Mr. Ed Flippen, Commission Chairman, welcomed members and explained the procedure for the day’s agenda.
Major General Josiah Bunting III, Superintendent, Virginia Military Institute, presented his views on "The Good Professor." His comments alluded, in part, to his novel An Education for Our Time and included the following points:
- "college teacher" is seldom a descriptor used today
- cultures at times imprison practitioners therefore professors may not be the best judge of their role
- if teaching is a calling, we need to allow these professionals to hear the call and honor and recognize and reward them for answering it
- teaching should be recognized as faculty’s central role
- college teachers, especially teachers of undergraduates, should be encouraged and rewarded
- non-salary benefits for intellectual refreshment should not be denied
- seek evaluations of 3-5 year alumni more than evaluations of current students or recent graduates for a broader view of teacher impact
Dr. Larry J. Sabato moderated a panel response to and discussion of General Bunting’s remarks.
Dr. Jerry L. Martin, President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, presented comments on General Bunting’s remarks that included the following points:
- General Bunting was thinking radically: What if the university
system didn’t exist? What might we do instead? Would the
structure remain? Governance? Rewards? Equal credits for courses
in the History of College Football and Calculus?
- General Bunting provided a vision of: (a) the most important customer – the student, (b) the most important task – teaching, and (c) the most important goal – to produce citizens.
Dr. Ronald Carrier, Chancellor, James Madison University, presented comments on General Bunting’s remarks that included the following points:
- The critical importance of student development must be recognized.
- Dedicated faculty make a difference to students and to the institution.
- The organization of higher education has not changed much; it is closer to the guild system of the Industrial Revolution than to the 21st century information and communication age.
- Faculty must become more collaborative.
Dr. R. J. Ramazani, Professor of English, University of Virginia, presented comments as a comparison of General Bunting’s character John Adams’ representation of higher education with his own experience and included the following points:
- Adams is repulsed by what he sees – students as uninspired
and lacking order; narcissistic faculty, and morally bankrupt
colleges and universities.
- Dr. Ramazani sees – (a) a renewal of the Jeffersonian view of an "academic village"
inside and outside the university, (b) student enthusiasm, (c) faculty passionately
devoted to collaborating, and (d) outstanding students and well-meaning faculty engaged successfully
in self-renewal.
- In research institutions we should look for excellence in
research and teaching. We can have excellence in research and
teaching by encouraging competition. This creates excellence
and efficiency; the University of Virginia is rated number one
in efficiency. Evaluate results by asking if an institution's;
students go on to be leaders and if its research makes cutting
edge contributions.
- General Bunting – We must start with strong individuals
who have an instinct to teach and learn.
- Dr. Martin – It is a collective enterprise. Think of
the department mission and the college mission; think on different
levels and deploy resources (people) accordingly.
- Dr. Sabato – How do we build incentives for teaching?
- Dr. Carrier – Funding of public education is problematic
in allocating resources. The mission should drive budgeting.
A way to measure standards and rewards is needed.
- Dr. Ramazani – The diversity of faculty, needs, and institutions is a strength. It is demanding to do all three – teaching, research, and service. The reward structure for teaching is changing. Rewards for teaching are increasing and through excellent teaching, we attract excellent students.
Discussion among Commission members and panelists included the following comments and questions:
- Mr. Padgett – Are students customers? Who is teaching
students what you want them to know? But first, define what you
want them to know.
- Dr. Martin – We need to have rewards for great teachers
like the marquee value of research.
- Dr. Ramazani – Interview former students of faculty who
are up for tenure. What do the students know; what did they learn?
- Mr. Lambert – How are you addressing the strategy to pass
blame down from higher education to high schools and elementary
schools?
- Dr. Ramazani – One thing we do is hold teacher seminars
on areas of our expertise at elementary schools and high schools.
- Mr. Harris – We also need excellence in teaching for average
students to help them be the best they can be.
- Mr. Sharp – Consider Drucker’s work on managing the
knowledge worker.
- Mr. Rainey – How do we measure adequate return to parents and students? How do we measure the practicality of student learning for this competitive world?
Dr. Sabato moderated the presentations and discussion.
Dr. Paul A. Cantor, Professor of English, University of Virginia, addressed the topic: What Do Faculty Do? His remarks included the following points:
- Faculties are defensive. The topic implies to them, "Why
don’t you do more?"
- Productivity is not measured by contact hours but is more
analogous to a lawyer’s time where much time is spent in
preparation.
- Consider a law of comparative advantage, a division of labor
where individuals’ time is spent in their area of greatest
productivity.
- The faculty role includes three components: (a) teaching – preparation, not just delivering existing knowledge, (b) advising – training the next generation of scholars and teachers, and (c) administrative work – faculty self-governance.
Dr. Ann S. Ferren, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Radford University, responded to the topic: Do Student-Faculty Ratios Matter? Her remarks included the following points:
- Student–Faculty ratios are often computed differently.
Confounding elements include defining "faculty" (full-
time, part-time, graduate teaching assistants, etc.) and defining
"student" (degree seeking, undergraduate, etc.).
- There has long been an assumption that a low number is a
quality indicator.
- We must ask instead if the ratio is appropriate for the
kind of leaning needed?
- The size of the class is not the critical factor.
- The critical factor is the quality of interaction with students around a class.
- In productivity a low number would not be considered to be good.
- If student performance stays the same, then high numbers are acceptable.
- A better question of productivity is, "Can we increase
student learning with the same number of students and the same
number of faculty?" Virginia Tech’s Math Emporium is
an example of success with this strategy.
- We can also invest in student success by investing in new
resources. For example, by providing additional support services
with a one credit Transition class, retention can be increased
for greater productivity later.
- We must model and simulate in our classes what we want students to learn.
Dr. Pryor Hale, Professor of Psychology, Piedmont Virginia Community College, addressed, The Role of Scholarship. Her remarks included the following points:
- System-wide use of full-time and part-time faculty is different
and the roles are not interchangeable.
- Scholarship is the dynamic that drives good teaching. We
want to pass the ownership of knowledge on to students.
- We must consider the value of scholarship within the organization’s
mission.
- We must balance teaching and scholarship and ask how they inter-relate to create the greatest learning for students.
Dr. Paul E. Torgersen, President, Virginia Tech addressed Teaching and Research – Where Are the Priorities? His remarks included the following points:
- Virginia Tech is among the top 50 research universities in
the nation.
- Embedded in our culture is faculty research and excellence
in teaching.
- Is research conducted at the expense of undergraduates? Perhaps,
but it doesn’t have to be.
- Virginia Tech pledges to students that regular faculty teach
90% of classes and that faculty are committed to teaching undergraduates.
- Research enhances teaching.
Discussion between Commission members and panelists:
- Scott Gregory – How does this apply to the Blue Ribbon
Commission? Should state funding be block grants allowing flexibility?
What do you think the policy recommendation should be from the
Blue Ribbon Commission?
- Dr. Cantor – Do not micro manage higher education.
- Dr. Ferren – Respect differences among campuses, including
different missions.
- Mr. Gregory – How do we bring accountability?
- Dr. Lynch – Realize that teaching institutions do research
also.
- Dr. Cantor – Teaching Resource Centers at some schools
like the University of Virginia help faculty become better teachers.
- Dr. Merten – We need to move from teaching and research
to the generation of learning and knowledge.
- Dr. Cormier – Use student learning as a basis for accountability in teaching. We must move to outcomes rather than measuring
how hard everyone is working.
- Mr. Dewberry – Is there a correlation between community
college costs versus research university costs versus doctoral
universities?
- Dr. DiCroce – The focus should be on learning. Where do
we begin to distinguish where institutional type matters?
Phyllis A. Palmiero, Deputy Director, Administration, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, addressed Where We’ve Been; Where We Are; How We Got Here. Her remarks included the following points:
- Virginia has used some sort of benchmark system for determining
faculty salary increases since the 1960s. Since 1978, faculty
salary comparisons have been developed using national benchmark
groups.
- In 1985 a revised benchmark process was developed for each
institution which took into account subtle differences among
peer institutions.
- In 1986 and 1987 the General Assembly reaffirmed the Commonwealth’s
policy on faculty salary comparisons and asked the State Council
to further refine the system by considering factors which measure
institution quality and by applying a cost of living adjustment
to the recommendations.
- Variables used in the benchmark process for four-year institutions
include: total headcount, percentage of part-time students, percentage
of BA, MA, and Ph.D. degrees, SAT scores (in an attempt to get
at quality), research expenditures, percentage of degrees in
various disciplines including first professional programs, percentage
faculty with terminal degrees.
- A statistical formula calculates the average salary of the
benchmark group and adds a formula-driven amount; from this point
forward, this methodology is referred to as the "conventional"
methodology or conventional salary goal.
- Sufficient funds for each institution to reach the "conventional"
salary goal were first provided in 1989-90. At no other time
has this salary goal been achieved until the 1998-2000 biennium
when faculty salary increases will reach the "conventional"
60th percentile goal by 2000.
- Institutional funding for annual faculty salary increases
is driven by an institution’s relative rank within a peer
group and required percentage increase necessary to reach the
salary goal. However, actual salary increases for individual
faculties are based on merit.
- Questions to consider:
- Is the current faculty salary policy meeting the needs of
the Commonwealth in attracting and retaining high quality faculty?
- Are peer comparisons appropriate? If so, is the current peer
group process adequate?
- Is the 60th percentile salary goal appropriate? Should the salary goal be something else?
- Is the current faculty salary policy meeting the needs of
the Commonwealth in attracting and retaining high quality faculty?
Sara Redding Wilson addressed, Impact of Faculty Salaries on Faculty Retention and Recruitment. Her remarks included the following points:
- Teaching and research faculty departures – 9.5% in FY
98.
- Departures for a better paying job, as a percentage of total
FTE
- 1.4% in FY 98.
- As the reason for leaving, ranked 4th in FY 97 and FY 98.
- 1.4% in FY 98.
Dr. Michael Thompson, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy addressed, Useful Comparisons of Faculty Salaries. His remarks included the following points:
- The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy completed
a study last summer entitled, "Compensation of Campus Faculty:
How Virginia Compares within the Region." The purpose of
the study was to provide information to appropriately compare
faculty salaries.
- There is an effort in Virginia to pay faculty salaries at
least at 60% of peer institutions.
- Virginia hasn’t used cost of living adjustments for
ten years.
- Other Virginia institutions are not considered in Virginia institutions’ peer groups.
The following comments were made.
Mr. Atkinson - What are the purposes for which we want to make comparison? After determining that, then comparative groups can be formed.
Mr. Bryant – Maybe the Blue Ribbon Commission should look at the benchmark process.
Dr. Cormier – Colleges and universities are competing against a market pool.
Dr. Robert D. Holsworth, Professor of Political Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, introduced the topic and panelists and served as moderator.
Dr. Edward L. Ayers, Professor of History, University of Virginia addressed, The Importance of Tenure. His remarks included the following points:
- Eliminating tenure would erode higher education as we know
it.
- Tenure requires clear standards and accountability.
- Virginia is one of the best places to get higher education and eliminating tenure would undermine that.
Dr. David W. Leslie, Professor, School of Education, College of William and Mary, addressed, Limitations and Alternatives. His remarks included the following points:
- Myths about tenure include:
- tenured faculty stop working
- tenured faculty won’t retire
- tenured faculty teach light loads
- tenured faculty use old notes
- The reality is that:
- tenured faculty work 50 hour weeks
- tenured faculty lecture more
- tenured faculty produce more publications and grants
- tenured faculty plan to retire at age 67
- There may be approaching a time of erosion of stability from
not enough tenured faculty.
- Costs of tenure:
- Tenure establishes a single standard.
- Tenure places a premium on research performance.
- Tenure divides faculty into haves and have nots.
- Too many faculty on tenure make it hard to change and adapt.
- Although through tenure the institution is making a long-term commitment to faculty, there is no similar commitment to the institution.
- Abuses of academic freedom are hard to sanction.
- Tenure may keep salaries lower than market value of the best.
Dr. Bethany Oberst addressed, Post-Tenure Review: Status and Value. Her remarks included the following points:
- The Facing Change: Building the Faculty of the Future project
was sponsored by some higher education institutions and associations.
Commission member Deborah DiCroce served on the project. Project
information can be accessed at: http://www.aascu.org/publications/reports/facingchange/htm
- Dr. Oberst served on Faculty Performance Evaluations where hot issues were:
- consequences and rewards
- formative/summative
- triggered or periodic
- timeliness and time consumption
- teaching/research tensions
- fairness and academic freedom
- defining desirable outcomes
- We must teach department heads and chairs to conduct performance
evaluations.
- There is little consensus on results from post-tenure review.
- Attention to the topic will not "solve" the problem
because the environment has changed.
- Post tenure review is necessary but may not be sufficient.
Mr. Sidney O. Dewberry, Dewberry and Davis, offered A Businessman’s Perspective. His remarks included the following points:
- Higher education is well entrenched.
- Tenure to protect academic freedom is not valid.
- The system has two tracks, teaching and research.
- Use of adjuncts should be discouraged.
- The faculty must fix their system.
- Recommendation to Mr. Flippen, Commission Chair: Establish a Task Force to bring recommendations to the Blue Ribbon Commission.
Mr. Ed Flippen, Commission Chair, prior to adjourning the meeting, announced the following meeting schedule:
May 10
June 9
July 8 & 9
August 24
September 28
Posted: February 12, 1999
By The
Educational Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu