September 9, 2011
Review of “The Fall of the Faculty” – meddle management
As one who resigned a tenured faculty position last year in order to devote fulltime to my current web publishing (and related) efforts, I enjoyed Carl Elliott’s review in the Wall Street Journal of the book, “The Fall of the Faculty.”
Elliott writes that author Benjamin Ginsberg…
“…argues that universities have degenerated into poorly managed pseudo-corporations controlled by bureaucrats so far removed from research and teaching that they have barely any idea what these activities involve. He attacks virtually everyone–from overpaid presidents and provosts down through development officers, communications specialists and human-resource staffers–but he reserves his most bitter scorn for the midlevel “associate deans” and “assistant deans” who often have the most direct control over the faculty. Mr. Ginsberg refers to them as “deanlets,” but at my institution they are often called “ass. deans.”
…
This enormous investment in administrators has not translated into a better college education. As administrative numbers have ballooned, teaching has been turned over to the academic equivalent of temp workers–low-paid adjunct professors who must often travel long distances between campuses and who are employed on short-term contracts without benefits. In the 1970s, 67% of faculty members were tenured or tenure-track appointees; today that figure is a mere 30%. Administrators prefer adjuncts not just because they are cheap but because they are less likely to resist administrative overreach.”
As difficult as it may be to relive some of the memories, I think I need to buy and read Ginsberg’s book. Those who sign huge checks for college tuition may want to as well.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like