Whither the U of A?

UVic data loss

2012-01-26T19:07:00.000-07:00

One has to wonder if the early January theft of unencrypted computers containing thousands of files with bank account numbers, social insurance numbers, and payroll information of staff from an administrative office at UVic is at least in part behind the recent push to encrypt computer hardware at the UofA. It seems a no-brainer to encrypt computers containing such valuable information, especially administrative desktop computers. What were they (not) thinking?

But everyone's laptops?

Over the past week I have tried to encrypt my venerable, round-the-world MacBook Air, which is still going strong several years old (and which kept me on-line and working during my Department's recent internet "blue box" failure). Unfortunately it politely said no to that suggestion (not enough disk space). So will the University buy me a new laptop so that I can encrypt all the juicy information (PowerPoint presentations, trip details, odd bits of research, etc.) that I carry around with me? Right.

Funding petition

2012-01-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Arts Squared has generated a petition to Premier Alison Redford regarding funding to the University in general and the Faculty of Arts in particular. You can sign the petition here.

GFC meeting agenda (30 Jan 2012)

2012-01-25T08:33:00.000-07:00

Agenda materials for the GFC meeting of 30 January, 2012, are posted here.

The agenda is not exactly action-packed (only one procedural action item), but there is a healthy number of questions from GFC members.

cf.

2012-01-22T09:17:00.001-07:00

The Edmonton Journal reports today on the upcoming negotiations between the Alberta Teachers’ Association and the Alberta School Boards Association. There are some interesting similarities and differences with our recent and upcoming (next year — yes, again!) contract negotiations. Some quotes:

ATA president Carol Henderson is quoted as saying:

“But I will tell you, workload is a key concern for teachers. They, right now, are spending more time working outside of the classroom than they do in their classes.”

A recent ATA survey in Calgary revealed teachers there are working about 54 hours a week, she said. “And I can tell you, for a lot of elementary and primary teachers, it’s more than that.”

Henderson said teachers are less concerned about boosting salaries.

That is a very similar conclusion to the one that emerged from our Workload/Worklife survey. That's not to say we don't expect salaries to at least keep up with inflation, but workload/worklife issues are a major and growing concern for many.

[Alberta Education Minister Thomas] Lukaszuk has said his government intends to provide predictable and sustainable funding in budgets so school boards can plan over a longer period rather than year to year.

How come our university presidents cannot secure such a deal from this government?

In 2007, teachers agreed to a five-year deal that saw the province assume responsibility for $2.2-billion of the teachers’ unfunded pension liability. Teachers’ annual pay hikes were tied to average provincial wage increases and the government promised to provide school boards with the money needed to cover those increases until 2012. In exchange, the government got five years of classroom teaching uninterrupted by strikes or lockouts.

That seems to me like an eminently reasonable and sensible settlement. In contrast, we are still carrying our ~$1bn unfunded pension liability, got below-inflation salary increases, and secured no promises for sustainable funding. But of course we can't go on strike.

Edmonton public board chairman Dave Colburn said school boards are eager to end what has been “a bit of a roller-coaster ride in education funding” connected to how much revenue the province sees from the oil and gas sector.

“It’s very difficult for boards to engage in long-term planning to establish programs that, really, in order to be fully developed and have the greatest impact on student success need to be in place for two, three, four years.”

Amen, brother.

Message to Indira on Colloquy

2012-01-21T21:09:00.000-07:00

I have posted the following comment (subject to approval) on Colloquy in response to our President's expansion of her Edmonton Journal interview:

Madam President,
Thank-you for these clarifications of your Edmonton Journal interview comments — they certainly expand on the edited highlights reported in the Journal. Similarly, my Edmonton AM interview last week was necessarily brief, but I do seem to recall suggesting leasing some of the University's landholdings as an alternative to selling. Regardless, the intent of my main point was to argue that, as with personal finances, investments (either monetary or material) should be made to work for us as much in the present as in the future. They should help us ride out the tough times, and then be replenished when the good times return (which they surely will). We need resources now to maintain standards and quality, and so this would be a good time to realize the value of some of those investments and holdings.

And when the good times return, let's not spend every last penny on unbridled growth on campus — a big university is not necessarily a better one. My experience of the last 6%-grant period was not of improved ability to teach, but rather of increased class sizes, an increased number of reduced-teaching research chairs, forced obsolescence of perfectly good classroom technologies, continued attrition of support staff, and a general deterioration in workload/worklife conditions.

So this would be a good time to strike a new deal with the Government of Alberta, and the People of Alberta, whereby we undertake to provide a rising quality of education for Albertans in exchange for realistic and steady funding that at a minimum matches inflation and population growth. If the University is not allowed to set up a rainy day fund for itself, then let the government do it so it can honour its side of the bargain. There is a precedent for this in its heritage funds.

Otherwise this situation will repeat itself with every cycle of the economy, with such waste of resources, effort, and goodwill on each downswing.

Motivation

2012-01-21T17:06:00.002-07:00

A number of people have recently explicitly or implicitly questioned my motivations with respect to my involvement with AASUA, and have even suggested that I might be deliberately or inadvertently destroying the Association. So clearly some clarification is required.

Like many of you, I love being a professor at the University of Alberta. We are extraordinarily lucky in what we have here, in terms of academic freedoms and opportunities, wonderful colleagues, great students, and a pretty spectacular campus (albeit with some bits that need attention). It enables us, as the flesh, blood, and spirit of the University to make the University what it is — a damned good Canadian university, punching far above its weight in terms of provincial population base. I want to preserve these qualities, and I have applied myself to these ends through our faculty association since 1998, and more recently also through GFC. In the faculty association, I worked hard on various committees, was appointed to a committee chair in 2004, was elected as President in 2008, and served as Past President and interim executive director in 2009–2010.

My fall from grace and favour with the Association since then can probably be cast in many different ways, and no doubt I am not blameless, but my intent always was and continues to be to strengthen the Association's ability to vigorously represent its members' interests (financial and personal wellbeing, political, and legal). As an academic who appreciates logic, rules, and fairness, I understand that one of the best ways to strengthen an organization internally is through good governance, so that everyone knows what is supposed to be happening and how it is to be achieved. I therefore spent a lot of time between 2006 and 2009 (along with others such as Kathryn Arbuckle and Alan Meech) revising the Association's Bylaws and Policies & Procedures manual (subsequently approved by vote of the membership in the first case, and by Council in the second). Some of the other achievements of which I am proud (all approved by vote of Council, mostly unanimous) are:

Introduction of Robert's Rules of Order for Council meetings.
Introduction of the role of Parliamentarian.
Establishment of the Governance Committee.
Establishment of the Past Presidents Committee.
Establishment of the Academic Faculty Committee.
Reintroduction of the Newsletter.

As Past President in late 2009, I was also the author (after much consultation and advice) of the original furlough proposal, which attempted to strike a favourable bargain for members in exchange for taking furlough days. That was when the wheels fell off for me, and although the proposal was approved by two votes of the AASUA membership, the final deal that was negotiated (I was not involved by then) was significantly weaker than the original position. I found that incomprehensible, since the original proposal made it clear that (a) we didn't have to negotiate at all (we had a fully ratified contract), and (b) the proposal would be withdrawn if we were not satisfied with what we were to get in return for furloughs. Subsequently, we have seen little return even on the concessions we did manage to negotiate (who, for example, has ever seen a report or heard a briefing from the Joint Committee on University Planning and Budgets?).

Throughout my time with AASUA I have seen many such agreements struck and then ignored or forgotten about, many initiatives wither on the vine, and many policies contravened or fall into abeyance. I find that profoundly disappointing, but rather than shrugging and walking away, which it appears that some would much prefer, I have made a point of flagging these matters wherever and whenever possible, in the hope that something might be done about them. This has made me quite unpopular in some circles, but I don't intend to stop any time soon, because AASUA is the only association we have, and I have a deep interest in seeing it be successful.

Bravo David Marples; Good luck Joseph Doucet

2012-01-21T13:42:00.001-07:00

Distinguished University Professor David Marples pens a compelling article on the Arts funding crisis in today's Edmonton Journal.

Laurels also to Laurie Adkin for her letter on the same topic in the Journal, and likewise to Professor J. Nelson Amaral.

And best of luck to a colleague, Joseph Doucet, in his new role as Interim Dean of the School of Business.

AASUA Council Meeting (19-01-12)

2012-01-19T20:40:00.001-07:00

Today's AASUA Council meeting was a lively affair, particularly in relation to agenda item 8 (Motion regarding meetings brought to Council; see below). To cut a long story short, that matter was referred to the Governance Committee, after two motions to amend failed. The fact that the motion had not come from the Governance Committee in the first place should raise some eyebrows.

The debate was a curious affair, hobbled by the fact that few people including the chair were fully conversant with the rules of debate. The President wanted to speak to the motion, so correctly vacated the chair, but not to the VP (as would be the normal procedure) because the VP apparently also wanted to speak. Instead we were told that the Executive Committee had decided that former AASUA President Walter Dixon, who is not currently on Council, should chair the meeting. OK, no biggie.

I made a motion to amend the motion by deleting the second paragraph (which restricted the ability to make motions from the floor) and by introducing wording that would invite items for the agenda before setting the agenda. That motion failed spectacularly (I was the only person who voted for it!). Another Councillor proposed revised wording to the second paragraph; that got a few more votes but still failed. Finally, someone moved to refer the matter to the Governance Committee (which was a motion I also had in hand as a fallback, but in the event didn't need to make). That motion passed, so ultimately we arrived at a useful result, which was the objective.

A shocking revelation from the debate was the sense that, because people didn't know Robert's Rules of Order (the rules adopted by Council), they could ignore them because they impeded their ability to debate in the way they wanted. Wow.

Arguments were made that because BoG and GFC, those bastions of democracy (with no adopted parliamentary procedures), don't allow motions to be made from the floor, then neither should AASUA. Wow.

Certain people were also allowed to speak to the motion who are not voting members of Council. Wow.

After the meeting ended, I was told by someone in private that they thought I was trying to destroy AASUA*. Wow.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the motion did not pass, so I'm having a large glass of Malbec with an Ativan chaser to celebrate. I hope that satisfies curious minds?

* UPDATE: The person in question has clarified that what they said to me was "I think you are destroying the association". I'm not sure what the difference is, except that instead of trying they think I'm actually succeeding. I wonder if that's true? Even if that was my intent (which is isn't) I seriously doubt it's possible. How could one person bring down an Association (unless there were indeed serious problems within it)? Rather, my intent is, and always has been, to strengthen the Association's procedures, professionalism, and ability to vigorously represent its members' interests (financial and personal wellbeing, political, and legal). It is, after all, the only Association we have, which is why I won't be resigning my Council seat any time soon (sorry if that disappoints some).

Agenda item 8: Motion regarding motions brought before meetings of Council

WHEREAS: It is in the interests of the AASUA that members of Council have adequate time to prepare for meetings; that meetings proceed in an orderly fashion; and that Council members are able to openly debate and fully deliberate each agenda item;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Policies and Procedures shall be amended as follows:

1.3.4 Notice of Meeting
A notice of meeting shall be circulated the week prior to each Council meeting, together with an Agenda.

1.3.5 Motions Pertaining to New Business
All motions pertaining to new business shall be made in writing and provided to the Executive Director so that the motion shall form part of the Agenda. This rule may be waived by a simple majority of those present and voting at a regularly scheduled Council meeting, and in the case of a tie vote, the Chair of the Council may cast a deciding vote pursuant to Bylaw 6.13.

As pointed out in an earlier post, the second paragraph would contravene Robert's Rules of Order, which require motions to be allowed from the floor:

Robert's Rules of Order §41.6 states:

New Business. After unfinished business and general orders have been disposed of, the chair asks, "Is there any new business?" Members can then introduce new items of business, or can move to take away from the table any matter that is on the table, in the order in which they are able to obtain the floor when no question is pending.... So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings.

Does not compute

2012-01-18T12:25:00.000-07:00

Here's another pair of seemingly contradictory headlines from the Edmonton Journal:

Edmonton ranked among top performing global economies

Calgary was listed as having gross domestic product per capita of $54,080 U.S., and having grown this by 1.5 per cent last year and seen employment gains of 2.7 per cent.

Edmonton was second among Canadian cities with GDP per capita of $43,934 U.S., up 1.2 per cent from a year earlier. Employment there grew 2.4 per cent.

Modest cuts at U of A won’t impact students, president says

Budget cuts at the university are “modest” and won’t have a negative impact on students, says Indira Samarasekera, president of the University of Alberta.
....
With no increase in provincial grants for the last two years, the U of A has faced two-per-cent budget cuts each year and faces a third tight year unless this spring’s provincial budget brings an increase in the operating grant.

To reduce spending, faculty took off days without pay in 2010, and some gave up office phones. Professors who took early retirement were not replaced and support staff positions were cut through attrition and some layoffs. The faculty of science eliminated 55 positions in the last 19 months.

The arts faculty is preparing to cut seven faculty positions in 2012 if there is no increase in funding this spring.

PS: The clue to all this is that the price of natural gas is now down to $2.48 (per million British thermal units, or mmBtu, in case you were interested — those damned Brits!), so GoA royalty revenues are low. What about $100 oil? The GoA currently collects minimal royalties from the tar sands operations, and there is little "conventional" oil left to pump. So while the private sector thrives and fuels a vibrant local economy, the public sector is in deficit and decline.

Indira speaks

2012-01-18T08:56:00.000-07:00

Sorry, the internet is down in my building (has been since yesterday afternoon) so I'm operating from my laptop on Wi-Fi. Hence slow pick-up on this article in the Edmonton Journal yesterday about Indira's views on the "modest" budget cuts that will have no "negative impact on students."

She sounds very defensive when she says: “People should recognize there is pain everywhere and we have done what we can.... I’m not dismissing how difficult it must be. We have to find a way to be optimistic in the face of these cuts and figure out how to get through these times without losing people, that’s all I can say.” Yes, you do.

But let me go out on a bit of a limb here (surely not?) and suggest that "keeping people" is not the ultimate goal in this process — it is about maintaining the quality of liberal arts education (and research) at the University of Alberta, a provincially funded public university. Perhaps scaling back some of administration's wilder ambitions and expansionist plans would be timely, while reducing student intake proportionally to the real-dollar reductions in the government grant?

CBC Radio interview

2012-01-17T11:45:00.000-07:00

For those interested, here is a link to a brief CBC radio (Edmonton AM) interview I did this morning on funding cuts, and especially their impact on the Faculty of Arts:
http://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/episodes/2012/01/17/u-of-a-budget/

Teachers or Professors?

2012-01-16T20:25:00.000-07:00

The Edmonton Journal carries two contrasting stories:
1. Teachers' union, province in secret talks to explore cap on work hours
2. U of A faces staff cuts, larger classes

In the first case, teachers are negotiating a new contract that might see the introduction of a 30-hour work week, in exchange for a 3-year salary deal like the nurses (0%, 2%, 4%). The Journal reports ATA spokesman Jonathan Teghtmeyer as saying: “If we’re going to talk about salaries and cost certainty, labour peace and workforce stability, then we need to talk about workload as well.”

In the second case, there is no such talk of workloads, just layoffs and increased class sizes. It's a curious contrast. Interestingly, NASA came closest to negotiating "less work for less pay" with their paid days off, although they too are getting hit hard by the budget cuts.

The bottom line is, universities and university staff do not have the ear (or the short and curlies) of government to anything like the degree that the nurses and teachers unions do, nor do we have much public sympathy or public leverage (even if we could go on strike, it would not impact the average Albertan in any meaningful way).

A bold move would be to calculate the real-dollar decrease in the government grant to the university, and decrease our enrolment by the same proportion (by the simple expedient of raising entrance standards). That might get some public attention — some people might applaud.

More cuts coming

2012-01-16T07:23:00.000-07:00

Hardly surprising news, but we read in today's Edmonton Journal (where else?) that an expected continued 0% increase to the government grant for fiscal year 2012 will mean more cuts on campus. The refreshingly plain-spoken Dean of Arts, Leslie Cormack, plans to cut seven professorial positions in 2012, this on top of cutting 15 positions (including 12 support staff) in this fiscal year, and 26 mainly administrative positions in 2010.

Similarly, the Journal reports that the Faculty of Science eliminated 55 faculty and administrative positions over the last 19 months by closing vacancies, early retirements, and some non-academic staff layoffs. Dean of Science Gregory Taylor says that chairs are telling him "we cannot do it [more cuts] again without cutting programs."

Layoffs of teaching staff will inevitably mean larger class sizes (especially in first and second year) and higher student:teacher ratios* (one of the key metrics administration wants to see decreasing). Students see this as a bum deal, as their tuition fees steadily increase, and non-instructional fees and late-payment fees start to bite.

But fear not — Provost Carl Amrhein is on the case and is optimistic. He says he has spoken to the new Redford government, and thinks she understands the situation: "I haven't given up on the government grant," he says.

In a companion article in the Journal, there is a lengthy discussion of the particularly difficult position the Faculty of Arts finds itself in, compared to other large faculties that fit the federal government's STEM agenda (science, technology, engineering, medicine) where targeted funding and research chairs are still relatively abundant. Some have suggested a form of transfer payments, from these "rich" faculties to poorer ones like Arts, but Amrhein dismisses that idea, saying that "since donors make their own decisions on where their money will go, the university would have little control over the allocation and could not direct money to the arts." No harm in asking though, is there? Perhaps also the new Office of Advancement could make greater efforts to target potential donors to the Arts, as opposed to focusing on big oil and pharma?

* Or we could do the unthinkable and reduce our student intake. That just might get the public's attention.

New Business on the Agenda

2012-01-13T12:30:00.001-07:00

In regard to introducing new business at a meeting (in AASUA agendas, referred to as Other Business) Robert's Rules of Order §41.6 states:

New Business. After unfinished business and general orders have been disposed of, the chair asks, "Is there any new business?" Members can then introduce new items of business, or can move to take away from the table any matter that is on the table, in the order in which they are able to obtain the floor when no question is pending.... So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings.

So, the motion being proposed by the AASUA Executive Committee for adoption by Council next week would breach the parliamentary rules that govern Council business*, and therefore cannot be approved.

Note that GFC operates on a similar principle to that being proposed by the AASUA Executive Committee, but GFC does not adhere to Robert's Rules of Order (or any established parliamentary procedures, for that matter). GFC procedures are clearly designed to minimize debate or motions from the floor. In fact, apart from question period, there is no opportunity for GFC members to bring forward motions except through the Executive Committee, which tightly controls the agenda. Sad to see AASUA trying to emulate GFC in this way.

*AASUA Policy & Procedures state:

§1.3.3 Parliamentary Procedures in Council

Council meetings have historically operated in the mode of Committee of the Whole in the sense of Robert's Rules of Order, inasmuch as most business involves presentation of information for discussion rather than for approval by vote. Such discussions are not, therefore, limited by the strict rules of debate, although questions are addressed through the presiding officer. In all other respects, however, Council meetings follow the general procedures as laid out in Robert's Rules of Order. In particular, when issues requiring a vote of approval are before Council, Robert's Rules of Order will be followed, with the following noted changes:
1. Members do not normally stand to speak.
2. Votes are normally taken by show of hands.
(Council, 2009.02.19)

Update
At today's (19 January, 2012) AASUA Council meeting, there was lively debate on this motion, and the matter was in the end referred to the Governance Committee.

Council Meeting on 19 January

2012-01-12T18:59:00.000-07:00

The agenda for next week's AASUA Council meeting has been distributed, and apart from the usual reports, contains only three action items: approval of first quarter financial reports, a proposal for an "AASUA Open House", and a "Motion regarding motions brought before meetings of Council".

The last item is a reaction by the Executive Committee to my motion at the November Council meeting regarding the transportation survey, and a new policy is to be proposed that will thwart any such impertinent actions by a Council member from happening again. According to the Executive Committee meeting minutes of 1 December 2011 (included with the agenda package):

Discussion was held with respect to the motion passed at Council by Jeremy Richards respecting the Transportation Survey. It was expressed that there was inadequate notice of the motion. It was suggested that 72 hours written notice be provided for any motion being brought to Council.

Don Heth suggested establishing a tradition that doesn’t require a formal resolution, and will maintain the capacity for members to make motions on the floor. It is unfair to spring matters on Council members, and through that device get something through. Motions are proper when the item is on the agenda and then Council can decide whether to accept or table it and that there be a requirement for written notification of new items after the agenda is circulated.

A motion will be formulated for consideration at the next meeting of Executive in January 2012.

A few points here to correct:

1. I notified President Ian MacLaren prior to the Council meeting of my intention to bring a motion to Council regarding the Transportation Survey (not 72 hours, but then there is currently no policy that requires any prior notification; nor was a request for agenda items sent out to Councillors prior to setting the agenda).

2. When the agenda was presented for approval at the November Council meeting, I formally requested the addition of this item (and one other) to the Other Business section of the agenda, and Council voted to approve that amended agenda.

3. There is absolutely nothing in Robert's Rules of Order (the parliamentary procedures adopted by AASUA Council) that says it is "unfair" or not "proper" to make a motion in a properly constituted meeting, especially when the item has been approved as part of the agenda. I find the insinuations in the sentence "It is unfair to spring matters on Council members, and through that device get something through" very troubling.

4. So too is the implication of impropriety in the sentence "Motions are proper when the item is on the agenda" — the item in question was placed on the agenda, and approved by a vote of Council at the start of the meeting.

At the end of all of this, I made my motion because the Executive Committee overstepped its authority and approved distribution of a flawed survey to AASUA members without consulting or seeking approval from Council (if anybody "sprung" anything on anyone, it was the Executive Committee "springing" this survey on Council and AASUA members; and talk about a "device to get something through" — if the survey wasn't a "device" to push someone's agenda on commuting I don't know what it was). Council duly debated the motion at some length, an amendment was proposed but but was not approved by a vote, and the final motion was approved by a significant majority of those Councillors who voted. For the Executive Committee to suggest that this was somehow "improper" indicates a lack of respect for AASUA Council, which is the final authority of ASSUA (not the Executive Committee).

This all seems to me a little like sour grapes.

This post will serve as a 7-day notice of my intent to object to the wording of the Executive Committee minutes at next Thursday's Council meeting.

Perennially-outraged

2012-01-12T10:11:00.000-07:00

Recognition at last! An editorial in the Gateway has tagged me as "perenially outraged", and suggests that this blog "too often has descended into criticizing the administration for the sake of criticizing." I'm outraged! (not)

But seriously, whatever happened to the "perenially outraged" Gateway of yore? The editorial rightly criticizes Folio, Express News, and Colloquy for being focused on "good news" and glossing over problems, but this year's Gateway hasn't read much differently. What happened to student activism?

Happy New Year — Now encrypt your laptop

2012-01-10T07:58:00.000-07:00

I've just received a letter from my Chair announcing the latest "must do" from VPIT Jonathan Schaeffer. Apparently there are concerns that "personal or sensitive information" is at risk of being lost from mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, phones, and memory sticks. Typical of these pronouncements is the extrapolation of "personal or sensitive information" to "University information", and then basically to everything:

All University mobile computing devices must be encrypted and protected in accordance with this procedure. (Laptop Security and Encryption Standard and Guidelines)

Caught up in the net also are "Personally owned and other external laptops storing University personal and/or sensitive information".

Phase one, starting immediately, is encryption of laptops; other devices will follow. Enjoy.

A new term grinds into gear

2012-01-09T08:47:00.000-07:00

Good luck everyone with day 1 of the new term!

Ivy League envy

2012-01-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

The Economist (10 December, 2011) suggests American universities should become more businesslike if they are to survive in the 21st century, and identifies "Ivy League envy" as a key distraction over the past few decades:

The first problem is the inability to say “no”. For decades American universities have been offering more of everything — more courses for undergraduates, more research students for professors and more rock walls for everybody — on the merry assumption that there would always be more money to pay for it all. The second is Ivy League envy. The vast majority of American universities are obsessed by rising up the academic hierarchy, becoming a bit less like Yokel-U and a bit more like Yale.

Ivy League envy leads to an obsession with research. This can be a problem even in the best universities: students feel short-changed by professors fixated on crawling along the frontiers of knowledge with a magnifying glass. At lower-level universities it causes dysfunction. American professors of literature crank out 70,000 scholarly publications a year, compared with 13,757 in 1959. Most of these simply moulder: Mark Bauerlein of Emory University points out that, of the 16 research papers produced in 2004 by the University of Vermont’s literature department, a fairly representative institution, 11 have since received between zero and two citations. The time wasted writing articles that will never be read cannot be spent teaching. In “Academically Adrift” Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa argue that over a third of America’s students show no improvement in critical thinking or analytical reasoning after four years in college.

The solution, The Economist suggests, is to embrace technology and move much teaching on-line:

The internet is changing the rules. Star academics can lecture to millions online rather than the chosen few in person. Testing and marking can be automated. [...] Professors decide what they want students to know and design tests to see whether they have learned it. But they buy teaching materials from independent publishers and employ “mentors” to guide students.

I think the article accurately identifies the problem, which must sound very familiar to many of us (top 20 by 2020, and "yes" to everything), but I am far from convinced by its proposed solution (outsource teaching to the internet). However, it constantly amazes me that institutes of higher learning are so silent about pedagogy: where are the academic studies that show that internet-based teaching is truly better than traditional lecturing? If it's true, I'll happily burn my lecture notes and "guide" my students remotely from my home office. But something tells me my students won't really get a better education this way, and that my job almost certainly will not be replaced when I retire.

Service interruption

2011-12-28T14:43:00.000-07:00

I will be in the UK for the next week (till the 4th), so comment moderation may be intermittent.
Happy New Year to all,
Jeremy

A well-deserved day off for NASA: "Do less for less"

2011-12-23T09:44:00.000-07:00

Ah, the peace on campus! This morning was one of the first that I have not been nearly run down by one of those F&O golf carts while walking up the sidewalk on 112 St at 6 am, so I knew something was up!

But seriously, well done to NASA for negotiating these paid days off in response to a lean salary deal. It makes sense to do less work for less salary (i.e., zero or sub-inflation increase). Too bad that could never work for academic staff, because our workloads are open-ended and competitive, not to mention self-motivated. The perfect workers!

Happy Christmas NASA staff!

Whither the Workload/Worklife Joint Task Force Report?

2011-12-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

Two months ago I submitted a question to GFC requesting an update on actions taken in response to the recommendations in the 2009 Joint Task Force Report on Workload/Worklife (see below). I was told that this question was not appropriate for GFC to address, and was advised to submit the question directly to the Provost, which I did. From there, it bounced around for two months until, after several follow-up enquiries, I finally received a response yesterday from Vice Provost and Associate Vice-President Human Resources, Chris Cheeseman. He has kindly agreed to allow me to post his reply on this blog, which I do below. I responded to Dr. Cheeseman with some personal observations, but I think it would be interesting to hear what others think of the actions taken in response to this report, and perhaps more importantly, the experienced impacts of those actions. Please weigh in.

Best wishes for Christmas and 2012,
Jeremy

Recommendations of the 2009 Joint Task Force Report on Workload/Worklife issues:

Commit to an explicit and continuing joint effort of the AASUA and the Administration to proactively address Workload/Worklife issues.
Ensure appropriate allocation of administrative resources to support all levels of the organization and to effectively manage change and transition.
Promote programs, processes, and resources to support individual academic staff in meeting challenges of workload, work life, and/or work-life balance.
Increase both structured mentorship of academic staff and on-going leadership-development initiatives.
Ensure the clarity of job expectations, and the alignment of the associated reward systems.

Response from AVP Chris Cheeseman:

Dear Jeremy

Re: Redirected Question for GFC

As you requested, here is an update on the action taken to date on the five key actions recommended by the Workload/Worklife Task Force report of 2009. Effectively addressing workload/worklife issues is an evolutionary process that involves a cultural shift and many managed transitions, especially in an institution as large and complex as ours. The 2009 Joint Task Force Report on Workload/Worklife issues has served as a valuable information source for the institution as we have moved forward on a number of fronts since the report was released

An institutional commitment that reflects issues related to workload and quality of work life has been captured in and/or operationalized by a number of recent documents (e.g. D2D’s, the academic plan, enhancements to the benefit plans, programming to support academic staff, etc.). An increased focus on civility within the academe and the emphasis placed on interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and research, are two examples of an institutional response that should create conditions for a culture based on collaboration and collegiality. In order to facilitate this approach to both teaching and research as you know two new state of the art facilities have recently been opened on campus. The Edmonton Clinic North Health Academy is designed around shared spaces in which both faculty and students from multiple health science disciplines can interact within the classrooms, its social and administrative spaces. Similarly, your own Faculty of Science has now moved into the Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science. Another remarkable building which brings together students and faculty in a stimulating and light filled environment.

We are also focusing on reducing the administrative burden for faculty and administrators by streamlining many of the processes which currently impact workload and worklife. The VP Finance and Administration established a committee on Administrative Efficiencies which tabled its report in 2010. The recommendations covered a number of areas which have been addressed. In addition, a number of important projects are currently being undertaken by the University all designed to improve work flow and communication between stakeholders. One recent example is the introduction of on-line grade submissions, which will go live in the Spring of 2012.

A key element in supporting individuals attain a satisfactory level of work life balance focuses on reducing role conflict by removing barriers and creating conditions where staff members can achieve success in both their personal and professional lives. Initiatives addressing this challenge are wide ranging. As one example, the President’s Review Committee identified a number of issues, such as how women on maternity leave are considered at FEC and possible inequality between Faculty FEC processes. These issues are being addressed through a collaborative and consultative process. The work of the Academic Benefits joint Management Committee (ABMC) is also a good example of how administration is working with AASUA to address concerns of the faculty and reviewing how the benefits plan can better support both the faculty and their families.

Support for academic staff and their families remains the focus of a number of programs offered through Health Promotion and Worklife Services. As additional opportunities are identified to enhance services for individuals, and support for faculties and departments in addressing current and emerging issues involving workload and worklife, these will be considered for implementation. Human Resource Services is taking a lead role in furthering these discussions, which involve AASUA as well as individuals from my office. The report also specifically refers to structured mentorship programs which, combined with on-going leadership programs, would also promote collegiality and community. To that end we have completely restructured our Chairs and Administrators leadership program as well as significantly enhanced our programs for APO’s. In addition, my Staff Learning and Development group is leading an across-campus team to introduce a new orientation program for all faculty and staff which will incorporate a mentorship program.

Sincerely,

Chris Cheeseman,
Professor of Physiology,
Vice Provost and Associate Vice-President Human Resources.

Indira to Sale

2011-12-22T08:14:00.000-07:00

President Samarasekera has written a response to Prof. Carolyn Sale regarding the budget crisis in the Faculty of Arts (download here). Indira repeats the standard explanation that rising staff salary and benefits costs are to blame for budget shortfalls at a time of zero increase to the GoA grant to the University, but then seems to delegate any responsibility for a solution to deans. She writes:

The challenge that the entire university faces is this: how do we manage in an environment where we receive a zero percent grant increase, when a minimum four percent grant increase is required to maintain what we have? I turn to our Deans and the entire U of A community to develop and implement strategies that will help to protect the academic integrity of our programs and quality of the educational experience, while achieving effective administrative services. Each of our faculties and administrative units is dealing with the same issues as the Faculty of Arts and all are making difficult, and in some cases unpleasant, decisions. There are no easy answers to the budget challenges we face. However, I strongly believe that each faculty is in the best position to assess its particular situation and implement a strategy that is consistent with the university’s academic plan while meeting the specific budget pressures of that faculty.

Later in her letter she notes that she is "leading the efforts on behalf of our university — and with my colleagues at the University of Calgary, the University of Lethbridge, and Athabasca University, for the entire post-secondary sector in Alberta — for increased government investment in higher education," which is good to hear. But, like the rest of us at FEC time, she should be judged on her success. I get no FEC credit for just writing grant proposals (and according to the recent FacSci FEC report, not even if I win a grant!).

Let's see some real action and results at the top, to help the bitter pill of faculty budget cuts go down. Otherwise we cannot avoid the inevitable consequences of persistent budget cuts, which are downsizing or reduced quality, or both.

Furthermore, if this new fiscal reality is unavoidable and permanent (at least for the foreseeable future), then the expectations in the Academic Plan that the President refers to must be revised downwards. In the words of AVPIT Jonathan Schaeffer, we will "need to do less with less." Charging deans to do the same (or more) with less is simply bad leadership.

A note on corresponding

2011-12-21T10:20:00.000-07:00

When I first started this blog I invited correspondence that I might (with full editorial privilege) post as a thread (rather than accept as a comment). I am still more than happy to do that; I will respect anonymity if requested, and you can even send it to me from an anonymous e-mail account if you don't want me to know who you are (or you could send it using the commenting feature, but request it be published as a thread). The criteria for etiquette would be the same as for comments, and the criteria for relevance would be its expected interest to this blog's readers and participants (although I'll be the judge of that!). An no, you can't count it as a publication, although you can be assured of plenty of peer review!

From a correspondent

2011-12-21T10:05:00.000-07:00

The following e-mail was received from a faculty member. With that person's permission, I am posting it here:

Yesterday (19 Dec.) I submitted my grade recommendations, having since the last day of classes spent roughly three days marking an assignment, four days making up an exam, and two days marking a short answer component of said exam.

Now I am preoccupied with the reactions of a handful of students who cannot comprehend their having been given a mark of (only) 6/10 in their assignment. That their effort might not merit their being graded above average in a class of 130 students is apparently not an idea belonging in the realm of possibility. To several I have (bravely) explained that there is an element of subjectivity to one's marking of a three page report, and if I were put to it I could not necessarily give a minute and unambiguous explanation of why this one was a 6, and that a 7. But happily I was able to add that, had I added one mark to their score, this would not have affected their final grade (I was lucky in this respect — in all cases it was true). One student asked, well, if instead of his 6/10 he had been given an 8/10 or a 9/10, would that boost him to a higher grade? I commenced an indignant reply to the effect that there was no way on God's green earth etc., but was saved from that offense to modern professorial correctness by being able instead to truthfully respond that, were he granted a 10/10 (I did not elaborate on what a gross offense to justice that would be), his final grade would remain unaltered.

But the most perplexing case is that of the pleasant, earnest young lady who is convinced she deserves better that a 6/10 because she had "done everything you [i.e. the assignment instructions] asked for." I explained to her that following instructions is not quite what academic excellence is about, that indeed one might try to form the habit of exceeding instructions — and that this perhaps is the essence of what we hope to inculcate at university. I kindly explained that there were people in our class who simply had chosen a more interesting topic, had discussed it in more interesting and academically meaningful ways, and had even (God forbid) chosen to open their assignment with an Introduction - instead of a page of uncaptioned diagrams. Predictably I was told that the instructions had not specified an Introduction was expected. The reason this case is particularly perplexing is that, from her very obtuseness, I end up wondering — is it really me? Are my expectations as to what constitutes university level scholarship simply unreasonable? Am I merely an old duffer, fixated on obsolete ideals?

Perhaps so, but where was I? Yes, notions of "competent scholarship". Short answer questions on my exam were poorly done (I was going to use the word abysmally, but panicked that I might spell it wrong, or be thought to be exaggerating). Some of my short answer questions were quite broad — in and of itself, that of course is a sin ... because the expectation of many UA undergraduates is that an exam is where you regurgitate what you have been told to learn, and just that — one ought not to have to ponder, what is he asking here? One ought not to have to labour the brain to develop some coherent, interesting, logical, intelligent response. I'd have been happy to give away marks just for signs of thoughtful intelligence. There were, of course, some excellent responses. But the average effort was a shocking affront to the doctrine that we are engaged in the effort to inculcate critical thinking and searching minds, and competent written expression. My recommended grades produced a class GPA standing modestly below that "suggested", because I cannot honestly say that the average student had proven to be "good".

So what? Why not let all this wash off the duck's back? What can I change? Isn't my tiny dent in the GPA a futile gesture? How does one professor impact a system of post-secondary education that has insinuated itself into society all over North America? That question relates at least tangentially to an article in last week's Economist (Dec. 10th-16th, 2011) concerning the future of American universities. Costs are too high. Many universities are too focused on their "Ivy League Envy", to the detriment of undergraduate teaching.

How does this relate? Well, I'm an academic because I enjoy learning, and doing research has been intellectually rewarding. I think its a good thing that instructors should themselves be advanced scholars. Perhaps this is self flattery. In any case, if society needs more of my effort to go into teaching, let it be. I'm happy to teach — with one proviso: let me teach meaningfully. If my job is to reinforce scholarly excellence, help me out a bit. We could start by prohibiting examinations that are based entirely on multi-choice. And we could amend the present "multi-faceted" system of course evaluation that makes it essential never, ever, ever to cause the students avoidable discomfort, a system that encourages bland testing, bland feedback, and bland performance. It is also utterly destructive of professorial morale. But for the impact it might have on my course evaluation, I might have written back to those undergraduates whose emails infallibly opened "Hey Albert" (despite my carefully polite responses, ending: ABC) and put them in their place on that little matter of a presumptuousness converging on impertinence; but there's a kick-back that prevents our delivering what ought really to be obligatory corrections of this type. We can no longer afford honest feedback. "I gave you a poor mark because your answer is unintelligent, and well nigh illegible," or "you are below average, because other people are performing better than you are," or "I don't have to tell you that a piece of writing must sport an Introduction because you are supposed to have learned that in high school." These things are never said — or not by me. One must cater to the ratings.

The students I encounter are overwhelmingly courteous and pleasant, whatever the putative scholastic deficit. They will be good citizens. If I sometimes suspect the only effective function of my big course is as a social valve, selecting those whose (well deserved) A-pluses merit them a place in medical school, is that a disaster? No, not a disaster. But it does seem wasteful. I perform my function as the social valve, I amuse some fraction of the students who are content with a quick overview of a subject they have no intention to pursue, but I bore those who are capable of and expect rigour. The word "edutainment" comes to mind. We could be delivering a better university education, in my opinion.

Faculty of Science FEC results

2011-12-20T17:01:00.000-07:00

Dean Gregory Taylor regularly provides faculty in the Faculty of Science with a summary of the results of the latest FEC process. For those interested, here are some key statistics quoted from this year's report:

Merit increments were distributed as follows:

19 zero increments
29 0.5 increments
114 1.0 increments
100 1.5 increments
40 2.0 increments
5 2.5 increments

"5 staff members received a partial increment that brought them to the maximum salary at rank.... 5 of the 66 Associate Professors who were eligible to apply for promotion were at the salary maximum for that rank." [i.e., they would have received a "zero(a)" if they were not promoted; Faculty Agreement, §13.24a]

12 out of 13 applications for tenure were approved.

4 out of 4 applications for promotion to Full Professor were approved.

And in case you were wondering, I got a 1.0.

Two odd proposals from AASUA

2011-12-19T17:14:00.001-07:00

The latest Rhumblines contains two proposals that would seem to make more work for teaching faculty, and/or see them working over the Labour Day weekend:

1. Regarding a proposed Fall Term Reading Week, the latest proposal is apparently to have Orientation occurring during "one or two days of the Labour Day weekend", during which time "Academic staff would be encouraged to offer their services to students in a non-classroom setting, with extended office hours for professors and CAST, a fully operational library system, and so forth." Hmmm. We're invited to "form a considered opinion" on this, but there is too little information. Based on what we read here though, I'd say this sucks.

2. Apparently we're being encouraged now to prepare two different course documents: One, the Course Outline, is required by GFC; but the other, a Course Syllabus, isn't. Why would AASUA be supporting this new requirement?

The reason is not clear from the Rhumblines article, but I think I know what's going on. What AASUA should be saying is simply that you should be careful to limit your Course Outlines to the basic information required by GFC. This is because the Course Outline is part of your contractual work for the University, and the University claims ownership of the intellectual property in that document. But if you want to protect the intellectual property (including copyright) of your other course materials, then keep them separate from the Course Outline. That's all AASUA should be saying, not encouraging yet more paperwork.

PS: To the Rhumblines editors, TRAS stands for Trust/Research Academic Staff (not "Term/Research Academic Staff") — unless changing their name is part of the TRAS Agreement Review.

Indira wins international leadership award

2011-12-16T19:49:00.002-07:00

UofA's Chief Advancement Officer, O’Neil Outar, earned his increment this year by successfully nominating President Samarasekera for an annual regional leadership award from the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. The District VIII Leadership Award covers western Canada and the northwestern United States: Alberta, Alaska, British Columbia, Idaho, Manitoba, Montana, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Oregon, Saskatchewan, Washington, and Yukon. Clearly, the competition was strong.

Let's hope the award is a tidy $1.5m, which will be donated to a deserving Faculty that "has [been] taken to new heights of achievement", in the (selected) words of Gordon Clanachan, acting chair of the U of A Board of Governors (see report on the UofA's website — thanks to an alert commentator for bringing me this excellent news).

After publicly disowning the 20/2020 thing earlier in the year, Indira apparently finds it convenient to re-own it for this occasion, since she is reported to have: "benchmarked the university against global peers and [...] inspired faculty, students and staff to aim for a place among the Top 20 public universities by 2020, a challenge the university community has embraced with enthusiasm." OMG. Or is this top 20 in District VIII?

I nominate Indira for the Golden Figurehead Award of HMCS* Fairweather, currently sailing blithely towards some tarry shoals.

* Her Majesty's Corporate Ship

Intermittent service

2011-12-14T21:56:00.000-07:00

Apologies for intermittent moderating for the next few days — I was out of it for a time-of-life visit to the UofA hospital this morning (thanks to all who looked after me there — see you in 10 years!) and am now on my way to Mexico for a few days of fieldwork. Back on Monday. Don't go crazy.

Following Macduff

2011-12-12T20:53:00.000-07:00

Thanks to those of you who filled in the informal poll on holding a "Whither" discussion meeting.

I'm wondering if a better venue might be the pub after work one day? I'll think on it over Christmas, and might just name a time and place in the New Year for anyone who wants to show up. ("Anonymous" masks and Scottish accents optional!)

Arts Squared

2011-12-11T19:51:00.000-07:00

A new website has been set up by interested parties to provide a forum for discussion about the future of the Faculty of Arts at the UofA: Arts Squared
Take a look.

How not to manage a budget cut

2011-12-10T18:32:00.002-07:00

Five brave graduate students in the Faculty of Arts have penned an article in the Edmonton Journal that strongly criticizes the method used to arrive at budget cuts in the Faculty of Arts (in the face of a $1.5m cut to the Faculty's budget from Central this year).

The article suggests that the Faculty's Administrative Process Review Project (AdPReP) was flawed in its approach by not involving key stakeholder groups in detailed consultations, and coming up with a single proposed solution that involves cutting 15 support staff positions.

The students write:

The official discourse defending AdPReP seeks to polarize staff, faculty and students through false dichotomies, putting staff jobs, collective agreements, graduate student funding and faculty tenure in opposition.

(Only an Arts student could write that! Joshing)

Something is wrong here. The sum involved, $1.5m, is a rounding error in the University's (and most Faculty's) budgets, and is embarrassingly close to the cost of the President's house which the BoG bought without demur last year (see, I can do joined-up words too). Sheesh, I've got a grant with a total budget bigger than that!

The solution has been obvious to many for a long time. If our University's administrators and governors cannot convince the GoA to properly fund this institution (which is their job), then admit failure and convert some of the University's extensive but fallow land-holdings into cash to cover these lean times (and don't expect to get appointed for another term). Either that, or stop pretending that the UofA is something it isn't.

Fee increases approved at BoG meeting

2011-12-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

The Board of Governors this morning approved tuition fee increases of 1.45%, and increases in residence rates and parking fees of 1.66%. The tuition increases are the maximum allowed under the government's regulation that such increases cannot exceed the increase in CPI for the previous 12 months.

Residencies and parking are self-financing, but some revenues from parking fees are also used to subsidize the student U-Pass program.

It was also noted that applications for permit parkings on campus have fallen, and there is now spare capacity in several parking lots (especially Windsor carpark). Administration sees Alberta Health Services as its main competitor for parking in this area. It is building up reserves because it anticipates having to build new multistorey carparks as the space occupied by surface lots is squeezed for new buildings.

There was little discussion on most of these items, although both the SU and GSA presidents gave detailed presentations in opposition to the tuition fee increases. Board members voiced their support of the students' concerns (especially about debt loads), but voted in favour of the increase anyway, basically saying they had no choice in order to maintain the quality of education being delivered by the University. The failure of the government to adequately fund the University was mentioned but not seriously addressed. The failure of the BoG to convince the government to meet these obligations was not mentioned.

Finally, it was noted that AASUA's nominee to the Board of Governors, Bob Campenot, will be standing down to take a sabbatical next year. Perhaps this is an opportunity for AASUA to nominate a more outspoken individual, in the same vein as GFC's nominee to the Board, Louis Francescutti.

CBC interview about cyclotron lawsuit

2011-12-07T12:03:00.000-07:00

You can hear the CBC Edmonton interview with the chair of the South Campus Neighbourhood Coalition regarding the cyclotron building project, and Carl Amrhein's response, here.

Friday's BoG meeting agenda

2011-12-07T10:09:00.000-07:00

The agenda for the public session of this Friday's (9 December) meeting of the Board of Governors is now posted here.

The agenda includes the following action items that will likely be exciting to listen to:

4. Report of the Finance and Property Committee
4.1. University of Alberta 2012-2013 Tuition Fee Proposal
4.2. University of Alberta 2012-2013 Program/Course Differential Fee and Market Modifier Fee Proposal
4.3. 2012-2013 Residence Rate Proposal
4.4. Parking Fees
4.5. Capitalization of Unrestricted Funds to Permanent Restricted Endowments Net Assets

No idea what the last one's all about, but should all be fun to watch.
The rest of the agenda is reports, which are not made available to the public.

Crowd into UHall 3-15 to listen in if you have time (8 am to 12 noon).

UofA faces lawsuit over isotope plant

2011-12-07T07:30:00.001-07:00

Our Provost was on the radio this morning (CBC Edmonton) responding to a lawsuit brought by residents who live near the new $4.4m medical isotope cyclotron facility being built at the old Balmoral curling rink. The residents say they were not properly consulted. The Provost responded simply by saying he hoped the project would not be delayed. Is this going to be another "bad neighbour" fiasco?

UPDATE
Here is a link to the Edmonton Journal's article.

Requirement for required texts?

2011-12-07T06:58:00.000-07:00

Does anyone know if we are actually required to require a textbook for our courses? I can find no stone tablet (or UAPPOL ephemeralism) that prescribes this, and I'm wondering why we still do it? Is it a hold-over from when the bookstore used to get discounts on bulk book orders, which were passed on to students? If so, that's not true any more, and the same books can generally be bought much cheaper on Amazon. And it makes more sense for many courses (especially intro courses) to just get a second-hand copy and share it with a group of friends. Or look at the library copy.

The last reason for Profs to prescribe a text, that it circumvented some copyright problems, doesn't seem to be true any more either (perhaps it never was). So I'm thinking of dropping required texts for next year, and just recommending them.

What's with the zombie walk?

2011-12-06T20:38:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of being knocked out of the way while walking across campus by students with their heads buried in their iPhones BBMing each other. Time for a distracted walking law (and throw in one about distracted attendance at lectures too while the legislature is about it — I hear they're on a roll).

BoG meeting on Friday 9 December — or not?

2011-12-06T13:20:00.000-07:00

There's a scheduled Board of Governors meeting this Friday (8 am–12 pm, 3-15 UHall), but no agenda materials have been posted to date. No indication that it has been cancelled, so watch this space.

IT Plan for 2012-2017

2011-12-06T08:03:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Schaeffer (Vice-Provost and Associate Vice-President–Information Technology; VPIT) announces a new draft long-range plan for information technology at the UofA on Colloquy.

The draft plan is not posted on the VPIT website (so far as I could see), although feedback is requested. Instead, we are invited to spend two precious hours during exam season to attend a town hall meeting to hear what this is all about. The two documents I could find on the VPIT website (under IT Plan for 2012-2017) include a PowerPoint file titled "Information Technology Plan, University of Alberta 2012-2017" (but which has no details of the plan), and a pdf titled "The IT Campus of the Future: The Mobile, Connected Community", which also has no details, but treats us to a day-in-the-life of Gina, a fictitious undergraduate student in 2016.

It's hard to comment on a plan when we don't know the details, but I find Table 1 in the "The IT Campus of the Future" document to be problematic. Firstly it reduces this to a generational issue by comparing "Parent Generation" approaches to "Student Generation" in technology and communication preferences, then proposes doing away with some pretty fundamental social behaviours such as face-to-face meetings (to be replaced by online exchanges), privacy (to be replaced by "Open", whatever that means), and "Real-time/office hours" (to be replaced by immediate responses). Ironically, two of Gina's "successes" in her day in 2016 are to secure face-to-face appointments with the Writing Centre and a slot in her Prof's office hours.

Where is all this heading? What I have seen of this "Student Generation" so far is that it expects to be able to send me one-line demands for information in e-mails, at any time of day or weekend, with no personal greeting (e.g., "Dear Dr. Richards"), and no valediction (e.g., actually providing their name, as opposed to just their e-mail address). Doubtless I will be dinged in my anonymous teaching evaluations for "not respecting students" because I tend to reply with suggestions about e-mail etiquette. The recipients may thank me later when they start writing to apply for jobs, but so far as I know there is no mechanism for students to revise their anonymous teaching evaluations at a later date, after they get some experience of the real world.

Industrial Research Chairs

2011-12-02T07:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday we learned that the U of A had been awarded six new NSERC Industrial Research Chairs (IRCs), making the UofA the top Canadian institution for such chairs. All of the chairs will be in the Faculty of Engineering, and most of them will be in areas relating to tar sands research (including water management). Five of the six chairs are men.

What to say about this? On several counts it is good news, most obviously for the chairs (five of whom are internal appointments — i.e., they are already professors at the UofA). It is also good news for the Faculty, which can take five current staff members off its base payroll (for 5 years at least). It also brings in a huge wad of research cash to the Faculty and University (in overheads). But, like the CRC and CERC programs, it blows on gender balance.

It is worth noting that IRCs are different from CRCs and CERCs in that a large proportion of the funding comes from industry. The Edmonton Journal's article reports that only $5.78m of the $14.2m total will come from NSERC; the rest will be provided by industry and GoA matching dollars.

If there is a downside, it is that the research focus of these chairs is heavily prescribed, and oriented towards problem-solving as opposed to blue-skies research. But that is what the IRC program is designed to deliver, and the direction comes from the federal government. I guess we can only hope that there are some broader research and teaching spinoffs from these chairs that will benefit the University's primary mission of knowledge generation and learning.

For those of us in academic areas where IRCs and the likes will never happen, blame federal government prioritization of research dollars. At least the IRCs don't significantly mortgage the University's operating budget, especially because in this instance most of these new chairs are already on staff — so in fact they will save some University salary expenses for the 5-year durations of the chairs. As for support costs, I am thinking that the Faculty of Engineering is well able to absorb these.

The shame is, as others have commented on this blog, that the federal government and all below it have not seen fit to set up similar programs in other disciplines, especially those covered by SSHRC. The IRC program is purely utilitarian, and there would be nothing wrong with that if it was balanced by equal opportunities in the arts, humanities, etc.

Science Course Commenting Website

2011-12-01T17:15:00.001-07:00

The Interdepartmental Science Students' Society (ISSS) is proposing to set up a website where students can comment on various aspects of courses in the Faculty of Science (see report in the Gateway). In previous communications that I have seen, ISSS Vice-President (Academic) Dustin Chelen has written:

The website that the ISSS is developing presents students with an opportunity to share their advice with each other on a number of different factors: course content, laboratory and/or seminar components, textbooks and online resources, evaluation methods (exams, papers, etc.), prerequisite courses, and the value added to a student's degree.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about this proposal already, with some thinking that any information is good information, and others being more cautious (including Brenda Leskiw, Senior Associate Dean of Science, who is quoted in the Gateway article).

My view on this is that it's fine so long as it is run by the students, and maintained on a student-owned website and server. But if it is given any degree of legitimacy by the Faculty (e.g., by hosting it on a University website), then we're on a slippery slope of this becoming another of the "multi-facetted" measures of teaching performance required by GFC (GFC Policy Manual §111.2.2), and it won't be long before we hear data from this website creeping into FEC deliberations. We already have one bad system of using anonymous student evaluations to ding faculty at FEC, and we certainly don't need another one.

Provost does not "blame" faculty for budget cuts

2011-11-28T16:56:00.001-07:00

At GFC today, I asked the Provost if he concurred with the statement hypothetically attributed to him in last week's Gateway about AASUA's 1.75% salary increase being the cause of the 2% budget cuts to Faculties.

Amrhein gave an indirect, but nevertheless interesting, answer to this question, before ultimately saying that no, faculty were not to "blame". President Samarasekera followed up by saying that she had portrayed AASUA's salary settlement to the government of Alberta as "moderate", and that the government should respect that.

In Amrhein's longer answer, he explained that the 2% cut to faculty budgets was in fact only half of an equation, the other half being the merit increases that are funded directly from Central. He stated that, whereas in the past merit increments used to be self-financing through turnover, the abolishment of mandatory retirement, and the fact that many replacement hires are in fact brought in at salaries not much less than (sometimes more than) the retirees they are replacing*, now means that 1.7% of the 2.3% cost of merit is unfunded. So, while Central paid the costs of these merit increases, they clawed back 2% from Faculty budgets to help pay for them. This meant that, in fact, many Faculties did not receive a net budget cut. But it put pressure on allocations within Faculty budgets.

Well, that's the long story. The short story is that budgets were cut because revenues are not keeping up with expenses, not just because faculty received a very modest and below-inflation salary increase.

* Harrumpf?

Faculty of Arts may cut programs, faculty positions next year

2011-11-26T09:39:00.001-07:00

The Edmonton Journal reports on the budget situation in the Faculty of Arts, and quotes Dean Lesley Cormack as follows:

The faculty of arts has also been warned to expect a further two-per-cent cut for the next fiscal year, which starts April 1, she said. “I think we will have to look at the academic side of the house next. It means looking at whether programs are still viable ... so we’ll be looking to see if there are any that have low enrolment. We’ll also be looking at faculty members, but it is important to remember that tenure is in place.”

In a slightly more balanced account than appeared in the Gateway earlier this week, the paper identified salary pressures as a factor in the budget problem:

The faculty of arts has been told to find budget savings every year for the past three years — two per cent in 2009-10, five per cent in 2010-11 and 2.1 per cent this year, Cormack said. “In those years we’ve cut back $6.1 million.”

At the same time, the faculty’s base budget has actually increased. However, those increases have been entirely swallowed up by negotiated salary increases for staff. About 88 per cent of the faculty of arts budget is spent on salaries and benefits, said Cormack.

This is a statement of fact, rather than the quote in the Gateway which specifically blamed AASUA's 1.75% salary increase for the Faculty of Arts' budget problems.

Obviously, if salaries are such a large percentage of a faculty's budget, then positive or negative salary changes will affect the balance sheet. It is therefore instructive to consider the way the University's administration operates:

First, it approves a salary increase for staff that it apparently knows it does not have the money to pay for.
Then it tells faculties (who are the ones who actually have to pay the salaries) to cut their budgets. Problem neatly downloaded to someone else.

I think it's time for some honesty in the University's planning process. If the people who are responsible for ensuring stable funding for the University cannot deliver, then they should come clean and just say so (and take the zero increment the rest of us would get when we don't deliver). Administration should then look carefully at what it is planning to do in the coming years, and trim its sails accordingly. That should start with non-core-academic and non-staffing expenditures, and in particular it should stop growth (either of infrastructure or staff and student numbers).

Should it also look at academic programs? Yes, but it should be doing that all the time, not just as an emergency budget measure. If this was a continuous process, there would be no need for sudden draconian cuts, but waning programs could be either bolstered (if they were considered to be academically important), or gently wound up or rolled into other programs in a planned fashion that respected the rights and interests of the staff involved. Most importantly, this would be done on the basis of sound academic planning and pedagogy, not financial panic.

Unless an organization or company is facing bankruptcy, its staff cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of the organization's problems through their salaries. So until the BoG declares a financial emergency, salaries for all staff must at least keep pace with inflation. Clearly the University is not facing a financial emergency, because it is still spending money on new infrastructure, new initiatives, and new staff, and growing its student population. So it should not be attempting to offload the blame for its operating budget shortfalls on its staff, with whom it negotiated and approved salary settlements.

Something for the weekend?

2011-11-25T13:43:00.001-07:00

A colleague has pointed me to this wonderful YouTube clip: "UBC President Stephen Toope finds out that U of T is raising $2 billion"

You might also enjoy this one from a couple of years ago: "Scientific Peer Review, ca. 1945"

Faculty of Arts' budget woes all the fault of the greedy faculty

2011-11-23T12:57:00.001-07:00

In the latest Gateway (November 23), there is extensive coverage of Dean of Arts Lesley Cormack's Town Hall meeting on that Faculty's $1.5m budget crisis. The report accurately notes that the Faculty of Arts is not the only Faculty to face these cuts — all Faculties have been handed a 2% budget cut for the 2011-2012 year — but Arts finds it particularly difficult to generate alternative sources of revenue.

Worrying is the retailing of the fallacy that, by accepting a below-inflation salary increase for this year, faculty are responsible for these budget problems. The Gateway reports:

The dean also referred to the next budget cut, saying she sent an email to Provost Carl Amrhein explaining the difficulty the faculty would have in making that additional cut.

“(Amrhein) has come back and said that we need to perhaps look at closing programs. ... He would remind you all the cuts we are experiencing are a result of the collective bargaining happening last year,” Cormack said, referring to the 1.75 per cent salary increase that academic staff voted on last summer.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before faculty were blamed for this mess, even if in this rather oblique way that might put words in the mouth of the Provost.

Dear Carl, a question for you: Do you indeed consider that the current budget cuts are solely the fault of faculty in accepting a below-inflation salary increase? If you do, then I think we have a real problem here. If you do not, perhaps you could set the record straight. Thanks.

More on Merit and FEC

2011-11-23T08:10:00.001-07:00

It's been an interesting debate on the merit increment issue. In general, those who regularly get multiple increments (i.e., more than 1.0) tend to like the system, because it rewards them well, and administrators like the ability to annually ding "below-average" (note, that does not necessarily mean "poor") performers with 0.5 and 0.0 increments. The huddled masses in the 1.0 ± 0.5 range sweat it out every year, unsure whether they'll end up with a $1000 pat on the back (i.e., an extra 0.5 above a single increment) or a black mark on their record (0.5 and 0.0 increments are widely recognized to reflect FEC disapproval of performance, despite FECs' regular denial of this).

I come back to my proposal that, for the majority of hard-working people in the 1.0 ± 0.5 range, whose output is meritorious by any standard, much unnecessary stress could be relieved by offering greater certainty about receiving a standard single increment in recognition of their high quality regular work. I think there are a number of ways that this could be done without upsetting the FEC apple cart. Most simply, and without necessitating any changes in the Faculty Agreement, there could be an explicit understanding by Faculty Councils that a single increment will be awarded unless there are demonstrable problems with performance (and that doesn't just mean that you're in the lower quartile of some metric). Such single-increment cases could be fast-tracked through the FEC process, thereby saving everyone a huge amount of time and energy.

Another way to relieve the annual stress would be to move to biennial or triennial reviews for tenured professors (annual reviews still make sense prior to tenure and promotion). This would smooth out the annual bumps in research productivity that are inevitable when we are engaged in multi-year research projects and training multi-year graduate students. To get around the complaint that this might dilute the impact of a particularly meritorious year, there could be an option to submit an annual report for any given year. In the spirit of reciprocity, chairs or FECs could also require individuals to submit annual reports if under-performance is suspected.

What think ye of that?

GFC meets Monday 28 November

2011-11-23T07:40:00.000-07:00

Materials for the upcoming GFC meeting on Monday 28 November (2–4 pm, Council Chambers, UHall) are available here.

Action items are, as usual, sparse. Just two on the agenda, one to approve new members of GFC, and the other to approve a new UAPPOL procedure for the Award for Excellence in Graduate Teaching.

There are a few discussion items, including two presentations from the Students' Union and Graduate Students’ Association on their strategic plans (agenda items 6 and 7). These are remarkably thorough and detailed documents — it would be nice to see similarly detailed and transparent plans from our staff associations.

The Provost is also proposing to have more invited guests (like Gwyn Morgan) speak at GFC meetings (agenda item 8). He feels that the Morgan experience was "well received by many", and that "GFC Executive sees it as a responsibility of GFC to hear all points of view, even if those points of view are found by some to be disagreeable or in opposition to the views of some members of GFC." The Provost is proposing establishing a sub-committee of the GFC Executive Committee (of course) to draw up a list of speakers who are "high profile and with a public record of advocacy for a topic of interest to the University Community." I hope this sub-committee will not simply invite people who want to bludgeon universities into the corporate mould that the BoG seems to be intent on, but will also include some speakers who advocate passionately for the more traditional roles of universities and liberal arts education.

Merit and FEC

2011-11-20T22:21:00.001-07:00

The FEC merit system came up in discussions at AASUA Council last week, because of the workload stress that it causes faculty to self-inflict on themselves (by competing with their colleagues for the elusive and secretive increment). The question was raised as to whether the system should be reviewed. The problem as stated was that the merit pool of 1.2 increments per faculty member in a Faculty pool can be distributed in many different ways, and there seems to be no consistency across campus as to how this is done — the Faculty Agreement does not specify, but leaves it up to Faculty Councils or FECs themselves to decide. Some Faculties give most people a single increment and a few people multiple increments (up to 3) for highly meritorious performance. Others fit the distribution to an undefined curve. There is also an argument that, because there are no descriptions of the expectations for various increment levels except zero (a "zero-b" is defined as: "performance requirements for an increment have not been met but performance is acceptable notwithstanding" — §13.24(b) of the Faculty Agreement), that increments should not normally be expected except in the case of unusually meritorious performance — i.e., most people get zero.

As an interesting aside, the section of Article 13 in the Faculty Agreement that discusses increments (§13.23–24) does not in fact describe them as "merit increments", but just "increments". So even their popular definition as "merit increments" is poorly founded.

I have in the past proposed that, to relieve the stress of constantly competing against an unknown (the standards for an increment are not published, nor are the individual results, so we have no measure by which to gauge our performance in advance except past experience), a single increment should be the normal reward for a solid year's work (i.e., good teaching evaluations, a paper or two, some grad students, and some committee work — that's actually a lot of work!), and extra increments reserved for those happy years when you hit the jackpot with papers or grants or awards. Zero or half increments should, as they do now in reality (although denied by FECs), indicate that FEC thinks you underperformed in some way.

AASUA President Ian MacLaren countered that suggestion by saying that this would remove the "merit" of a single increment, and make it part of regular compensation. It would therefore be hard to bargain for across-the-board (ATB) salary increases plus increments. But that's presumably why we have smart negotiating teams to counter those sorts of argument. For example, it shouldn't be too hard to argue that, if the UofA is punching so far above its weight on the various university rankings, then most of its faculty must be meritorious.

Another counter-proposal to that argument would be to say, OK, then increase the ATB by the equivalent of 1 increment (so there is scope for real salary growth with seniority, and salaries remain competitive with peer institutions), and then award a small number of "achievement bonus increments" for unusually meritorious performance (i.e., the remaining 0.2).

The bottom line is that the current FEC system works really well from the point of view of deans and senior administrators, because it creates a self-applied whip on faculty to work harder and harder, and to produce more and more. But it also creates huge personal stress on faculty, as the Workload/Worklife survey of a few years ago showed. Perhaps it is time to rethink the human implications of this system.

AASUA Council votes to disregard Transportation & Parking Survey

2011-11-18T07:39:00.000-07:00

AASUA Council yesterday voted to disregard AASUA member' responses to the Transportation & Parking Survey. Here is the text of the motion that I presented:

Whereas, the Transportation and Parking survey recently distributed to staff at the University of Alberta was conducted in response to the university administration’s decision to reduce parking space on campus, rather than as a pro-active move to facilitate commuting by staff;

and whereas the survey was not secure, such that anyone could respond to the survey any number of times;

and whereas the survey contained several unrealistic and contentious proposals, some of which would punitively financially target certain types of commuters for the benefit of others, and some of which would directly and involuntarily affect salaries and/or benefits;

and whereas the survey may not have been reviewed by the Salary or Economic Benefits committees of AASUA prior to approval for distribution to AASUA members;

and whereas the survey was not reviewed in detail by the Executive Committee of AASUA before it gave its approval for distribution to AASUA members;

and whereas AASUA Council is the final authority in such matters, and should have been given the opportunity to debate and vote on distribution of the survey;

Therefore:

It is moved that the responses by AASUA members to the Transportation and Parking survey be disregarded, and that instead, the Salary and Economic Benefits committees of AASUA should jointly be charged with developing a survey for AASUA members that puts forward realistic, advantageous, fair, and equitable proposals for the facilitation of commuting by all academic staff. The proposal will be presented for debate and approval at the February 16, 2012, Council meeting.

Let's hope this leads to a more advantageous and equitable outcome for AASUA members. One simple example would be to include transit passes in the benefits plan, which was recently revealed to be carrying a surplus of $21m (a new survey would find out if members supported this use of their benefits dollars). Or simply to negotiate a discounted opt-in transit pass, as the Postdoctoral Fellows Association has done (nothing contentious about that). But I see no reason why AASUA should be supporting administration's goal of reducing parking availability on campus — how does that help its members?

AASUA Council meeting on Thursday 17 November

2011-11-16T07:42:00.000-07:00

AASUA Council meets on Thursday 17 November (2-4 pm, ETLC E6-060) — as always, the meeting is open to the public, and any AASUA member may attend.

The agenda is short (mostly reports), but includes a presentation by AVP (Risk Management Services) Philip Stack on the new UofA Travel Policy, and a presentation by Wade King (Advisor, Safe Disclosure & Human Rights) on bullying.

Happy paid vacation day, NASA

2011-11-10T09:17:00.000-07:00

For the life of me I can't figure out why the BoG agreed to these paid vacation days for NASA. It's not saving them any money (the place is still open, and full salaries are being paid). If anyone can explain what NASA settled for to get these extra paid vacation days, I'd love to know! (Don't get me wrong — I think it's a great deal for NASA staff.)

Meanwhile, we can ponder that this week might be a reading week next year. I don't know about you, but I'm definitely at a low ebb at this point in term, and this two-day break from teaching is very welcome — a full week would be even better. (But not if it means starting the term earlier or finishing later.)

Administrative Freedom

2011-11-09T19:47:00.000-07:00

I was curious as to why Colloquy was asking what people thought about "academic freedom" (apparently nothing, given the zero comments approved since the post went up on Monday). But now I know: Canadian University Presidents have already decided what it should be about, and have published their opinion through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC): Statement on Academic Freedom.

A colleague alerted me to this after reading an article in the National Post, which rather surprisingly thinks the administrators "make academic freedom an afterthought." Basically, the article concludes that administrators think academic freedom is fine so long as it aligns with their interests, whereas the Post thinks it should align with the interests of the people who pay for universities (namely: parents, students, and alumni). Well, probably better them than admin.

The Post says:

“Academic freedom does not exist for its own sake, but rather for important social purposes,” their declaration reads, turning the concept they ostensibly seek to promote — freedom — into an afterthought right at the start.

Wow — the Post said that? Some snippets from the "statement":

Academic freedom is the freedom to teach and conduct research in an academic environment. Academic freedom is fundamental to the mandate of universities to pursue truth, educate students and disseminate knowledge and understanding.

Great — stop right there. I said stop!... Oh right, here come the "buts":

Unlike the broader concept of freedom of speech, academic freedom must be based on institutional integrity, rigourous standards for enquiry and institutional autonomy, which allows universities to set their research and educational priorities.
...
Academic freedom is constrained by the professional standards of the relevant discipline and the responsibility of the institution to organize its academic mission.
...
The constraint of institutional requirements recognizes simply that the academic mission, like other work, has to be organized according to institutional needs.
...
The university must also defend academic freedom against interpretations that are excessive or too loose, and the claims that may spring from such definitions.

To ensure and protect academic freedom, universities must be autonomous, with their governing bodies committed to integrity and free to act in the institution’s best interests.

Universities must also ensure that the rights and freedoms of others are respected, and that academic freedom is exercised in a reasonable and responsible manner.

Faculty must be committed to the highest ethical standards in their teaching and research.... Faculty have an equal responsibility to submit their knowledge and claims to rigourous and public review by peers who are experts in the subject matter under consideration and to ground their arguments in the best available evidence.

Who knew that the National Post would be the ones to point out that: "The trouble is, it was peer review that handed Socrates the hemlock and burned the mathematician monk Giordano Bruno at the stake."

E-mail and FOIPP

2011-11-09T13:06:00.000-07:00

Forget GoogleApps and our big brother south of the border who might be searching our e-mails for words like "fertilizer": a much more immediate concern relates to whether someone can read our e-mails just for asking. The Alberta Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is vague on who "owns" academic e-mails, whether it is us or the University, and whether they are subject to freedom of information requests.

We are not alone, and an article in this week's Nature describes the legal battle fought by climate scientist Michael Mann against release of his e-mails to the American Tradition Institute, a conservative think tank. He has won the latest legal round, but undoubtedly the battle is not over.

Despite being pushed to use e-mail for everything these days (not least by the removal of phones from some departments), it is clear that e-mail is highly insecure, and your @ualberta account is probably the most exposed from these sorts of FOIPP requests and monitoring by internal agencies. You may well be better off with a gmail or hotmail account.

Board of Governors

2011-11-08T07:32:00.000-07:00

The role of the Board of Governors is defined in the Post-Secondary Learning Act of Alberta (PSLA), articles 16–19 and 54–80. Amusingly, given the recent discussions on this blog, more space is spent on the right of the Board to make bylaws about parking, traffic, and pedestrians (§18(2) and §61.1) than almost anything else in these articles.

These sections of the PSLA, and the BoG's own Mandate and Roles Document, spell out the broad roles of the BoG, but while GFC nominally governs academic matters, the role of the BoG in setting and approving budgets (PSLA §78) gives it effective control on the direction of the University. Because the Board is clearly instructed by the PSLA to view the University as a business ("Each year a board must prepare and approve a business plan": PSLA §78(1)), that's what it has become.

I think it will be worth watching closely the selection process for the new Board Chair and public member, but there seems to be little opportunity for public input and scrutiny of the process. The Board Chair is ultimately appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, while other Board members are appointed by the Minister of AET.

Outgoing Chair of Board of Governors

2011-11-07T12:23:00.001-07:00

Folio carries a valedictory article on outgoing Chair of the Board of Governors, Brian Heidecker. I like Brian, and he has certainly done an enormous amount for this university over his 11.5 years as Board Chair. As the article notes, he has overseen an unprecedented period of growth at the UofA, including securing major increases in provincial government funding. But it is telling that his own measures of success relate more to "pounds of concrete" poured, the number of tower cranes "filling the campus skyline", and the achievement of a clean audit, than to the success of the University's core activities. He is also quoted as referring to the university as a "business".

These are all worthy pursuits (when money is in plentiful supply), but I do hope that the next Board Chair also directs some focus internally to supporting the actual work of the university, as well as its growing infrastructure. Perhaps this is a good time for consolidation and buttressing rather than continued unbridled expansion.

I wish Brian Heidecker well in his (second) retirement.

AASUA has no right to propose a payroll tax for transit passes

2011-11-04T15:41:00.000-06:00

Focusing on the principle of the proposal in the Transportation Survey that all staff might be forced to pay for a transit pass, I question whether AASUA (or NASA) would have the right within its legal mandate to impose such a thing. AASUA's mandate is to negotiate agreements with the employer relating to our work at the University. How we get to and from the University has nothing to do with our work there, and so I would argue that AASUA has no legal basis making such a proposal. What would be next? Will we all be required to buy a bicycle, or pay for a membership of the Green Party?

NASA's Transportation & Parking Survey

2011-11-03T14:03:00.000-06:00

Oh boy, where to start? Firstly, to declare my prejudices (or rather, personal circumstances): I live outside Edmonton and work ridiculous hours, so transit, car pooling, walking, or cycling are not an option for me. Secondly, I recently solved the problem of being bled dry by Parking Services by "buying" my own parking lot just south of campus. So why should I even care about this survey?

Well, because one of the options being proposed is to force all staff to pay for a U-Pass, whether they want one or not. I consider this to be an outrageously inequitable and inappropriate measure, because this would be a form of payroll taxation targeting individual value choices that do not relate to our employment at the university. Particularly iniquitous is the second option in the last set on the last page: "A reduced cost U-Pass for staff but increased parking rates to subsidize the U-Pass for staff?" — this blatantly and deliberately financially penalizes one group of staff (car-parkers) for the benefit of another group (transit users).

If you don't like those objections, I have others. In the preamble e-mail to this survey, we are told:

It is imperative that our members complete the survey as the responses will be used to work out a plan with the administration to resolve transportation and parking issues that employees are experiencing and will experience as a result of the administration's resolve to reduce parking lots and parkades on the main campus.

Why exactly are staff being asked by our Associations to facilitate administration's abdication of its responsibility to provide parking for its hard-working staff?

The e-mail also suggested that one of the options considered prior to the survey was "a universal pass for staff ... at a price paid entirely by the employer" — that sounds fair (perhaps paid from our benefits plan, which I understand is flush with cash), BUT THAT OPTION ISN'T ON THE SURVEY!

The survey includes some other unrealistic or unworkable options, such as cycling to work year round ("Which programs and amenities would make you more likely to bicycle to work?") — in my younger days I was known to cycle short distances in -30°C weather, but I am now older and wiser! Same applies to motorcycling ("Which programs and amenities would make you more likely to motorcycle or moped to work?"). I suppose one of the later options ("Winter monthly parking pass") would help, but I can't then see how that solves the University's parking space problems, since the winter months are also the teaching months when commuting is at its maximum.

And finally, how on Earth will variable parking rates be applied for "smaller" or "larger vehicles less fuel efficient"? Who will decide the cutoff?

What troubles me is the way this survey mixes up "environmental concerns" with University budget and planning priorities, then proposes divisive solutions such as payroll taxes for the benefit of a subset of staff, who happen to live near a transit stop. I mean, it's not as if transit passes are unreasonably expensive anyway.

If Gwyn Morgan was a professor he'd be fired

2011-10-31T15:38:00.000-06:00

Dr. Gwyn Morgan has just been presenting his ideas on the role of universities to GFC, occupying an hour of the committee's time. In a rambling address, he summarized points made in his articles "If universities were in business, they'd be out of business" (Globe & Mail) and "Universities turning out graduates with the wrong skills" (Report on Business).

So far as I could distill, on the first topic he thinks basic course material should be posted on-line, and professorial class time should be spent on discussions, answering questions, and solving complex problems and examples. Clearly this works better in some areas than others, but I think Dr. Morgan may be surprised at the level that this type of teaching already takes place, especially in upper year classes.

On his second topic, he argues that universities are producing too many teachers (his example) and not enough doctors and engineers (his examples). He suggests that many graduates need to go back to college to get diplomas before they can get a job. The Provost responded by saying that the government of Alberta sets enrollment targets. VP(Finance) Phyllis Clark pointed out that many people have several careers during their lives, requiring regular retraining, so going back to college is not necessarily a bad thing, and people may find themselves doing that repeatedly at various stages of their careers. My own opinion is that the move to convert technical colleges to universities is a terrible mistake — technical colleges teach employable skills, whereas universities teach knowledge. In fact it sounds to me like getting a fundamental education in how to think (i.e., a degree) would be an excellent preparation for then getting a highly skilled technical qualification.

So I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, except that Dr. Morgan clearly wants to kill off the Arts and Humanities and move the money to Engineering and Medicine.

An old chestnut

2011-10-31T10:44:00.000-06:00

The Globe & Mail drags an old chestnut out of the fire in an article published on Saturday titled "Experiment giving undergrads more face time with profs a hit". In posing the problem, the article states:

It’s an oft-heard complaint: Students say they don’t interact with their professors enough in large classes and professors feel pressured to give a higher priority to their research in the race for promotion and tenure. The quality of undergraduate experience has become a hot-button issue on campuses across the country, with the latest report from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada acknowledging that increasing enrolment has created problems for professors who teach large classes.

The article also suggests that the teaching load on professors has been decreasing, and that:

Universities have been getting around this decrease in teaching time in one of two ways – some hire more TAs and contracted lecturers whose only job is to teach undergrads, or increase the class sizes that regular full-time faculty teach.

The article mentions a geology professor at the University of Calgary, Prof. Leslie Reid, who is trying to give more face-time to her students:

Prof. Reid, who holds the Tamaratt teaching professorship at the University of Calgary, decided to use her grant money to experiment with replacing traditional lecture sessions for large classes with feedback activities, such as small group discussions and regular quizzes. This, she said, reinforces concepts better than straightforward lecturing.

I suspect the fact that Reid has a teaching professorship immediately explains why she can spend this extra time with her students. But until annual evaluation systems such as our FEC system figure out a way of getting people to maximize their efforts in three different directions simultaneously (teaching, research, and service), only one can be top priority. The FEC system at the UofA very clearly places research as the top priority for tenure, promotion, and merit increments, so you get what the system is designed to produce.

Now I have to go and give some face-time to 270 2nd year engineering students — Yay, geology is fun!

AASUA Council meeting last Thursday: Things we didn't learn

2011-10-29T17:49:00.001-06:00

The AASUA Council meeting last Thursday was a fairly brief affair, ending half an hour early. The only votes taken apart from approving the agenda and minutes, were to approve the Financial Statements for the past year and to approve the membership of an Agreement Review Committee (ARC) for the Trust/Research Academic Staff. The rest of the time was spent on reports, which were mostly frustratingly short on detail:

There was a post-salary-negotiations "debriefing" meeting between administration and AASUA, where it was agreed to establish ground rules for future negotiations, to avoid "surprises and misunderstandings", but no details.
There will be surveys on benefits and transportation soon; no details.
Four selected AASUA members/staff signed a non-disclosure agreement and were allowed to view the full, un-redacted GoogleApps contract. No further comment, and no decision has been made yet as to whether AASUA will withdraw its grievance against administration over this issue.
Changes to UAPP are being discussed, but no details were given [they will likely relate to early retirement benefits].
Still waiting to see the CAUT report on the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry; no movement on administration's grievance against AASUA on this issue.
Several new ARCs are planned, but it was not explained which agreements needed review or why.
The Copyright ARC (an outcome of the Furlough agreement) plods along: the AASUA team has come up with some language, but it was not shown to Council.
The only mention of budget cuts came in the Administrative & Professional Officers (APO) committee report, in which it was noted that the $1.5m cuts in the Faculty of Arts will see APO job losses.
And there was an intriguing anecdotal report that Provost Carl Amrhein made some comments in a faculty meeting that might indicate he thinks faculty are overworked. If anyone was at that meeting and has the full text of that comment, please do share!

"Margin of safety for patient care was stretched to the absolute limit at the University of Alberta Hospital"

2011-10-28T07:11:00.000-06:00

Today's Edmonton Journal covers the sad and disturbing story of the Health Quality Council of Alberta (HQCA) report on alleged intimidation of physicians, including at least one UofA faculty member working at the University of Alberta Hospital. Many UofA faculty physicians have clinical appointments in Alberta hospitals as part of their job, typically in lieu of the research component of typical professorial appointments. The Journal story notes:

[Dr. John] Cowell [CEO of the HQCA] said he has heard from many physicians who said their hospital privileges were revoked [i.e., they lost their clinical appointments] after they advocated for patients. Others said they felt ostracized by peers, were “blackballed” and had their contracts altered or cancelled, forcing them to leave the province to find replacement work after they spoke out.

Losing one's clinical privileges is like being told you can no longer do research as a regular professor. How do you then impress your FEC, with no publications coming in?

Tellingly, Raj Sherman, now leader of the Alberta Liberals, is reported to have said:

The council [HQCA] won’t find a list of patients who died while waiting for lung cancer because the two doctors looking after those patients don’t work for Alberta Health Services and have kept those patient files confidential. Sherman said neither Dr. Ciaran McNamee, who has said he was forced out of his lung surgery job at Capital Health in 2000 after advocating for more resources, nor Dr. Tim Winton, who took over the lung program but now no longer does clinical practice, have testified to the Health Quality Council.

Sherman is calling for a full judicial inquiry so that all the facts can be known.

The report concludes with this quote from Cowell:

"There is no doubt that the margin of safety for patient care was stretched to the absolute limit at the University of Alberta Hospital."

So what exactly is the University of Alberta's role in all of this? Why do we hear nothing about it at the University? Is the University of Alberta Hospital nothing to do with the University of Alberta? I wonder if the CAUT report, if and when it is ever finished and made public, will shed some light on this mess.

GFC meeting Monday October 31

2011-10-27T08:02:00.000-06:00

The agenda materials for the upcoming GFC meeting on Monday October 31 (2–4 pm, Council Chambers) are available here. As several commentators have already noted, GFC is to be treated to a special presentation by Dr. Gwyn Morgan (former CEO of Encana Corp and UofA alumnus), who has some opinions about how universities should work: "If universities were in business, they‘d be out of business". Should be fun — remember, all are welcome to attend.

In the agenda materials, you will also find answers to two further questions I asked at the previous GFC meeting, one about implementation of the new UAPPOL Travel Policy, and the other about changes in the ratio of undergraduate courses taught by academic faculty to contract teaching staff over the last 5 years. The ratio (not provided in the response, and excluding two additional categories of "Other instructor types" and "Missing" — harrumpf? — for which actual numbers are not listed) has changed as follows:

Fall 2006: 1.24
Fall 2007: 1.06
Fall 2008: 1.17
Fall 2009: 1.19
Fall 2010: 1.32

Presumably the sudden jump in the ratio in 2010 reflects non-renewal of CAST contracts in the face of last year's budget cuts, which will probably continue this year.

MacEwan will sell land to finance ambitions

2011-10-27T07:36:00.001-06:00

Today's Edmonton Journal reports that MacEwan plans to sell two satellite campuses to finance expansion of its downtown campus, and to rebrand itself as MacEwan University, "embracing its role as a top undergraduate teaching school" and “essentially, Edmonton’s downtown university", according to new President David Atkinson.

Makes sense to me, if that's what your goal is. I hope our BoG is paying attention.

UofA slips to #5 in Macleans rankings

2011-10-26T09:49:00.001-06:00

Although I confess to being tired of the annual farrago of university rankings, the Macleans rankings are probably the most relevant, because they directly affect how Canadians (including prospective students and students' parents) think of us. In the latest table, the UofA has slipped a place to #5 in the overall ranking of Medical/Doctoral universities in Canada, behind McGill, Toronto, UBC (these three unchanged from last year), and Queen's, with which we have swapped places downwards.

While I don't put much store in some of the international rankings (we seem to bounce around all over the place in those from year to year), the Macleans rankings hit much closer to home, and a slip to #5 is definitely not good news. The OnCampus version of this story explains why McGill and UofT do so well:

So what’s given McGill such an edge? For one thing, McGill’s students win more national awards than Toronto’s. Another big factor is its student-faculty ratio. Toronto places dead last in the category (15), while McGill is fifth. On top of that, McGill dedicates more of its budget to scholarships and bursaries than any other school in the category. Toronto’s big advantage is its library collections—U of T trounces McGill in all four library-related categories. In the annual reputational survey, McGill has a slight edge too, achieving first place once again. But Toronto is catching up, having improved two positions since last year, from fourth to second.

If these are the main battle grounds, then I suppose our new VP(Advancement) will help with the scholarships, and our libraries have always been strong. But the recent news that our student:faculty ratio is increasing rather than decreasing does not bode well, and reflects a serious underlying malaise of underfunding in faculty complement.

From statements at the recent BoG meeting, it seems that our administration has given up trying to convince the Government of Alberta to fund more faculty, so they're going after endowed chairs instead. My concern with this approach is that, while it may result in more professors and a reduction in the overall student:faculty ratio, these new professors will be mostly of the reduced-teaching-load variety, so they may not help the class-size equation (which at root is what the student:faculty ratio is supposed to reflect).

"Bosses often believe their own guff"

2011-10-23T17:38:00.000-06:00

A short article in The Economist on 24th September (yes, I'm a bit behind on my reading) reported on a survey conducted by the Boston Research Group, titled the “National Governance, Culture and Leadership Assessment”. It found, among other things, that there was a huge mismatch between how bosses viewed the leadership of their organizations, and how their minions viewed it:

Tragicomically, the study found that bosses often believe their own guff, even if their underlings do not. Bosses are eight times more likely than the average to believe that their organisation is self-governing. (The cheery folk in human resources are also much more optimistic than other employees.) Some 27% of bosses believe their employees are inspired by their firm. Alas, only 4% of employees agree. Likewise, 41% of bosses say their firm rewards performance based on values rather than merely on financial results. Only 14% of employees swallow this.

Substitute "publications in top-tier journals" for financial results, and I think we have a match.

Occupation of one

2011-10-21T10:11:00.004-06:00

I sat as the lone observer at the Board of Governor's meeting in the small 3rd floor conference room of University Hall this morning, long enough only to hear President Samarasekera's Report (I have to go and administer a midterm to 270 students in a few minutes).

Samarasekera spent 30 minutes describing items in the latest Dare to Discover Report Card for 2010-2011, which was distributed only to BoG members (I cannot find it anywhere on the web, and observers were not given copies). Most of the statistics it apparently contains were unsurprising, but the student:faculty ratio (stuck at around 20–21:1, compared with a goal of 16:1) drew some comment from BoG members, and a response from the Provost that indicated he was surprised at how quickly the budget cuts of the last two years had been reflected in this statistic. He concluded that the University could not rely on the government to fund more faculty, and that more external funding was needed for more endowed chairs. [A strange conclusion, given that most endowed chairs have reduced teaching loads. So while the student:staff ratio might go down, such a move would not likely affect class sizes, because it would not significantly increase the number of teaching staff.]

Another Board member questioned whether the "top 20 by 2020" goal had been such a good idea. Indira responded first with a denial that this had been her idea (she said columnist Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail had come up with it first, and that the BoG had liked and adopted it — [so it's all their own fault]). She then repeated her oft-used phrase that rankings are blunt instruments, and that she thinks a better comparison is with peer-group public institutions [i.e., another ranking, just one of her choice].

Now I have to run to set that exam. But in the meantime, have a read of Jeffrey Simpson's latest diatribe against Canadian universities in today's Globe and Mail. Apparently the ills of our universities are all the fault of us greedy profs:

...the rules of the game have been set by the powerful providers within universities, notably the professoriate, with its collective bargaining agreements, tenure, research imperatives and the status that comes from academic activities other than teaching undergraduates.

Governments, for their part, have underwritten this state of affairs. They’ve structured funding formulas to favour admitting more and more students, without any regard for the quality of instruction. They’ve augmented research funding, although never enough to satisfy the universities. And they’ve egged on universities to commercialize research. They forgot about teaching.

"Occupy UHall", anyone?

2011-10-16T11:05:00.000-06:00

The "Occupy" movement is an intriguing development, three years in the making, and finally coming to a head as the breadth and depth of the damage done by a small section of society on the global economy has become clear. Income inequality has been growing steadily over the last three decades (see the Economist for a primer), but the massive increase in unemployment since the financial crash in 2008 has added many have-nots to the bottom of the inequality pile. Nevertheless, the Economist article suggests that the main change has been at the top, not the bottom:

A study by the Economic Policy Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, looked at the ratio of the average incomes of the rich and the “bottom” 90% of the population between 1980 and 2006. It found that the top 1% earned ten times more than the rest at the start of the period and 20 times as much at the end—ie, its “premium” doubled. But for the top 0.1% the gain rose from 20 times the earnings of the lower 90% to almost 80-fold.

In a microcosm, the same could be said for universities, where most of us get a reasonable salary, but a few autocrats get paid several times the salary of an average professor. And it is not clear why. The fawning Gateway articles (October 5) on the President and Provost do little to explain the disparity, at least not in terms of hours worked. Amrhein claims to work between 60 and 80 hours per week, not much more than the average reported by faculty in the 2006 AASUA Workload/Worklife survey (56 hours per week, with 59% of respondents working over 50 hours per week, and 93% working over 40 hours per week).

So what justifies the four-to-fivefold multipliers on salary over the average professor? Is it the results these people deliver for the Board of Governors? Surely that can be the only other reason beyond working hard. And apparently the BoG is happy enough with the results-based performance of its senior administrators that it wants to retain them for five more years. Somehow I think that if the BoG was answerable to shareholders this would not be the case. But they are protected from the people who pay their bills (taxpayers) by two levels of removal (government and their own autonomy), which encourages their laissez-faire approach.

I wonder what it would take to get their attention? The next Board of Governors meeting is on Friday (21 October, 8 am–1 pm, 3-15 University Hall; agenda materials here). The windows of UHall are not soundproof, and moreover, the BoG meetings are open to the public.

Canada way down list on R&D spending

2011-10-14T08:15:00.001-06:00

In the back pages of the October 1 Economist, there is an analysis of R&D spending by country. Canada is second from bottom of a list of 12 countries, just above the UK, with a total spend of 1.9% of GDP. In comparison, Israel, which tops the list, spends 4.2% of its GDP on R&D, with almost 80% of that money coming from industry. In Canada, only about 50% comes from industry, with the rest coming from higher education, non-profit organizations, and government. The table also compares the average number of patents filed annually per million people (averaged between 2007–2009), and Canada is again well down the list with 18 patents, above only Australia with 14. In comparison, Switzerland filed 115 patents, which the Economist describes as getting "more bang for its R&D buck".

Our southern neighbours spend about 2.7% of GDP on R&D (or did in 2008, the year reported in the survey), with again most of that coming from industry (about 75% of the amount), and reaping 46 patents/million people.

"Eh, What's up, Doc?" (Bugs Bunny)

Fall term reading week

2011-10-13T13:06:00.000-06:00

According to the Gateway, a task force met over the summer to discuss options for a fall term reading week. The article notes that the task force included Students’ Union President Rory Tighe and Dean of Students Frank Robinson, but apparently no representation from AASUA.

The task force has presented four scenarios to the Provost for consideration; presumably any concrete proposal would ultimately have to come to GFC for approval. The four suggestions include starting term a week earlier, with the preferred timing of the reading week coinciding with Remembrance Day and the current Fall term class break (thus involving only three additional break days).

While I in general support a fall term reading week, which I think would benefit teaching faculty just as much as students, I do not support an earlier start, or later finish, to the fall term. As the article notes, the UofA already has a relatively high number of instructional days, so it will do no harm to lose three of them. I think we already try to cram our students with too much information, so giving them more time to think (or just to give their brains a rest) is good pedagogy.

So, I'm all for a fall term reading week, but it must be accommodated within the current time frame of the term.

Fac Arts to make cuts of $1.5m through layoffs and other savings

2011-10-13T10:07:00.001-06:00

In a memo to faculty and staff in the Faculty of Arts (dated October 18), Dean Lesley Cormack sets out a plan to shave $1.5m from that Faculty's budget. With nothing left to trim after last year's budget cuts (which included 5 layoffs) and most vacancies already liquidated (including retirements), the Faculty must look mainly to layoffs of support staff to make these new savings, and has begun an administrative review to this end.

Grim times indeed, but at least the Dean is being very forthright* about the process.

*Check that word in your dictionary in case you're not familiar with it — it doesn't get used much around here.

Greg Taylor for Provost

2011-10-10T19:16:00.002-06:00

There, I said it.

NASA settles

2011-10-08T18:30:00.000-06:00

NASA members have voted overwhelmingly to ratify a salary re-opener that will give them a salary increase of 1.75% (retroactive to 1 April, 2011), a 2.49% increase to their benefits plan, and three days off with pay. NASA estimates that the total deal is worth an equivalent increase of 3.39% of their salary. See details here.

NASA was negotiating only for their salary re-opener, but will enter full salary negotiations again next year. I think they did well.

Nothing to say about reappointment of the Provost, or search for new senior administrators

2011-10-08T09:52:00.000-06:00

There are zero comments on Colloquy's recent stories about the Provost seeking a 3rd term, or the search for three new senior administrators (4 now that Dean Taylor is stepping down). Zero on the "Day in the Life..." piece too, and no takers for the "Database open for undergrad research opportunities".

I wonder what's going on? Have people given up writing in, or are all except sycophantic comments being rejected?

Chair of Academic Faculty Committee resigns from AASUA Executive

2011-10-07T21:32:00.000-06:00

Today I submitted my resignation to AASUA President Ian MacLaren as a Director of AASUA and chair of the Academic Faculty Committee, because of comments that I made in an in camera session of the Executive Committee that were deemed to be "improper". Of course I cannot tell you what the comments were, because the meeting was in camera.

However, I do not consider my comments to have been improper — impassioned and critical perhaps, but I (used to) see that as my job as a Director of AASUA. If I was to continue in that role, I am sure I would make more such "improper" comments, so to save everyone's blushes (and a lot of my time and energy) I have decided to resign. I will stay on as the elected representative to AASUA Council for Academic Faculty in the Departments of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, and Computing Science.

Hurting Lecture resonates — ouch!

2011-10-07T21:08:00.000-06:00

An anonymous commentator has sent in a comment that I cannot publish in full, but which draws attention to the wonderful typo in the title to this UofA news item about the Hurtig Lecture:
Hurting Lecture resonates
The commentator had a few things to say about the individuals in the photo, and invites readers of this blog to "make their own judgements about the quality of the talking heads."

As for me, I just got a laugh that cheered me up in advance of my next post.

Dean of Science to step down

2011-10-07T08:34:00.000-06:00

In a memo to Deans, Chairs, and Directors yesterday, Provost Carl Amrhein reports that Dr. Gregory Taylor, Dean of Science, will be stepping down as dean on June 30, 2012. Amrhein's letter recites a long list of accomplishments in the Faculty of Science during Dean Taylor's tenure, crowned by the recent opening of the new CCIS building.

Deans do not have an easy job to do and are not always appreciated, but in my opinion Dr. Taylor has done a pretty good job for the Faculty of Science over the last 9 years, and I wish him well for the future.

Collegiality and Sustainability

2011-10-06T08:12:00.000-06:00

Collegiality and Sustainability, two common words that have been co-opted as part of a conspiracy to corporatize the college.

Collegiality is used in the University's documents to claim shared governance of its academic mission, when in reality the bicameral bodies of GFC and BoG are stacked and managed in administration's favour. True collegiality on campus died a long time ago.

Sustainability has been sprouting up on placards all across campus this week, with the rueful message "If you only knew." Well, actually I do know a fair bit about sustainability, and there is nothing sustainable about a university. It consumes vast amounts of money and resources, generates a lot of waste, and produces no tangible product*. So let's call these initiatives what they are: environmental impact reduction and cost saving. Both good, but not sustainable unless the impacts and costs fall to zero.

The Sustainability Awareness Week website has a list of events on campus — oddly there's nothing on the list about the main cause of unsustainability: global overpopulation. Perhaps they are handing out free condoms in SUB?

*Universities can be seen as part of a larger sustainable development paradigm when their primary output, knowledge, is factored into a larger accounting of inputs and outputs. In this sense, they are a bit like the mining industry, which produces useful products and wealth that can be used to build a sustainable future, but mining is not in and of itself sustainable. End of lecture.

US Court ruling on course website video streaming

2011-10-06T07:15:00.000-06:00

According to a report in Inside Higher Ed, a US federal judge has ruled in favour of the University of California in a lawsuit brought by an educational media trade group regarding the on-line streaming of copyrighted videos on a password-protected course website.

However, this is not quite the victory for "fair use" (the US equivalent of "fair dealing" in Canada's Copyright Act) as it might appear, because the decision was in part based on a "license to perform" granted to UCLA by the copyright-holder. The judge ruled that streaming the video on a class website was covered under this license.

So, far from a definitive ruling on fair-use, but a step in the right direction.

Academic Integrity Task Force Report

2011-10-03T18:55:00.000-06:00

The 2011 Academic Integrity Task Force Report seems to have caused quite a stir, mainly because of the apparently high number (39%) of faculty respondents who replied "Yes" to the question "Have you ever ignored an incident of cheating in one of your courses for any reason?" (vs. 32% who said "No"). In contrast, TAs responded 26% "Yes" and 74% "No".

I suspect that the high proportion of "Yes" responses from faculty reflects the wording of the question, which asks "Have you ever...?" Over a career of teaching, I'd be surprised if a more accurate response wasn't 100% "Yes". In contrast, TAs only have a few years of teaching under their belt and may not yet have clocked up a blind-eye event.

But more to the point, and something that I remember emphasizing to the Task Force, there is a vast range of "cheating", from a sideways glance at a neighbour's exam script to full on plagiarism or hiding notes behind the toilet in the exam washroom. There's also a wide range of possible responses, from a hard stare at the shifty-eyed, to a quick march to the Dean's office.

Take plagiarism. I'm an expert in spotting plagiarism, as probably are you. No software needed: it's not hard to spot when the texting-taught syntax gives way to proof-edited prose (or unfamiliar words, as in the case of a certain former-Dean). But there's a spectrum even there, from providing a citation but forgetting to add quotation marks for a few sentences, to copying whole blocks of text with no attribution (I once examined an MSc thesis where 80% was straight plagiarism). The current rules dictate that we should report all cases of plagiarism to the Dean, but I think that's excessive. Faculty should be allowed to exercise their own judgement in such cases (and apparently do, according to the survey). Personally, I would deal with cases in the first category by speaking to the student, asking them to rewrite the offending section, and maybe docking some marks. In the second category, I would indeed report the instance to the Dean's office. But going down the reporting trail opens up a whole world of grief for the Prof, who, in my experience, ends up being as much under scrutiny as the student. I've even been told (by an examiner) that blatant plagiarism wasn't plagiarism because a couple of words had been changed. Doesn't feel good to wear that.

Plagiarism is on the increase because it's so easy today to find stuff on the web (surely the Prof doesn't know how to use the internet?) and to copy and paste it into your term paper or thesis (or speech). And with student:teaching staff ratios increasing steadily, professors may find they simply don't have the time to examine scripts as closely as they might have done in the past. But the worst effect of increasing student:teaching staff ratios is that Profs will stop setting written assignments, so students won't even get the chance to learn by their mistakes before they turn in that honours thesis (or give that graduation speech).

Others had some comments — have at it.

Hey Prof!

2011-10-01T17:57:00.002-06:00

For amusement, have a read of this article in Macleans: "That’s ‘Professor’ Uptight to you"

In confidence

2011-10-01T10:10:00.000-06:00

The non-story in today's Edmonton Journal about our colleague Dr. Tim Winton's mysterious departure from clinical practice at the UofA Hospital is just one more example of how we are governed by partial truths and muzzled by legally binding confidentiality clauses. Other recent examples are:

The strong resistance to AASUA members seeing the Privacy Commissioner's report and the final contract for the Google Apps agreement (AASUA had to submit a FOIPP request and threaten to grieve before these documents could be seen, and only then will a select number of AASUA members be allowed to see the contract after signing a non-disclosure agreement — the rest of us should make like sheep).
The secrecy of the findings of the investigation into former-Dean of Medicine Philip Baker (this is a requirement of the current Faculty Agreement, but does that make it appropriate?).
The refusal by the BoG to let AASUA members see their opening salary proposal in the most recent round of negotiations.
The procedures within the General Faculties Council, where most of the decisions are made by sub-committees populated by hand-picked people, with GFC's role merely being to rubber stamp these decisions two or three times a year.
And the secrecy within our own Association, where even Council members are rationed information on a minimal need-to-know basis (how many times have we heard our Presidents say "I can't tell you that," or dance around a subject without revealing anything of substance? I'm not saying our Presidents do that willingly, but in my experience they are often bound by administration to confidentiality).

I used to have a picture of a large mushroom on my office door, to remind me of the adage "Keep in the dark and feed with s**t" — maybe I'll put it back up.

Some notes from AASUA Council meeting (29/09/11)

2011-09-30T07:31:00.001-06:00

As AASUA President Ian MacLaren was at pains to point out to AASUA Council yesterday, this blog does not represent AASUA in any way, and I have been at pains never to claim or imply that it does. Instead, it presents my opinions and commentary on academic affairs at the University of Alberta, and I use it to provide timely information, with commentary, on any matters that I think are relevant to academic staff. As a member of AASUA Council, I can report on matters discussed by Council, whose meetings are open to all members to attend. In contrast, as a member of the AASUA Executive Committee, whose meetings are not open, I cannot report on what happens in those meetings before minutes are shown to Council (at which point they become public).

That said, here are some points of interest that were discussed at yesterday's Council meeting:

I submitted four questions relating to the status of previously ratified agreements to President MacLaren prior to the meeting. His replies were as follows:

What is the status of the Academic Supplementary Retirement Plan (ASRP; agreed to in the 2008 salary settlement)? Administration is still waiting for government approval of the plan, so at this time it is still a notional plan; however, approval is expected in due course. Eligible members are accruing notional money plus interest. It was noted that, in contrast, administration seemed to have had no trouble getting the University's Executive SRP approved, because it shows up as a line item in the budget statements.
What is the status of the Copyright Agreement Review Committee (ARC) (one of the concessions by administration in the 2010 furlough agreement)? The committee has produced some draft language, but it is not ready to circulate to Council. Custody and control remain the big issues, as well as keeping track of legal developments in what Intellectual Property (IP) comprises in academic settings.
What is the status of the “Other IP” ARC (second concession by administration in the 2010 furlough agreement)? This committee has not been struck yet; apparently it was mutually agreed by AASUA officials and administration that the Copyright ARC would complete its work first, followed by the Other IP ARC.
What is the status of the Joint Committee on University Planning and Budgets (UPlanB) (third concession by administration in the 2010 furlough agreement)? It became clear early on to the AASUA members of this committee that a smoking gun would not be found regarding the University’s budget shortfall in 2008. However, the committee did learn how the University hires investors, and the financial impacts of various University initiatives. Administration only wanted the committee to last for a year, but the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) clearly states that it was expected to continue. The MoA also says that AASUA members of the committee will inform AASUA of its findings, but it has not done so to date. President MacLaren undertook to ensure that the terms of the agreement were adhered to.

In other news, AASUA is considering making it easier (it is not currently prohibited by the Bylaws) for Officers (VP, President, Treasurer) to serve multi-year terms, if they so wish. It was felt that one-year terms for the President in particular were too short, and that the President had just gotten on top of the job when he or she was moved on. Many other faculty association have multi-year terms for officers. I have been pushing for this change for several years (in fact since I was President, because this was my experience of the role). The downside of this is the impact of the job on one's other work, which can especially impact research careers for professors. But it would be the choice of the individual to serve more than one year. Personally speaking, I think that the impact is already significant after just one year in office, and a second year probably wouldn't double the effect (since the learning curve would already have been crested). The Governance Committee has been charged with looking into a procedure, and one assumes that there would be a process for approving a second term (it should not be an automatic reappointment).

Vice-Provost & AVP Info Tech Jonathan Schaeffer was invited to the meeting to discuss administration's decision to move all University e-mail to Google Apps. He assured Council that Google Apps was cost-effective, and more secure than the old central e-mail system. A lively discussion ensued, with particular focus on why AASUA had not been allowed up to now to see a non-redacted copy of the contract between Google and the University. It was pointed out that staff were being asked to agree to contractual usage terms that they were not allowed to see. Schaeffer responded that it was Google who were resisting this for business reasons (they argued that such contracts are business contracts and are always confidential). After significant pressure from AASUA, administration took the issue to an arbitrator, who ruled in Google's favour. However, they have recently relented, and have now said that three members of AASUA plus an external expert will be allowed to see the full contract in confidence (subject to a non-disclosure agreement). Presumably if they see no problems in the contract they can nod or wink, but if there are issues...? I guess we'll never know.

Provost to seek third term

2011-09-29T14:27:00.000-06:00

According to a posting on Colloquy yesterday, Prof. Carl Amrhein is to seek appointment for an unprecedented third term as Provost.

A Presidential Advisory Review Committee will be struck to review the Provost's performance and application for reappointment. An AASUA member will be elected to that committee, and everyone will have an opportunity for input — don't be shy.

The Provost will be taking a year of administrative leave, during which time the Dean of Rehabilitation Medicine, Dr. Martin Ferguson-Pell, will serve as Acting Provost and VP(Academic).

UWO Librarians & Archivists settle

2011-09-29T07:50:00.000-06:00

After threatening to strike, University of Western Ontario Librarians & Archivists have settled for a salary increase of 1.5% in each of a 4-year deal. They also won: the right to join their university's academic pension plan; improved language in their contract relating to workload, promotions and continuing appointments, and vacation entitlement; and an agreement by their administration to review pay equity.

Provost's response to GFC questions

2011-09-27T09:48:00.001-06:00

The Provost has provided to GFC members a pdf of the PowerPoint presentation that he gave to GFC in response to my questions at last week's meeting. The questions related to the number of courses being offered this year and student:staff ratios, and were prompted by Jason Tackaberry's letter in the Edmonton Journal claiming that courses had been cut in response to the budget squeeze.

Briefly summarized, the questions and responses are as follows.

1. Has there been a net reduction in undergraduate courses offered this year compared with the last two years?
Answer: There does not appear to be, although final course numbers for this academic year are not available. The numbers are fairly flat, varying up and down by ±1% or so: the reported number of undergraduate courses in 09-10, 10-11, 11-12 (provisional) are 4040, 3973, 3985. However, undergraduate student numbers have steadily increased over the same period (preliminary for this year, but likely to exceed 31,000): 30,454, 30,943, 30,565.

2. Has there been a net reduction in total sections of undergraduate courses offered this year compared with the last two years?
Answer: As above. The reported numbers for graded sections in 09-10, 10-11, 11-12 (provisional) are 8387, 8336, 8408.

3. Has there been a net reduction in graduate courses offered this year compared with the last two years?
Answer: As above: the reported number of graduate courses in 09-10, 10-11, 11-12 (provisional) are 1799, 1774, 1797. However, graduate student numbers have steadily increased over the same period (preliminary for this year): 7134, 7305, 7338.

4. Has there been a net increase in student:teaching staff ratios compared with the last two years? Does this number include or exclude teaching by CAST?
Answer: Yes, the ratio (excluding CAST members) has increased from 19.84 to 19.96 to 20.83 from 08-09 to 10-11 (the 10-11 numbers are reported to be preliminary, and may increase further).

5. How has the ratio of CAST to tenure-track faculty changed over the last 5 years?
Answer: The ratio has decreased a little since 08-09, but was increasing prior to that time. The numbers are reported as "continuing full-time faculty" to "temporary academic staff" (the majority of whom are sessional lecturers), so are the inverse to the question posed. This inverse ratio in terms of FTE changes from 2.48, 2.41, 2.43, 2.67, 2.68 from 06-07 to 10-11.

6. How has the ratio of total sections of undergraduate courses taught by CAST to tenure-track faculty changed over the last 5 years?
This question will be responded to at the October GFC meeting.

So, in summary, it would not appear that Jason Tackaberry's claims about course reductions hold much water, but it is certainly clear that the student:teaching staff ratio is steadily increasing, which is not good.

The scandalous price of textbooks

2011-09-24T17:17:00.000-06:00

I think the root issue in this conversation about copyright is the scandalous price of textbooks, much as it used to be about the price of records and CDs. No-one begrudges the creators of copyright content a fair payment for its use, but only a tiny fraction of the price of records, or in this case textbooks, makes it back to the creator. The vast majority stays in the record company's or publisher's coffers.

But the comparison arguably ends when one considers the size of the markets: although textbook markets are quite big, they are far smaller than best-seller fiction or top-20 records. So the publishers can pretty much charge what they like, saying it's a specialty market. What they really mean is that it is a highly profitable market, and they know all the tricks to keep it fresh, like changing the edition (with no real change of content) every couple of years.

As an instructor, my only real priority is to explain concepts to my students in the best way possible. For my courses in intro geology, there's any number of possible textbooks (I have a shelf-full of them, in various editions), but I try to pick one book as the core text. In general, I pick the book on the basis of content, but also and very importantly on the quality of its graphics, because it's these that I use in my lectures (geology is a very visual science). I may be wrong here, but I assume that it's OK to give copies of graphics to students in lecture notes from the required textbook — if not, then I'll do as the SU suggests and stop requiring a textbook (sosumi, as Apple once said). Or I could make it even simpler and just stop providing lecture notes (soslammeinUSRIs). Caught between a lawsuit and an anonymous course evaluation! Happy weekend.

OMG! SU really does think university is just school!

2011-09-22T09:17:00.002-06:00

In summarizing a recent SU Council debate about copyright and textbooks in The Gateway, Ryan Bromsgrove* suggests that students could save money if professors "recommended" instead of "required" textbooks for courses. He reports that Vice President (External) Farid Iskandar said: "A professor can’t ask a question in an exam about a recommended textbook, they can only ask a question from a textbook if it’s required." I have news for you, Farid — that is complete boloney. Professors can ask any question they like relating to the material covered in a course, because — get this — a university course is not about learning a textbook. It's about learning, period. And the job of a professor is to help students learn how to learn, not how to recite. Apparently we are clearly failing in this.

Bromsgrove goes on to suggest that professors require textbooks just so they can "lift[...] assignments and exam questions" from those books — what an outrageous accusation! He then says, "With many classes, the material provided in lectures is more than enough to satisfy the learning component of a course."

Oh boy — if this is the advice and leadership the SU is showing its members, then we may as well give up. Let's just contract Kaplan to provide all our undergraduate teaching (see previous post — they're here already!), or just record our lectures once and put them on the web. What a sad state of affairs.

* I am reminded that Ryan Bromsgrove does not speak for the SU, but is a reporter for The Gateway.

Kaplan on campus

2011-09-22T08:51:00.000-06:00

For-profit educator Kaplan has a booth in HUB Mall today advertising its test-prep services. Some may remember that there was some high-level discussion earlier this year about having companies like Kaplan provide foundation-year courses (primarily aimed at overseas students entering first year). Looks like Kaplan has a foot in the door.

Uof A an "Enclave of Privilege" — Journal

2011-09-22T07:38:00.002-06:00

Today's Edmonton Journal has an article about mosquito spray that rues the passing of chlorpyrifos (Dursban), and suggests that UofA scientists should have been enlisted to solve the problem.

It goes on to say that:

With a little of the money that goes into spraying chemicals from helicopters each year, local scientists might have come up with a less toxic and perhaps cheaper solution to the problem we are about to confront.

This was also a chance for the university to prove to skeptical politicians that it has a role to play in community development and city planning. And there is precedent. The oil and gas industry has made judicious use of the university by investing generously in geological and engineering science that serves its economic interest. So, too, has the forest and agricultural industry. The University Farm was a classic example of that.
[...]
But the wall that separates the so-called "enclave of privilege" from the common folk living outside it is a still a formidable barrier. [...] that wall needs to be torn down.

Now that the magnificent Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Sciences is up and running, this may be a good time for city and university officials to sit down and explore in a more formal way how they might partner up and deliver well-researched and effective solutions. It would add meaning to the word "interdisciplinary."

I think that it is very unfortunate that the Edmonton Journal, which must reflect the opinions of many Edmontonians, views our University in this way. But on the other hand, I have to agree that the way "interdisciplinary" has been interpreted in relation to CCIS is very myopic, and seems to be limited to internal links within the Faculty of Science. Speaking personally, I have had several truly interdisciplinary projects with people in the Faculty of Arts, School of Business, and Faculty of Engineering — but I'm not being moved into CCIS because that work is not considered to be interdisciplinary science. (Not that I want to leave my nice 3rd floor corner office and lab in the Earth Sciences Building, mind you!)

Finally, the notion that with a few thousand dollars ("a little of the money that goes into spraying chemicals from helicopters each year") local scientists could have solved a global problem that presumably the world's largest chemical companies have been working on since 2001 (when the US Environmental Protection Agency first limited the use of chlorpyrifos), reveals an unrealistic view of how university research works. Not to say that some funding wouldn't hurt, but let's be realistic! Perhaps we could solve world poverty while we're about it, or cure the common cold? (But wait, a UofA spinoff company did do that with Cold-FX — and look what happened to them!)

How it's done at U of T

2011-09-21T12:52:00.000-06:00

For a glimpse into how the best paid faculty in Canada interact with their administration, read this letter from the UTFA Negotiating Team to their VP Human Resources & Equity, regarding a proposal to make all terms and conditions of employment negotiable (with arbitration for dispute resolution). Some quotes:

We are no longer willing to negotiate without accountability, without provision for an adequate and due process, and most importantly, without fairness.
[...]
A series of governance crises – from UTAM gambling away our pension earnings, to the planning debacle in the Faculty of Arts and Science in the summer and fall of 2010, to the Provost’s autocratic engagement with the Faculty of Forestry, to the controversial terms of the Munk agreement – has fueled growing discontent among our members. These are all deeply troubling developments. They point to a serious lack of collegial and shared governance in decisions that shape the future of this university, and the conditions of our work.
[...]
The all terms and conditions proposal is principled and has the backing of UTFA’s membership. It was approved by UTFA Council in April of 2011 without a single dissenting vote. Please consider carefully the significance of this fact.
[...]
Enlightened leaders understand that power is best wielded when shared and when based on a solid foundation of accountability, legitimacy and consent. You and your colleagues in the Administration now have a chance to demonstrate the quality of leadership that this community and this institution deserve.

UofA to contribute to operating costs of Camrose Performing Arts Centre?

2011-09-21T10:09:00.001-06:00

The Camrose Canadian reports that the U of A is considering contributing to the operating costs of the new $18m Camrose Performing Arts Centre. That's odd, because VP Finance & Administration Phyllis Clark told GFC on Monday that the University's operating budget was forecast to have a deficit of $4.9m this year, and next year looks no better. So where is this new operating money coming from?

The relationship between the Camrose Performing Arts Centre and the University is unclear, because it is "at bottom [...] a community facility", according to Augustana's Dean Allen Berger. He too seems confused:

The governance agreement needs to recognize the reality that this is a community facility ensuring university involvement in governance but allowing community control. We are certainly open to figuring out with you what that means.

Let us know if and when you do! But the question is, why is the University's administration planning to support the operating costs of a community facility, especially at a time when it says it can't afford to run the facilities it already has?

GFC a dull affair

2011-09-20T07:47:00.002-06:00

I attended my first GFC meeting yesterday as one of the Faculty of Science reps. It was a predictably dull affair, with the only votes being taken relating to approving the agenda and minutes of the previous meeting, and appointing new GFC members. We were then treated to a monologue by the President about her role as president, an "Information Session" on the 2012-2013 budget which revealed little except the administration's fears that the Campus Alberta Grant (which provides the base funding for the University) may stay at zero increase next year, some rah-rah about the University's new website, and some rah-rah about International Activities at the U of A. In fact rah-rah was the theme of the meeting, with Indira inviting the current SU President Rory Tighe to come up with a "GFC Chant" for the opening session next year.

Question Period was compressed into the last 15 minutes of the meeting (should have been 30 minutes), and featured some responses to a series of questions* I had asked about changes in course numbers and student:teaching staff ratios over the last few years (in part to clarify some of the allegations made by Jason Tackaberry in the Edmonton Journal about budget cuts causing course reductions). In a masterful display of obfuscation that would have scored a 1 or 2 on a USRI questionnaire, the Provost presented a flurry of numbers in micro-font on a series of PowerPoint slides that supposedly answered the questions, if only one had a TiVo. The Provost did promise, however, to provide a copy of the presentation to GFC reps by e-mail, so more on that later.

Three of my questions were responded to in writing* prior to the meeting, but the information was a little deceiving. It purported to show the number of undergraduate and graduate courses and course sections taught over the last three years, but the data for this year are incomplete, so a clear comparison could not be made. Taken at face value, the data seem to show little change in these course and section numbers, and footnotes to the table suggest that this year's numbers may go up slightly once the Winter term actually kicks off. For comparison, undergraduate student numbers were also provided, and seemed to show no significant growth; but again this year's figures only included the Fall term, whereas the previous years' were for Fall+Winter terms, so a clear comparison was not possible**. The Registrar did, however, indicate in a follow-up question that this year's head-count would be higher than the 30,565 estimated, likely over 31,000. The Provost acknowledged that student:teaching staff ratios have increased quite significantly over the last three years, whereas administration's intention had been for this ratio to decrease.

* These documents were available on the GFC website (under the "Upcoming Meeting Material" link) until this morning, but have now been removed. I can e-mail copies to anyone who asks.

** A better comparison is provided in the UofA's Summary Statistics 2010-2011 graph 2.4, which show Fall term full-time undergraduate enrolment increasing steadily by between 1.4 and 2.1% from 2008 to 2011 (no data yet for this term though).

Copyright: With an abundance of caution

2011-09-16T07:44:00.002-06:00

The Canadian Press has an article on the fallout for universities and professors from the Access Copyright withdrawal (with a quote from me, but which did not include my strong but conditional endorsement of the pullout). The problem as I see it is that there is too much uncertainty about the reach of the Copyright Act, and the interpretation of the Fair Dealing clause. CAUT is of the opinion that we should adopt a liberal interpretation of fair dealing, which would pretty well mean we can ignore copyright issues in teaching. But the problem is that we won't know how well the Fair Dealing defence works until someone gets sued by a publisher for breach of copyright in their lecture notes — and I don't want that someone to be me!

The UofA's Copyright Office is supposed to be able to help us obtain copyright permission from publishers. But here's the problem (for me at least): In my Intro Geology courses, I believe that high quality graphical images are the best way to illustrate concepts, short of actually going into the field or handling rocks and minerals in labs (which the students also do, of course). So over the years, I have compiled a collection of images from all over the place: from older versions of textbooks, the web, my own photos, etc. To obtain copyright permission for each of these images (other than my own — which is another issue) would require me to spend countless hours tracing each image from my PowerPoint files and compiling their source details, before the Copyright Office would then do the easy part of writing pro-forma request letters (they even provide a template on their website which you can fill in — presumably all they then do is lick the stamp).

I'm just not prepared to spend my time doing that, I'm afraid. So my solution as of this term has been to redact all potentially copyrighted material from the pdfs I provide to my students, and have explained my reasons for doing this to each class. I've no doubt I will get slammed in my course evaluations this term, but I'd rather that than be sued for doing my job.

But here's the thing. Although this seems to be a regressive step — limiting access to materials that any student could access on their own independently (everything is on the web somewhere) — could it be that there might in fact be a pedagogical advantage hidden in here? Those among us who are old enough to remember taking notes in lectures will probably recall that actually sketching diagrams was one of the best ways of learning stuff, as opposed to just sitting back and letting it all wash over you (knowing that you could cram from the pdfs at exam time).

CAUT releases recommendations for 2012 federal budget

2011-09-15T07:52:00.000-06:00

CAUT has released a report that recommends major increases in funding for basic research in the 2012 federal budget.

Key recommendations of the report are:

An increase of $500 million in funding for basic research provided through SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR;
The establishment of a Canada Post-Secondary Education Act, modelled on the Canada Health Act, that outlines responsibilities and expectations for the federal and provincial governments, establishes pan-Canadian guidelines and principles, and determines long-term and stable funding formulae; and
The expansion of the Canada Student Grant Program to provide more assistance for students from low- and middle-income families and the provision of full financial assistance for all qualified Aboriginal students.

Strikes and strike votes in Ontario

2011-09-15T07:45:00.001-06:00

OCUFA (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations) reports that librarians and archivists at the University of Western Ontario have now gone on strike over a perceived 20% salary gap between them and other librarians/archivists at other universities, and workload and staff complement issues.

Meanwhile, at the University of Windsor, Faculty Association members voted 90% (of those voting, I assume) in support of a strike mandate.

First GFC meeting of year: September 19

2011-09-13T14:41:00.001-06:00

The first GFC meeting of year is scheduled for Monday, September 19, 2–4 pm, in Council Chambers, University Hall. The agenda and meeting materials are posted here (previous materials are posted here).

As always, anyone can attend GFC meetings. Topics of interest on the agenda include:

3. Comments from the President.
7. Information Session on the University Budget 2011/2012 Preliminary Forecast.
12. Report of the Board of Governors of June 17, 2011 (report provided at link above).

Plagiarism investigation complete but confidential

2011-09-12T15:29:00.004-06:00

CBC reports that the investigation by the UofA into alleged plagiarism by former Dean of Medicine Philip Baker is complete, but will not be made public.

Assuming this investigation was carried out under Article 16 of the Faculty Agreement, this is as it should be: Article 16.27 states:

Proceedings under this article shall be restricted and private to persons involved. When discipline is imposed, publicity shall be restricted to those persons who have a need to know about the case (including the Department Chair and the Dean). When discipline is not imposed, publicity shall be restricted to that which is necessary to correct information which may have become known. When a resolution is reached in accordance with the procedures of 16.17 to 16.19, both parties much [sic] agree before any publicity that refers to information provided in the process can be authorized. Prior to releasing any information beyond administrative officers of the University, the Provost shall consult with the President of the Association. In cases where discipline is not imposed, the Provost shall also consult with the respondent.

Nevertheless, one can assume that the investigation confirmed plagiarism, because the former-Dean has not been reinstated.

Update:
Further commentary on this story is provided in the Globe & Mail.

Rebuttals to Tackaberry letter about course reductions

2011-09-11T09:45:00.001-06:00

The Provost, Carl Amrhein, the Dean of Science, Gregory Taylor, and the Chair of the Department of East Asian Studies, Ryan Dunch, write letters in today's Edmonton Journal that rebut some of the claims in Jason Tackaberry's earlier letter suggesting that budget cuts were affecting course offerings. But Dunch does acknowledge that the problem exists:

[...] a good part of our funding is temporary, and if it does not continue we will have to reduce student spaces in those languages even if the demand is there.

Meeting student demand for core courses and programs in an era of dwindling funding is the crux of the question, not whether all courses in the calendar are offered each year.

It's interesting to compare the differences in perspective from the Provost, a Dean, and a Chair: only the Chair acknowledges that there might indeed be a small problem in here somewhere.

OMG — lectures work!

2011-09-08T09:40:00.002-06:00

According to an article in the National Post, students apparently learn more from classes delivered by a live lecturer using classic lecturing tools. "Current students say they're learning more in classes that don't have all the technological bells and whistles."

The study to probe the attitudes and preferences of students being taught with online resources found the more technology there was in a particular course, the lower the proportion of students who said they learned more. And while the 1,370 undergraduate students from more than 60 universities nationwide were generally happy with their courses, those with more message boards and websites where students can access grades and study notes were associated with a drop in satisfaction compared with courses with less online interaction.
[...]
The study went on to find that more than half of respondents said they would be more likely to skip courses with more online resources because it's easier to catch up later. Four out of five students said they'd rather watch a live stream of a lecture than attend it in person.
[...]
The majority of students, 59.6%, said they would like to see more course content offered electronically. When asked what kind they'd like to see more of, 53.6% said they'd like more lecture notes online and 46.4% said they wanted more lecture recordings posted to the Web.

With these seemingly contradictory findings, we run smack bang into the currently hot questions of copyright and intellectual property.

The results of this study also seem to mix up "convenience" with "pedagogy", perhaps best summed up by this hypothetical response: "Yes, I want everything on-line so I don't have to get up in the morning to go to class, but, yes, I agree I learn more by going to class."