools will very likely feel at least a pinch, if not an outright jolt. Romania has been spending 6 percent of GDP on higher education. But with its economy contracting, even if it sticks to that formula, there will be less money for schools. Hungarian companies pay a 1 percent tax to fund higher education. That pot of money will almost certainly shrink along with corporate revenues. Many strapped countries have responded by cutting or freezing public-sector wages, and in some cases, that includes faculty pay.

Aging Faculty ‘Time Bomb’

Despite the variance in the state of engineering education in Eastern Europe, there are issues and problems that tend to be common to all countries in the region.

The majority of schools have huge rosters of engineering faculty nearing retirement, and not all have sufficient numbers of younger professors to replace them. In Bulgaria, many engineering doctorates from Velev’s generation headed for the United States, creating a brain drain. He calls the pending retirement of older Bulgarian professors “a ticking time bomb.” In addition, European Union membership has given academics the opportunity to do research in Western Europe. Many jump at the chance. Zoltan K. Nagy, a chemical engineering senior lecturer at Britain’s Loughborough University, estimates that the top 10 percent of engineering Ph.D.’s in his native Romania head west. In Hungary, there have been some efforts to replenish teacher ranks. The Széchenyi István University has hired 30 engineering Ph.D.’s and expects to bring on board another 50 by 2011. Most of the new hires, like Tóth-Nagy, have spent time at Western universities, and their experience overseas should eventually provide payoffs for Hungary and its schools. But for now, Tóth-Nagy says, “the result is, there’s a big age gap” between the cadre of older professors and the new crop who are mainly in their 30s, with few associate professors between them.

Efforts to recruit more faculty or lure doctorates back from overseas are hurt by another, perennial issue: poor pay. In Poland, the best teachers earn extra income as industrial consultants. Even in countries like Estonia, where faculty salaries have skyrocketed in recent years, paychecks are still relatively slim. Salaries average around $3,400 a month, about half what academics earn in neighboring Finland or Sweden.

Despite the upheaval and crummy pay, most older faculty typically still have a firm grasp of the subjects they teach and remain up to date. A bigger problem is that, because of their roots in socialist systems, few of the older generation fully understand business or have entrepreneurial instincts. Many don’t know how to write proposals and compete for grants. Because of this absence of business savvy and competitiveness, they aren’t able to pass along these much-needed skills to their students. “And nowadays,” says Loughborough’s Nagy, “that is important.”

Few Hands-on Projects

In the classroom, the approach to teaching is still heavily theoretical, though there are exceptions. Polish schools have made strides in introducing a more practical approach to engineering education. But across the region, the default teaching method remains the lecture. Though younger faculty are more open to using hands-on projects, workshops, and team assignments, by and large, these remain sparsely used pedagogical concepts. Adriana Garboan, a soon-to-graduate Romanian electrical engineering student, says she wishes she had had more practical lessons. “It is easy to forget things if you do nothing hands on,” she explains.

Still, even younger academics who see the benefits of practice-based courses are loath to criticize theoretical teaching, since it’s a method that has served them well. “I loved my education; it gave me a big boost into grad school,” says Petia Vlahovska, a Bulgarian assistant professor of chemical engineering at Dartmouth University. But she also sees how well-equipped her American students are to solve real-world projects. “I still don’t know which system is better – I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.”

Eastern European teaching methods also don’t prepare students for the work environment. “What is lacking is a work ethic,” says National Instuments’ Pavlou. Students’ grades are determined by a few comprehensive exams. Compare that to the United States, where students are continually expected to deliver, be it through projects or homework – a deadline-driven system that readies them for the expectations of industry.

Most countries have signed on to the Bologna Accord – which is harmonizing degree programs across Europe – and are changing from the old, five-year undergraduate model to a three-year baccalaureate degree and two-year master’s degree system. There are “teething problems,” admits Agnes Toth, a professor at the Budapest Polytechnic University. For example, B.Sc. students graduate in late January, and most quickly find jobs. As a result, “we’ve seen a definite decline in master’s level studies,” Toth says. But, she reflects, “for industry, this is a good thing.”

It also shows, adds Norbert Kraker, president of the International Society for Engineering Education, that “even in the recession, engineers are still in demand” in Eastern Europe. What’s less clear is whether enough countries in the region fully appreciate the need to invest strongly in engineering and technical schools – and in university teachers and researchers – as a means to build sustainable, knowledge-based economies once a recovery begins. Will the severe downturn be a wakeup call? Velev, for one, hopes so. Perhaps, he says, the economic shock will help countries like Bulgaria realize that a quick-buck economy isn’t as resilient as one built on smart technologies. “In the long term, it may be a correction that’s necessary.”

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

Folks:

The posting below is a review by Stephen Joel Trachtenberg of the book, Presidential Transitions: It’s Not the Position, It’s the Transition, by Patrick H. Sanaghan, Larry Goldstein, and Kathleen D. Gaval. Ace/Praeger Series on Higher Education. The review originally appeared in Planning for Higher Education. April – June, 2009. Planning for Higher Education.  37(3): 58-60.  © 1998-2009 by Society for College and University Planning (www.scup.org). Reprinted with permission. Planning for Higher Education book reviews appear at: (www.scup.org/phe).

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Finding Ways to Help Students Answer Their Own Questions

Tomorrow’s Academia

——————————————- 1,548 words ——————————————–

Presidential Transitions: It’s Not the Position,  It’s the Transition  – Review

Anyone who reads Presidential Transitions, and this review should encourage you to do so, will notice immediately that I wrote the forward. The reader may wonder if I am double-dipping by writing a review, an idea that occurred to me and that I shared with the good people at the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP). They understood, but said, first, that they thought I could be even-handed and, second, that as a beloved ex-president and trusted advisor, I would now be able to bring a fresh perspective to the job. I agreed and I hope the reader will, too.

Patrick H. Sanaghan, Larry Goldstein, and Kathleen D. Gaval have written a book about process-about the one-time-only, make-or-break process of becoming a university president, and the subtitle of their book is also a warning to that end: It’s Not Just The Position, It’s The  Transition. They are right. Getting all the elements of a transition under control is daunting business, requiring caution, a keen eye for “pitfalls and potholes,” as they say, and the ability to simultaneously look at details and see broadly, to have both an intellectual and personal sense of the new institution (or the new assignment at the old institution), and to acquire-by homework and osmosis-the academic, social, financial, historical, and cultural facts and feel of the university in equal measure.

Presidential Transitions stresses the importance of having someone for the incoming president to talk to-someone who knows him or her, who is a friend, but who is also a realist. Whether the transition is inbound or outgoing-and I have looked at both sides now-nothing is more valuable. Making sense of any novel challenge is always difficult. Dealing with doubt or delusion can be equally debilitating and derailing. Whether we call it a reality check or a heart-to-heart makes no difference: some private and intimate conversation can clear the eyesight and the insight wonderfully well.

But I hasten to add that there is nothing touchy-feely about Presidential Transitions. The authors’ approach is workmanlike, relying on step-by-step procedures-all of which are handily summarized in an appendix-to organize the wheels and gears of the transition for the new president, the board of trustees, the senior staff, and the faculty. They cover everything from the search for a new president to the transition of the outgoing president in patient detail. Thus, it is not surprising that the number of steps the authors outline is overwhelming, but they are not naïve and state at the beginning that new presidents, and others, should pick those particular reviews, audits, and tactics that fit them-and the institution, for its part, should do the same. If some of the steps they outline for new presidents seem obvious-e.g., talk to people, consult your mentor, hold off on laying out your “vision”-it seems to me that leaving out the obvious could marginalize the utilitarian or even incline some to overlook important components of a complex process. Better to be thorough, and the authors are.

Their thoroughness extends to providing primary sources for their research on transitions in the form of transcribed interviews with presidents, past presidents, and others. What their subjects have to say is personal and specific to a time and place and may not apply in all cases, naturally, but it is helpful to read how these individuals faced different problems or novelties and easy enough to see analogies in one’s own experience. The inclusion of these interviews, all of which are apposite to the authors’ narrative, enriches their research and adds a level of validation.

It is also, and unfortunately, possible to be too thorough, which leads to one of the few criticisms I have of the book. The authors devote a 25-page chapter to “Avoiding Mishaps And Self-inflicted Wounds.” There is no harm, I suppose, in reminding new presidents not to plagiarize, spend university money on personal expenses, drink to excess, smoke dope, or be overtly lecherous- or at least not to get caught doing things of this (alas too human) nature. Too many presidents seem to have forgotten, but a paragraph or two would have sufficed.

Perhaps I feel this way because I have recently ceased to be a university president after 30 years-11 at the University of Hartford and 19 at The George Washington University-without ever having been indicted for a crime or accused of an ethical lapse. So far, so good. In this way, I am very like most of my present and former brother and sister presidents. Our failings incline to lie elsewhere.

We run into more problems with our boards of trustees (or overseers, visitors, and fellows), especially at times of transition. Sanaghan, Goldstein, and Gaval have made a point of laying out the responsibilities of board members during both searches and transitions, and I applaud them for doing so. If I had to recommend Presidential Transitions to one specific audience, it would be board members: I would like them-I would like to require them-to read this book. In my own experience and in the experience of many colleagues over 30 years, boards have rarely done enough to make the search and transition as smooth and, more to the point, as reliable and effective as possible. Again, as they do for presidents, the authors offer step-by-step plans for how the board should deal with any contingency-or nearly so.

>From my emeritus vantage point, I would certainly add one thing for the board to give the president: a discretionary fund, the size of which would of course depend on the comparative wealth of the institution, but for a school similar to The George Washington University I think the number should be about $5 million. It sounds like a lot at first blush; it is not. The new president is going to be greeted with requests, grossly overt or fairly subtle, for things of value to  the faculty and administration. These will not be for a building or 10 new tenure-track positions, but rather comparatively modest requests-some of them actually worthy-for, say, specialized business software or funds for an academic conference on campus. They will not, in other words, be the sunk costs or permanent obligations of bricks and mortar and personnel, but once-and-only-once expenditures for something immediately useful to the operation, prestige, efficiency, or comfort of the university and, thus, deeply appreciated by faculty, students, and staff. Mind you, however, that modest expenses like these add up quickly, and having the money to satisfy a number of highly visible projects requested by faculty and staff will pay off.

The skeptical reader may think he or she is sniffing out a slush fund or a series of bribes in my suggestion. He or she is nearly correct. New university presidents, whatever their credentials and reputations, will always and inevitably face a period of curiosity, bordering on suspicion. It can be reduced to something like this: “So what has the new guy done for me?” The discretionary fund would provide the means to answer that question many times over. It will not buy off anyone or purchase loyalty, let alone love, but it will add a cushion of hospitality to the natural wariness of all members of the community during the first months of the new president’s tenure.

If there is to be a second edition of the book-and it deserves a wide audience-I would like to see one emendation and one addition. The emendation concerns students. The authors do not suggest including students in the 360º feedback process, in gathering information before the new president arrives, or in getting the lowdown on what’s happening on campus. They should: students have a lot of observations about what’s happening now; moreover, the university exists to instruct them and continues to exist because they pay tuition. They do suggest including students in the presidential search. I’m not keen on that. The students who participate will probably be gone when the new president arrives, and students’ outlooks are necessarily short term. But, of course, politics and optics may argue to the contrary. I prefer recent graduates to play the youth role.

The addition concerns the president who has made the transition to ex-president. He or she may experience a version of postpartum depression; expect it and find someone to talk to. He or she may incline to schadenfreude in the first acts of the new president; resist this, since it does no one any good at all. If the new president has problems, they are not yours, so let them be. Finally, he or she needs to get over the loss of prestige or perks. It happened to me: Shortly after I left the presidency of The George Washington University, I met former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A concerned friend, she asked me what I missed most, and I told her my car and driver. She looked at me-with pity? contempt? suppressed giggles?-and said, “Steve, I had a private plane.”

Of course, our situations, along with our pleasures and pains, are not identical, but have common denominators. Sanaghan, Goldstein, and Gaval have recognized the distinctions and the similarities in presidential transitions across a broad reach of institutions and, with tact and modesty, have made their findings useful on any campus.

Folks:

The posting below gives some useful pointers on what department chairs can do to manage their budgets in this difficult times..  It is by Mary Lou Higgerson, vice president for academic affairs and dean of the college at Baldwin-Wallace College and coauthor of Effective Leadership Communication (Anker, 2007) and Barry McCauliff, professor and former chair of communication at Clarion University. Email: mlhigger@bw.edu, mccaulif@clarion.edu. The article appeared in The Department Chair: A Resource for Academic Administrators, Summer, 2009, Vol. 20, No. 1., pp 1-3. For further information on how to subscribe, as well as pricing and discount information, please contact, Sandy Quade, Account Manager, John Wiley & Sons, Phone: (203) 643-8066 (squadepe@wiley.com). or see: http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-DCH.html

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT:  It’s The Little Things That Make The   Big Difference

Tomorrow’s Academia

Managing Tight Budgets

As institutions of higher education face the challenge of managing in a recession,it is important for chairs to

proactively employ measures that make optimal use of department time and money and consider new ways of

securing additional resources for the department.

Making more optimal use of the available budget and securing resources for the department may seem like an

impossible task at a time when many institutions are freezing positions, reducing salaries, enforcing mandatory furloughs, and exercising other measures to shore up institutional finances in the face of devalued endowments and lost revenue. While the specific strategies that work best will vary with the institution, chairs are not powerless.The most effective strategies for an individual chair will be determined, in large part, by what decisions are delegated to chairs on the campus. For example, department chairs who are

empowered to build course schedules have a means for achieving economies that can reduce faculty workloads and spare the money spent on overload teaching and/or adjunct faculty. In contrast,what does not work is relying on requests for additional funds at a time when the institution is managing campus-wide freezes in new positions, capital expenditures, and slash or salary increases.

In this article we offer strategies that chairs can employ to successfully meet department revenue needs with tight budgets. The strategies presented are those that are likely to have value for the greatest number of chairs across a full range of institution types in this very difficult economy.

Share a Position

When securing a new or replacement position is unlikely,consider proposing a joint appointment between two academic departments or between an academic department and some other entity on campus.For example,the need for additional faculty in foreign language might be combined with the need for additional faculty to teach courses in international business,international law,or intercultural communication.Or,a chair might propose a position shared with an academic support unit such as the writing lab,learning center,academic advisement,or career services.In some instances, chairs might consider a joint appointment shared by two institutions

in the same region.A shared appointment between neighboring institutions that,for example,share a 2-plus-2 or a 3-plus-2 articulation agreement could benefit student learning at both institutions.

Revise the Curriculum

When institutions are unable to replace departing faculty, the workload for remaining faculty increases. The department can help restore faculty workloads and sanity by reducing the number of courses offered. This might be done by reducing electives, rotating some courses under a special topics course offering, and/or repackaging the course content while eliminating units of study that have become less relevant. Generally, any effort to structure the curriculum to more efficiently lead students through the major (or minor) will spare both faculty time and department resources. Such changes are likely to have the added benefit of improving student scores on assessment measures and increasing retention and graduation rates- outcomes that will make any department more valuable to the institution.

Eliminate Unnecessary Work

Chairs do faculty a huge service when they help them know which tasks can be eliminated. The department can effectively reduce existing workloads by eliminating courses, programs, and initiatives that have outlived their usefulness.Unnecessary work may exist in such ongoing initiatives as assessment, newsletters, department meetings, and student organizations. For example, as the assessment of student learning be-

comes more integrated with instruction, it is not essential to assess every variable each year.Chairs can make the assessment of student learning more manageable for faculty by collecting targeted data that help to inform current decisions without producing lengthy reports that sit on a shelf until the next program review. Chairs should lead the faculty in a continuous review that considers the benefit derived from all expenditures of time and money.For example, if department resources are used to support a student organization,consider what percentage of the majors participate and whether the organization’s activities benefit individual students and the department’s efforts to increase retention. Similarly, the department should ask whether the money spent on student workers provides optimal benefit to the department. In sum, assess whether the

benefits received warrant the faculty time and department funds spent on the activity.Knowing the return on the investment of time and budget can be useful in deciding which tasks might be eliminated.

Form Partnerships

Chairs can form mutually beneficial partnerships with other departments and offices on campus as well as with off-campus agencies. Departments might,for example,form alliances that permit the sharing of faculty and staff, the co-funding of mutually beneficial initiatives, or the exchange of professional expertise. Departments in the social sciences might pool their resources to deliver a research methods course that serves all students majoring in the different social sciences disciplines.Cost sharing for equipment or

facilities that are not used daily can help stretch resources.When a professional conference is likely to draw faculty from different departments,it can be cost effective to register as a team from the institution as most conferences offer group and early-bird registration discounts. Such partnerships not only help to extend scarce resources, they help to accrue additional visibility for the work being done in the department. Departments can sometimes stretch tight budgets by trading expertise with other departments. For example, faculty in the computer science department may help design a web page for another department in return for assistance in designing a survey instrument for assessing student learning. Picking up tasks that align more closely with department expertise in return for work that would widen a department’s skill set can save time and frustration.

Use Technology

Advances in technology make it possible to provide interactive experiences for students and faculty with professionals at other locations without leaving campus. Technology can also permit departments to teach more students in a single class section while providing differentiated instruction. Many departments have successfully incorporated smart classrooms as a way of delivering classroom instruction to a greater number of students. These technologically enhanced classrooms permit the integration of PowerPoint presentations, video and DVD feeds, document cameras, direct connection to Internet sites, and other such instructional tools. Newer technologies like Personal Response Systems can be used in large classes to increase the amount of interaction between students and faculty. With “clickers,”students are able to respond to Socratic questions posed by the instructor, and the instructor is able to monitor student responses to the con-

tent being presented-all during the lecture. Use of this technology permits faculty to tailor and even repeat lecture material being presented in response to student need and understanding.

Analyze Course Enrollment

Tracking course attrition can yield significant savings for the department. In particular,it is helpful to track the typical first-week drop rate for each course section and use this information to reduce the number of empty seats in each class. No matter the cap on a course, empty seats represent wasted resources. If the chair knows how many students typically drop a class during the first week, it becomes possible to prevent

any loss by adding that number of students above the cap. This can be done in a way that does not create extra work for faculty by telling students on the wait list to attend the class from day one so they can be added to the roster should space become available.

Conclusion

We hope these strategies stimulate further thinking about how you might use the decisions and responsi-

bilities assigned to you to manage tight department budgets during this time of serious economic challenge

for higher education. We encourage you to share your thoughts on this topic with other chairs, as we expect

this will be a pressing issue at both public and private institutions for some time.

—–

This article is based on a presentation at the 26th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 11-13, 2009, Orlando,Florida.

Folks:

The posting below looks gives an interesting take on the value of tenure. It is by Scott Jaschik and is from the June 8, 2009 issue of INSIDE HIGHER ED, an excellent – and free – online source for news, opinion and jobs for all of higher education. You can subscribe by going to: http://insidehighered.com/. Also for a free daily update from Inside Higher Ed, e-mail [scott.jaschik@insidehighered.com]. Copyright © 2009 Inside Higher Ed Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Strengthening the Foundations of Students’ Excellence, Integrity and Social Contribution

Tomorrow’s Academia

Tenure’s Value … to Society

A judge ruled last week in Colorado that not only is tenure a good thing for the professors who enjoy it, it is valuable to the public. Further, the court ruled that the value (to the public) of tenure outweighed the value of giving colleges flexibility in hiring and dismissing. That is a principle that faculty members say is very important and makes this case about much more than the specific issues at play.

While noting “countervailing public interests” in the case, the judge wrote that “the public interest is advanced more by tenure systems that favor academic freedom over tenure systems that favor flexibility in hiring or firing.” The ruling added that “by its very nature, tenure promotes a system in which academic freedom is protected” and that “a tenure system that allows flexibility in firing is oxymoronic.”

The ruling came in a long legal battle over rules changes imposed by the board of Metropolitan State College of Denver on its faculty members in 2003. The changes — made in a faculty handbook — removed many of the rights of faculty members in cases of layoffs, where previous college policies had given such professors seniority rights to avoid layoffs in many cases, and the right to be hired back in many other cases. Metro State’s board said that the changes were needed, some professors sued, and the case has been in the courts ever since.

The first ruling in the case, by a state district court in 2005, backed the college’s board and not the faculty who sued. The judge ruled that the changes in the faculty handbook did not materially change tenure protections. But the professors appealed and, backed by the American Association of University Professors, won the next round. A state appeals court in 2007 ordered a new trial, at which the judge was to consider a series of questions, such as the public interest in tenure vs. flexibility, and the reasonable expectations of tenured faculty members that the faculty handbook that existed prior to 2003 represented a commitment on behalf of the college.

On these questions, Judge Norman D. Haglund ruled in favor of the professors. The decision noted that the college questioned whether its professors had specific expectations related to the old faculty handbook not changing. The judge indicated that the compelling evidence was not about Metro State’s professors but the expert testimony about “industry-wide expectations of academic institutions and tenured faculty.”

Rachel Levinson, senior counsel for the AAUP, called the ruling “fantastic,” both for the individual faculty members and for professors elsewhere. Those who were at Metro State prior to the handbook changes will still have the protections they enjoyed at that time, she said.

“More broadly, what this does is reiterate the value of tenure and the importance of tenure, and that tenure itself can be a public interest,” Levinson said. She noted that the college “was trying to argue that its flexibility was the sole public interest,” and that a court endorsement of that idea could have been dangerous for many faculty members.

A spokeswoman for Metro State said that lawyers were still reviewing the ruling and that no decision had been made on whether to appeal.

Folks:

I thought the posting below would be a fun way to end the current academic year. It is based on the author, Alvaro Huerta’s imaginary quest to prepare his 9 year-old son for entry into Caltech, one of the most competitive institutions in the United States. Originally published in April 27- May 3, 2009 issue of the Los Angeles Business Journal. Reprinted with permission of the Los Angeles Business Journal.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu

(more…)

Folks:

The posting below looks at alternatives to campus-wide wireless networks in these difficult economic times. It is by Michael L. Rodgers, Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, Missouri and is #45 in a series of selected excerpts from the NT&LF newsletter reproduced here as part of our “Shared Mission Partnership.” NT&LF has a wealth of information on all aspects of teaching and learning. If you are not already a subscriber, you can check it out at [http://www.ntlf.com/] The on-line edition of the Forum–like the printed version – offers subscribers insight from colleagues eager to share new ways of helping students reach the highest levels of learning. National Teaching and Learning Forum Newsletter, Volume 18, Number 2, February, 2009. © Copyright 1996-2009. Published by James Rhem & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Handling Problems, Pitfalls, and Surprises in Teaching: Some Guidelines

(more…)

Folks:

The posting below has some excellent advice on conflict resolution for new, and existing, department chairs. It is by Teresa Holder is chair of the Organizational Studies, Division at Peace College. Email: tholder@peace.edu.The article appeared in The Department Chair: A Resource for Academic Administrators, Spring, 2009, Vol. 19, No. 4., pp 11-12. For further information on how to subscribe, as well as pricing and discount information, please contact, Sandy Quade, Account Manager, John Wiley & Sons, Phone: (203) 643-8066 (squadepe@wiley.com). or see: http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-DCH.html

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Do Students Need a Campus- Wide Wireless Network?

(more…)