The American Association of University Professors,
Truman State University Chapter

Presents

The AAUP "State of the University" Survey

Fall 2004


THE AAUP 2004 "STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY" REPORT: Brief Summary

The AAUP 2004 State of the University Survey was completed by 127 faculty across all divisions. This represents 33.96% of all full- and part-time faculty and 49.10% of tenured faculty. This response rate is the lowest experienced in the six years we have administered the survey. It was the first time the survey has been electronically administered and it was the first time so many other requests for faculty to respond to survey instruments occurred virtually simultaneously. Either or both events potentially impacted the response rate.* Significantly more males than females and significantly more tenured than non-tenured faculty completed the survey. Thank you to all who took the time to participate (in a period in which we were highly inundated with survey requests).

Independent analysis of all items appears below, first across the campus and then by degree granting divisions, but a brief summary of the results may aid understanding of the multiple tables that follow. In short, the state of the University, at least as measured by the items on the survey, is not as positive as we might like it to be. All percentages given, unless stated otherwise, reflect those who agreed with the issue to at least some extent.

UNIVERSITY-WIDE RESPONSES

Of the 16 procedure, policy, or outcome assessment issues to which faculty responded only FIVE received support from more than 50% of the participants. These included agreement that: the LSP has fulfilled our goals and expectations (51.97%); the administration is trustworthy, meaningful, and transparent in its actions (53.50%); the Study Abroad program operates effectively (54.10%); physical facility resources are adequate (58.27%); and campus technology adequately meets our needs (66.93%), the last issue being the only one agreed on by more than 59% of the faculty.

Even though the figures for the above five issues are positive, the implicit implication of these results is that a very large minority of the faculty (roughly 42% to 48%) responding to four of the measures listed above did NOT explicitly agree with these policies, procedures, or outcomes. In addition, NINE items showed less than 47% of the faculty responding to the survey agreed with the current procedures, policies, or outcomes identified. Only 46.46% agreed Truman carefully and reflectively considers programs and policies, and barely 40% (40.16) thought the current divisional structure best serves our mission. More disturbing, four of the eight items in this category received agreement from roughly only a third of the faculty responding. The proposed use of part-time faculty was not supported (34.15%), nor did faculty feel they receive adequate time and support for scholarship (32.54%). The lowest numbers regarding policies, procedures, or outcomes (other than assessment items, which will be discussed separately) reflected faculty's position on two highly important issues, morale (30.71%) and salary equity (23.81%).

For many years Truman has invested tremendous amounts of money and human resources in our assessment program. This year the "State of the University" survey assessed our assessment program with three items. The first item was positively framed (as were all but two items on the survey) and measured agreement that Truman's assessment program informs our understanding and practice regarding teaching, advisement, and student learning. Sadly, only 36.51% of faculty participants agreed these outcomes occurred. The two assessment items not positively framed strongly suggested: 1) changes were needed to enhance the validity of the measures assessed (64.57% agreed), and 2) we needed to reevaluate and remove ineffectual measures (80.95% agreed–the highest agreement with any item on the survey). Put another way, only 35.43% of participants were satisfied with the validity of the measures we collect and only a slim 19.05% of faculty consider our assessment program to be useful as it presently exists. Collectively these three items speak loudly for changes in assessment as we currently undertake it at Truman.

The remaining two items are noteworthy, but for different reasons. One assessed faculty's opinion on the Faculty Senate restructure, a process put in place only three months before the survey was administered last Fall. Almost 48% of the participants agreed it provides a more effective voice for faculty. Notably, only 18.25% disagreed. Those who were ambivalent on this topic (34.13%) represented the largest group of its kind on any of the survey items, perhaps suggesting a need to further observe the new process before making a decision about its efficacy.

From the above summary, it is fairly clear that morale is quite low, the faculty responding feel they are underpaid and overworked, and there are many aspects of the University work and teaching environment with which they are dissatisfied. Nevertheless, when asked about their commitment to Truman, 80.16% agreed it was very strong. Some of the open-ended comments help to expand on and clarify this finding.

DIVISIONAL ANALYSES

The data were also statistically analyzed by division using separate one-way Analyses of Variance. Unfortunately, because of low numbers of faculty responding in those divisions, Education, Military Science, Business and Accountancy, and the Library could not be included in the statistical analyses.

On four items there were significant differences between two or more divisions (the value of our assessment program, the promotion of a reflective culture, physical facility resources, and the divisional structure); one more item showed a marginal difference (view of the administration). More significantly, for the large majority of the issues no differences appeared between the divisions; that is, they mostly agreed on the target issues.

ADDENDA

Also included in the package are the open-ended comments for 2004 and a table offering a 6-year comparison across the items assessed commonly and separately during those testing times.

It is the hope of your Truman chapter of the American Association of University Professors that you will find the information contained herein to be informative and useful. Thanks once again to all faculty who participated in this endeavor.

 

AAUP 2004 "State of the University" Survey Results

 

 

Division Frequencies (6 faculty did not identify a division)

SS

29

Sci

17

MS

3

M&CS

12

Libry

1

L&L

21

HPP

14

FA

13

ED

5

B&A

6

TOTAL

121

 

 

Gender Frequencies

 

None Given

Females

Males

TOTAL

9

43

75

126

Pearson chi-sq.

Value: 51.47

df: 2

Prob. < 0.000

 

Tenure Frequencies

None Given

Tenured

Not Tenured

TOTAL

6

103

18

127

Pearson chi-sq

Value: 132.11

df: 2

Prob. < 0.000

 

Individual Item Analysis

 

1. The administration operates in a trustworthy and meaningful manner that promotes transparency in its policies and procedures.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

19

9

15

9

7

9

25

25

9

N = 127

* M=5.2 sd=2.7; 53.5% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

2. The Liberal Studies Program has done an excellent job of fulfilling the goals and expectations associated with its implementation.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

13

15

11

4

18

15

29

15

7

N = 127

* M=5.2 sd=2.5; 51.97% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

3. Truman's assessment program contributes productively to our understanding of student learning and student practices, and it substantively informs teaching, advisement, and administrative practices and policies.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

16

24

14

7

19

14

13

13

6

N = 126

* M=4.5 sd=2.5; 36.51% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

4. Truman State University has successfully promoted a reflective culture in which current and future plans result from careful consideration of the impact and effectiveness of past programs and policies.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

14

15

13

9

17

21

17

16

5

N = 127

* M=4.9 sd=2.4; 46.46% agreed with the statement to some extent (6-9 scored)

 

 

5. Physical facility resources (e.g., space, supplies, etc.) are adequate for my teaching and scholarly needs.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

9

14

19

7

4

15

21

29

9

N = 127

* M=5.4 sd=2.6; 58.27% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

6. The current divisional structure best meets the needs of students and faculty and facilitates the mission of the University.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

25

12

9

10

20

7

15

20

9

N = 127

* M=4.8 sd=2.7; 40.16% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

7. Technology on campus is adequate for my teaching, service, and scholarship needs.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

7

6

13

9

7

14

24

36

11

N = 127

* M=6.0 sd=2.4; 66.93% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

8. Adequate time, support, and resources are available for my scholarship needs and requirements.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

30

22

12

17

4

11

15

9

6

N = 126

* M=3.9 sd=2.6; 32.54% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

9. Salaries and benefits at Truman are commensurate with comparable institutions and reflective of the teaching, service, and scholarship loads undertaken by faculty.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

24

29

22

14

7

7

13

7

3

N = 126

* M=3.6 sd=2.3; 23.81% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

10. The University's newly proposed use of part-time and non-regular faculty positions is appropriate.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

27

15

10

6

23

10

10

8

14

N = 123

* M=4.4 sd=2.7; 34.15% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

11. Morale among faculty at Truman is currently very high.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

23

16

22

13

14

9

10

19

1

N = 127

* M=4.2 sd=2.5; 30.71% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

12. My personal commitment to Truman and to the programs undertaken here is very strong.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

9

4

3

1

8

13

17

40

31

N = 126

* M=6.9 sd=2.3; 80.16% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

13. The newly restructured Faculty Senate provides a more effective and distinct voice for faculty.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

14

4

2

3

43

12

19

16

13

N = 126

* M=6.9 sd=2.3; 47.62% agreed with the statement to some extent; 34.13% were ambiva-

lent, the largest such group for any item, perhaps reflecting the recent implementation of the restructure.

 

14. To enhance the validity of our assessment measures, a University-wide incentive policy should be instituted that effectively motivates students to participate fully and appropriately in the assessment program.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

10

5

5

6

19

18

25

21

18

N = 127

* M=6.0 sd=2.3; 64.57% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

15. To enhance the utility of our assessment program, current assessment instruments should be reevaluated and if necessary, discontinued or replaced by more useful, informative measures.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

2

0

0

2

20

9

30

24

39

N = 126

* M=7.3 sd=1.7; 80.95% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

 

16. The Study Abroad office effectively mentors our students' international experiences by facilitating information exchange, travel arrangements, coordination with host institutions, transfer of course credit, etc.*

 

Scale:

1

strongly disagree

2

3

4

5

ambivalent

6

7

8

9

strongly agree

 

Number responding

15

8

7

6

30

14

14

28

10

N = 122

* M=5.3 sd=2.5; 54.10% agreed with the statement to some extent

 

GENDER DIFFERENCES*

FEMALES

MALES

The Liberal Studies Program has done an excellent job of fulfilling the goals and expectations associated with its implementation

5.88
[2.18]
n=43

4.89
[2.51]
n=75

 

To enhance the validity of our assessment measures, a University-wide incentive policy should be instituted that effectively motivates students to participate fully and appropriately in the assessment program.

6.56
[2.O5]
n=43

5.64
[2.48]
n=75

* p <.043 for both items

 

 

ANALYSIS BY DIVISION

 

Division Frequencies (Because of low numbers, Education, Business and Accountancy, Military Science, and the Library were eliminated from the following statistical analyses.

SS

29

Sci

17

M&CS

12

L&L

21

HPP

14

FA

13

B&A

6

TOTAL

121

 

 

 

 

Gender X Division Frequencies

 

DIVISION

Not Given

Female

Male

TOTALS

Social Science

Science

Math & CS

Lang & Lit

HPP

Fine Arts

2

0

0

1

0

2

8

5

3

8

8

8

19

12

9

12

6

3

29

17

12

21

14

13

 

 

Item Analyses X Division

 

 

1. The administration operates in a trustworthy and meaningful manner that promotes transparency in its policies and procedures.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

4.31*

2.88

Science

17

5.65

2.50

Math & CS

12

4.75

2.34

Lang & Lit

21

4.91

2.84

HPP

14

6.79*

2.12

Fine Arts

13

5.23

2.17

^F(5,100) = 1.954: p < .092. *Significantly different: p<.05.

 

 

2. The Liberal Studies Program has done an excellent job of fulfilling the goals and expectations associaed with its implementation.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

4.45

2.64

Science

17

5.24

2.49

Math & CS

12

4.25

2.18

Lang & Lit

21

5.43

2.48

HPP

14

5.86

2.25

Fine Arts

13

6.39

1.76

^F(5,100) = 1.835: p < .113.

 

 

3. Truman's assessment program contributes productively to our understanding of student learning and student practices, and it substantively informs teaching, advisement, and administrative practices and policies.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

4.31

2.59

Science

17

3.25*

2.31

Math & CS

12

4.50

1.83

Lang & Lit

21

3.76

2.47

HPP

14

6.00*

2.11

Fine Arts

13

4.46

2.18

^F(5,100) = 2.44: p < .04. *Significantly different: p<.05.

 

4. Truman State University has successfully promoted a reflective culture in which current and future plans result from careful consideration of the impact and effectiveness of past programs and policies.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

4.31.

2.42

Science

17

3.71*

1.0=93

Math & CS

12

4.75

1.96

Lang & Lit

21

4.71

2.57

HPP

14

6.36*

2.02

Fine Arts

13

5.92

2.40

^F(5,100) = 2.99: p < .015. *Significantly different: p<.05.

 

 

5. Physical facility resources (e.g., space, supplies, etc.) are adequate for my teaching and scholarly needs.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

4.35b

2.44

Science

17

5.82

2.48

Math & CS

12

6.83a

2.41

Lang & Lit

21

5.38

2.44

HPP

14

3.93b

2.24

Fine Arts

13

5.08

2.50

^F(5,100) = 2.804: p < .021. *a, b significantly different: p<.05.

 

 

6. The current divisional structure best meets the needs of students and faculty and facilitates the mission of the University.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

3.62*

2.54

Science

17

3.94

2.68

Math & CS

12

4.75

2.80

Lang & Lit

21

4.52

2.79

HPP

14

6.50*

2.14

Fine Arts

13

4.23

2.05

^F(5,100) = 2.63: p < .028. *Significantly different: p<.05.

 

 

 

7. Technology on campus is adequate for my teaching, service, & scholarship needs.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

5.45

2.53

Science

17

6.65

2.06

Math & CS

12

6.33

2.35

Lang & Lit

21

6.67

2.11

HPP

14

5.64

2.02

Fine Arts

13

6.00

2.42

^F(5,100) = 1.07: p < .382.

 

 

 

8. Adequate time, support, and resources are available for my scholarship needs and requirements.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

3.79

2.65

Science

17

3.82

2.65

Math & CS

12

3.67

2.54

Lang & Lit

21

3.43

2.66

HPP

14

3.93

2.43

Fine Arts

13

3.23

2.35

^F(5,100) = 1.66: p < .975.

 

 

 

9. Salaries and benefits at Truman are commensurate with comparable institutions and reflective of the teaching, service, and scholarship loads undertaken by faculty.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

3.35

2.48

Science

17

3.23

2.22

Math & CS

12

4.17

2.13

Lang & Lit

21

3.48

2.38

HPP

14

3.36

1.78

Fine Arts

13

4.00

2.55

^F(5,100) = .400: p < .848.

 

10. The University's newly proposed use of part-time and non-regular faculty positions is appropriate.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

3.55

2.86

Science

15

4.13

2.23

Math & CS

11

4.64

2.87

Lang & Lit

20

3.75

2.69

HPP

14

4.64

2.74

Fine Arts

13

5.00

2.74

^F(5,96) = .786: p < .562.

 

11. Morale among faculty at Truman is currently very high.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

3.59

2.68

Science

17

4.06

2.30

Math & CS

12

3.92

2.07

Lang & Lit

21

4.00

2.65

HPP

14

4.93

1.94

Fine Arts

13

3.31

1.75

^F(5,100) = .817: p < .541.

 

12. My personal commitment to Truman and to the programs undertaken here is very strong.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

6.03

2.68

Science

17

7.18

1.88

Math & CS

11

6.00

2.45

Lang & Lit

21

6.57

2.32

HPP

14

7.57

2.10

Fine Arts

13

8.00

1.00

^F(5,99) = 2.19: p < .062.

 

13. The newly restructured Faculty Senate provides a more effective and distinct voice for faculty.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

5.93

2.70

Science

16

6.38

1.78

Math & CS

12

4.00

3.05

Lang & Lit

21

5.57

1.99

HPP

14

5.64

2.24

Fine Arts

13

5.77

1.17

^F(5,99) = 1.68: p < .146.

14. To enhance the validity of our assessment measures, a University-wide incentive policy should be instituted that effectively motivates students to participate fully and appropriately in the assessment program.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

5.83

2.69

Science

17

6.00

2.09

Math & CS

12

4.92

2.58

Lang & Lit

21

5.62

2.29

HPP

14

6.71

2.02

Fine Arts

13

6.54

2.60

^F(5,100) = .964: p < .444.

15. To enhance the utility of our assessment program, current assessment instruments should be reevaluated and if necessary, discontinued or replaced by more useful, informative measures.^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

29

7.52

1.79

Science

17

7.71

1.45

Math & CS

12

6.83

1.12

Lang & Lit

20

7.35

1.79

HPP

14

7.00

1.75

Fine Arts

13

6.62

2.33

^F(5,99) = .917: p < .473.

16. The Study Abroad office effectively mentors our students' international experiences by facilitating information exchange, travel arrangements, coordination with host institutions, transfer of course credit, etc^

 

Number

Mean

Std. Dev.

Social Science

27

4.07*

2.67

Science

16

5.25

1.69

Math & CS

10

5.40

2.01

Lang & Lit

21

6.29*

2.10

HPP

14

5.50

2.53

Fine Arts

13

5.15

2.76

^F(5,95) = 2.18: p < .063. *Significantly different: p<.05.

 

Tenure Track Vs. Non-Tenure Track X Division

DIVISION

Not Given

Tenure Track

Non-Tenure Track

TOTALS

Social Science

Science

Math & CS

Lang & Lit

HPP

Fine Arts

0

0

0

2

0

0

28

15

12

17

11

11

1

2

0

2

3

2

29

17

12

21

14

13

Written Comments*

PROMPT: Please feel free to comment further on the above issues or to address issues not covered on this instrument. (Double spaces represent separate comments.)
Administrative salaries need to be brought back down so that they are in line with faculty salaries (or faculty salaries need to be raised so that they are in line with national norms).
It seems pretty obvious that the place in going to hell in a hand basket...and without a paddle.
Truman faculty salaries need to be increased in order to be comparable to those of other quality institutions.
Faculty morale is low for the following reasons: 1. Administrators maintain contact only with select faculty. 2. Positions are offered/allocated surreptitiously and to people who are groomed by the administrators: company men, and their loyalty is the most prized attribute in this university. 3. Divisional structure makes it extremely difficult for those who seek any kind of upward mobility in this place. 4. This university suffers from a systemic problem managed by a mediocre administration.
I'm disappointed to see the administration, particularly the VPAA's office, continuing to make policy "decrees" without benefit of faculty input even though faculty are strongly affected. The same argument can again be made about failure to follow up on "willing to do" and "will do" statements to faculty, i.e., the ones that never get done or that later get altered significantly.
17. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to assign credit for one of my study-abroad advisees. Also, the Study Abroad office showed no interest in encouraging students to participate in a work-study program that I find very exciting.
There continues to be a fairly strong "dis-connect" between administration (i.e. the VP's office) and faculty. The VP and Division Heads basically run the show, and it's still too early to find out whether the new president has the ability and/or willingness to make faculty a fully co-operating university voice. There is a tendency, also, with the administration to appoint, over and over again, faculty that they trust to key positions and ignore all other faculty who might have divergent opinions with regard to the "company line." Assessment remains extremely problematic as a meaningful component of university culture, and probably conflicts with liberal arts more than supporting it. Indeed, the very concept of "liberal arts" seems to remain a mystery to those in charge.
Technology in classrooms continues to be a low priority. For example, in VH we are using equipment that was inferior when it was installed at the time the building was reopened. classroom technology continues to be the poor orphan in comparison to other tech resources. The equipment available from the audio-visual technology service in Kirk building continues to deteriorate as equipment gets older and is not replaced. Good people, no budget....
This university sucks the life out of its faculty. Most tenured faculty barely fulfill their job requirements, placing huge burdens upon the non-tenured faculty. Those of us who do the work of two or three of our colleagues are not compensated in any way, while those who do very little work are not reprimanded in any way. A reward system (merit raises, release time, etc.) must be instituted or else the good, young faculty will become just like the lazy, older faculty. Is that really what we want?
The current deification of Assessment needs to be dismantled and something new put into place that is understandable and useful for staff, faculty, and students. Most of it at this point is numbers gathering that is used to communicate with the state legislature and the Board of Governors but is rarely used to make any real change that affects faculty or student lives despite the large amount of time it takes up.
I'm just concerned that many faculty may not respond to this survey because of our current workload. I know I almost deleted it and then thought again.
We suffer, miserably and seemingly without hope of improvement, from a near complete lack of leadership, most notably in the office of the VPAA. The rancorous manner in which our incompetent "leaders" handle even mild criticism (and obsessively deny that obvious problems even exist) renders this place little but a cult of counterfeit excellence. Some may view my characterization of this university as a cult to be "over the top." I suggest, however, that: a) those making this judgment may lack understanding of what a cult is, and b) that I am not being "over the top." Cults are not limited to the totalitarian/extremist organizations that are most typically discussed as being cults (e.g., the Jim Jones Guyana cult or Nazis). Cultic organizations, in layman terms, exist on a continuum based on the extent to which certain factors are present. These factors include: a) a hidden agenda, b) thought reform (i.e., brainwashing of organizational members), c) attacking the self (i.e., attacking the self/character of any organizational member who speaks out against the cult or its leaders), and d) a charismatic leader. I feel that it is high time that we take a hard look at the extent to which these cultic factors are present here (and what effect they have on our ability to provide the best possible education to our students). It seems that we indeed do have a hidden agenda. This hidden agenda is to look excellent to external constituencies that matter (e.g., accreditation agencies and prospective students and their parents). The stated agenda, actually being excellence, is quite often compromised in an effort to merely look good. Actually being excellent as a faculty member in terms of doing good research and teaching is by far secondary to helping the VPAA and others make it look like we are excellent (even though we are not). Students, of course, pay the price. Faculty time spent working on 70-person accreditation committees cheerleading for the university (and kissing up to our "leaders") would be far better spent on quality teaching and research. But I am not rewarded for the latter... Thought reform also appears to be alive and well here in our cult of counterfeit excellence. You must, in short, at least actively pretend to believe that what our "leaders" say is the truth even when you know it is total BS (which it often is). You have to learn to "think right" if you want to win teaching awards and receive other recognition here (and that's pretty much all there is to it). Lowering one's self to tolerate incompetent leadership is far too important here. Yet it seems that we can do nothing to better the shameful situation... Attacking the self appears to be commonly practiced as well. If you speak out against leadership, even when you are obviously defending what is best for students when an obvious problem exists, you get put down hard. If you say there is a problem (and want to do something to seriously remedy it) when Gordon and his increasingly small handful of minions say there is not you will pay the price for your "act of treason." You are then the problem. This attacking of the self results in but limited faculty voicing of complaints (they see no use in trying to fix things if they feel their complaint will be ignored and they will be punished) and, most importantly, the continuation of the problem. Isn't this the opposite of continuous improvement? Apparently not in Gordonthink... It seems that the only thing lacking (for full cult status) is a charismatic leader. Unless, of course, you still view Jack as being our "leader"... But what the hell?... As long as we keep winning those awards and being accredited everything will be fine... Right? By the way, the persons responsible for the writing of this survey are to be strongly commended for including a question on the horribly incompetent study abroad office in this survey. That office and the selfish, hateful fools who run it have caused countless problems for students and faculty for many years. I get 2-3 complaints from students and faculty about the office each semester. The study abroad office’s response to the well deserved criticism is typically “I run the # 5 program in the country. I am capable of no wrong. I will sue you for harassment and slander if you don’t shut up.” Nothing significant has been done to remedy the situation (and NO, hiring Di Stefano’s son to do Lecock’s work for him will not do the trick). The study abroad office is a shining, shameful example of our cult of counterfeit excellence. A good housecleaning of our incompetent “leaders” should start there!!!!!!!
I really like the divisional structure. It leads to less competitiveness among colleagues for resources and promotions.
Although I am not one of those faculty, I find it scandalous that many L & L faculty are still in Brewer basement. I also find it scandalous that we moved the ROTC program into wonderful digs in McClain and allowed faculty to have small offices or offices in basements.
Faculty morale and trust in the administration will remain at a low ebb as long as the current VPAA is in office. The study abroad office is dysfunctional - programs and personnel should be thoroughly re-evaluated.
Our VPAA is incompetent. He damages this institution's future every day he remains in office.
The administration must do much more to actively engage faculty input before implementing new policy or applying existing policy in a modified manner. This includes far more effective, coherent, and consistent communication within divisions and across divisions so each faculty member has essentially the same information. This includes not just global messages but clear applicable communication by each division head.
Regarding Q.12: I am strongly committed to the things I do here; however, I am also ready to leave if I get a better job offer. Regarding assessment: I feel that it gets overly bureaucratized, and is oriented to trying to make unquantifiable learning outcomes (e.g., students' personal growth) into quantifiable things. I find this very troubling. Lack of transparency in decision-making: I don't know who was involved in the proposals for having division heads called "deans" without any change in function, or to increase contingent faculty hires. Both of these should involve faculty in the decision-making process. On Q. 8: It's the time that is particularly hard to come by.
President Dixon must make changes in her administration, if she is to survive here, and if the university is to survive. She must find a new VPAA and a new Assoc. VPAA. She probably should replace the majority of the higher administrators.
Once again, the biggest issue is lack of faculty voice in all types of governance