Admin Serves Kool Aid; Some Faculty Lap It Up

Fortunately, not at Maryland, but over at Critical Mass, where someone has swallowed the "accountability" potion whole. Bravo to the first, and, at the moment, the only respondent, whose comments ought to serve up some charcoal filtration for Miss O'Connor (the url is "Erin O'Connor.com")'s toxins. This one is all about post-tenure review. [Note to (exhausted) self: Insert longish and to be written section on the spread growing faux-legitimacy of this whole measurable outcomes mishmash and the AAUP's disappointing and growing complicity to act on behalf of adminstrations.] Critical Mass quotes from the Inside Higher Ed Piece by David Scobey that started her, uh, thinking:

Jonathan Sachs, president of the undergraduate student government, said that in general, he appreciates the quality of teaching at Maryland. But he said that he has noticed that those without tenure "tend to be really good," while "a small percentage" of tenured professors "neglect their classrooms." Sachs said he saw the faculty vote against the review plan as "arrogance," and said that they should be "accountable" for their performance.

Well. Well. See last post is what I say. This is a surprise ? That students would say those without tenure "tend to be really good ?" Or, in a part not quoted here, that graduate students would feel that tenured professors "shoot them down ?" And one presumes, of course, that these students would like a voice in this post-tenure review, to assure that faculty members continue to be... how shall we phrase this ? ...accomodating. Oh, heck: see last three posts. Will get back to this, but it makes me too upset to type. And yes, for the record, we all know of deadwood and the cottonmouths that lurk in it. But they would survive post-tenure review just fine anyway, OBN (Old Boy's Network) and all that.

Breaking my own rule about blogging on the mundane and obvious: on the personal cranky front, I can honestly barely get my tendons to keep the typing together here. What is it with March ? Write conference paper(s !!). Grade. Research and write some more. Grade. Meeting A. Meeting B. Meeting C. Meeting about meetings. Subcommittee meetings. Grade. Multiply papers ungraded by hours spent reading committee reports, raised to the power of students pleading for time, attention, extensions. Advising starts. Go to conference. Give paper. Meet people. Get home and e-mail newly met people (= networking or being a twit, twittering). Grade. Oh, yes: prep. Write other paper. Give presentation with colleague to students that, naturally involves demonstrating outrageous technological prowess with video-editing, things flying in from all corners of slides, soundtracks, everything but dry ice fog. Convinced of said prowess, colleagues stop by to ask for help. Senior colleagues. Grade. Oh, yes, teach classes. Fill out multitudinous forms with multiple check boxes, all demanding original receipts and rationales, for travel and conferences, some in the future. Two are returned because "estimated expenses" is not accompanied by receipt. One returned because receipt is not valid without both sides of cancelled check (checks ? are you kidding ? do people still use those ?).

Well, thank you for listening. Cranky is less so now. Cats are sleeping belly up on couch. Ah, Friday.