Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. AG Tanyi's avatar

    Then my question is how many of ordinary mathematicians also qualify as artists of their profession…

  2. John Rapko's avatar
  3. Mark's avatar
  4. David Reidy's avatar
  5. Paul Canis's avatar
  6. Rachel Laudan's avatar
  7. Rollo Burgess's avatar

The destruction of the University [sic] of Tulsa

A scathing account from philosophy professor Jacob Howland.

UPDATE:  Longtime reader Bennett Gilbert writes with some useful additional information:

I followed [Howland's] link to EAB, the company that seems to sell these plans to university administrators: https://www.eab.com/.

EAB sells "The Data-Driven University."  The site is full of horrors, such as "Rightsizing the Program Portfolio"; but there's one I'd like to point out: an article cheerily titled, "Yes, you should have annual departmental reviews.  Here's Why" (https://www.eab.com/blogs/institutional-analytics-blog/2019/02/how-often-to-have-departmental-reviews).  One reason they give is:

"More frequent reviews give department leaders more visibility into how their decisions impact institutional strategy and also allows for more flexibility in strategic planning—giving leaders time to pivot and adjust to changes, rather than a stressful prioritization process every few years."

Annual reviews don't mean more voice for departments but more subjection to vice-presidents & provosts. It's a recipe for hiring EAB every year rather than every few years.

But here's the nub of it:

"Use the [EAB's] APS platform to analyze how many courses your full-time staff teach and how many student credit hours are produced. Then compare the results to internal and external benchmarks. If faculty teach an average or above average number of hours, but the department produces below average SCH, look into analyses of fill rates and class size to find potential opportunities to address productivity."

This means that about half the departments will be annually pressured to tighten up and that as more resources go to the half that is "above average" the downhill momentum of resources for the rest will annually increase.  Also, why is this "average" a proper criterion for education?  I point this out because this business of above/below average metrics is exactly the technique that's been used to devastate UK higher ed by the businessmen appointed to run the universities by the Tories.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Designed with WordPress