Below you'll find faculty opinions regarding the review process. Take a look!
Where did this information come from?
SSLA sent out a mass email to ALL Mary Washington faculty with an attachment to a google document allowing for anonymous responses.
The following responses will remain anonymous.
Even if you gain access to the original google doc, you will not be able to see who wrote what...
SSLA sent out a mass email to ALL Mary Washington faculty with an attachment to a google document allowing for anonymous responses.
The following responses will remain anonymous.
Even if you gain access to the original google doc, you will not be able to see who wrote what...
Why postpone the review?
1. UMW is still unclear about “who we are” right now...
- How can we review programs when we don’t seem very clear about what we want?
- We need to get clear about our strengths and goals, then we can think about what programs fit and what programs don’t fit.
2. Before academic programs are reviewed at all, the administrative costs need to be scrutinized...
- Any review of programs that has the potential to result in program elimination, such as the ones "we" will be beginning this year
- unless faculty and students take a united and very vocal stand, the review needs to be an ultimate last resort due to true financial need.
--The administration has expressed in no uncertain terms that that is not the case at this time.
3. Postponing until we hire a new provost with a strong liberal arts background and vision is the responsible thing to do... -Otherwise we risk going through with the process without clearly defining our reasons for doing so.
4. There is sufficient reason to be skeptical...
-Despite the rhetoric expressed by both our president and the consultant that this will be decided "collectively," and by a committee comprised of faculty leaders on campus, with "no predetermined results in mind", results have shown that their rhetoric does not match the actions taken
-Processes such as these are seldom initiated without the plan to eliminate (or "divest" in academic programs).
5. Over the last 10 years or so the administration has made a number of decisions without taking into serious account student or faculty input: the name change, the opening of the Stafford Campus, the change to a three college system when neither the Business department or Education program was interested in making the change.
-The trend has been to push things through before they are ready for prime time with the idea that it will be possible to work out the specifics later on.
6. Faculty have responded with the idea that "the administration has already decided and it is a done deal"...
-If we jump into this process without a long-term vision, we will, once again, likely make decisions that will be regretted later on.
-It is the job of a president and provost to help generate a long-term vision. If they don’t know how to do that themselves without asking a consultant, it is a mark of incompetence or bad faith or both.
- How can we review programs when we don’t seem very clear about what we want?
- We need to get clear about our strengths and goals, then we can think about what programs fit and what programs don’t fit.
2. Before academic programs are reviewed at all, the administrative costs need to be scrutinized...
- Any review of programs that has the potential to result in program elimination, such as the ones "we" will be beginning this year
- unless faculty and students take a united and very vocal stand, the review needs to be an ultimate last resort due to true financial need.
--The administration has expressed in no uncertain terms that that is not the case at this time.
3. Postponing until we hire a new provost with a strong liberal arts background and vision is the responsible thing to do... -Otherwise we risk going through with the process without clearly defining our reasons for doing so.
4. There is sufficient reason to be skeptical...
-Despite the rhetoric expressed by both our president and the consultant that this will be decided "collectively," and by a committee comprised of faculty leaders on campus, with "no predetermined results in mind", results have shown that their rhetoric does not match the actions taken
-Processes such as these are seldom initiated without the plan to eliminate (or "divest" in academic programs).
5. Over the last 10 years or so the administration has made a number of decisions without taking into serious account student or faculty input: the name change, the opening of the Stafford Campus, the change to a three college system when neither the Business department or Education program was interested in making the change.
-The trend has been to push things through before they are ready for prime time with the idea that it will be possible to work out the specifics later on.
6. Faculty have responded with the idea that "the administration has already decided and it is a done deal"...
-If we jump into this process without a long-term vision, we will, once again, likely make decisions that will be regretted later on.
-It is the job of a president and provost to help generate a long-term vision. If they don’t know how to do that themselves without asking a consultant, it is a mark of incompetence or bad faith or both.
Why should we act/resist now, when nothing has been decided?
1. Defining the goals of the study and the criteria of the review might be the most important step in this process.
2. The rhetoric that the administration has provided --"nothing has been decided yet" and "the contract with the consultant hasn't been signed yet"-- were designed to make it seem that faculty and student concern was misguided; a mere overreaction. The implication that the consultant hasn't yet been hired gave false hope that things aren't yet a "done deal."
-The president confirmed that he "will not back down" on hiring the consult last Wednesday at the CAS Faculty Senate meeting.
-The president and interim provost have probably signed a “memo of understanding,” which is not a contract so they can claim that haven’t already acted.
-Some ambitious students should be requesting everything they possibly can through FOIA requests and publishing them. Like Wikileaks. Someone should also go to the Washington Post as well.
3. We are in the middle of a SACS re-accreditation cycle...
-This discredits us to change course while we are being evaluated.
4. The administration already has a very specific plan in mind and hiring outside consultants to work on such a short time line belies their motives to:
a. achieve a specific objective (reducing programs and tenured hiring lines in languages and associated disciplines)
and
b. wanting an “objective” external voice to voice and recommend those objectives.
5. At other universities, this process would take 18 months or more...
-Here, magically, it will happen in maybe a year? The process does not have integrity.
6. It’s a waste of money.
-It’s the job of a provost and president to know how to conduct this sort of study.
--If they don’t know how to do this, then how did they get their jobs in the first place?
--It speaks of incompetence or bad faith or both.
--The consultants are just people the students and public can blame for the changes the admin are going to feed them.
7. The administration will the review when you are on spring break or over the summer with BOV approval.
-If you don’t act now, your voice will never be heard!
8. At UVA last summer, the president resisted an activist BOV who wanted to enact the governor’s plan to gut and transform higher education into something more mercenary; here the president appears to be leading them along the garden path.
-This is short-sighted and serving the transient whims of the state government.
-Education needs to be evaluated over decades and decades, not a single political administration.
9. The claim that this is a national trend is not an argument for doing the review. If everyone jumped off a cliff …
10. A fundamental issue about the role of higher ed is at hand:
-is college primarily for completing the education you began in K-12 or is it vocational/job training?
-No one is denying that finding jobs is important but higher ed doesn’t create demand, it educates minds that can adapt to changing demands.
2. The rhetoric that the administration has provided --"nothing has been decided yet" and "the contract with the consultant hasn't been signed yet"-- were designed to make it seem that faculty and student concern was misguided; a mere overreaction. The implication that the consultant hasn't yet been hired gave false hope that things aren't yet a "done deal."
-The president confirmed that he "will not back down" on hiring the consult last Wednesday at the CAS Faculty Senate meeting.
-The president and interim provost have probably signed a “memo of understanding,” which is not a contract so they can claim that haven’t already acted.
-Some ambitious students should be requesting everything they possibly can through FOIA requests and publishing them. Like Wikileaks. Someone should also go to the Washington Post as well.
3. We are in the middle of a SACS re-accreditation cycle...
-This discredits us to change course while we are being evaluated.
4. The administration already has a very specific plan in mind and hiring outside consultants to work on such a short time line belies their motives to:
a. achieve a specific objective (reducing programs and tenured hiring lines in languages and associated disciplines)
and
b. wanting an “objective” external voice to voice and recommend those objectives.
5. At other universities, this process would take 18 months or more...
-Here, magically, it will happen in maybe a year? The process does not have integrity.
6. It’s a waste of money.
-It’s the job of a provost and president to know how to conduct this sort of study.
--If they don’t know how to do this, then how did they get their jobs in the first place?
--It speaks of incompetence or bad faith or both.
--The consultants are just people the students and public can blame for the changes the admin are going to feed them.
7. The administration will the review when you are on spring break or over the summer with BOV approval.
-If you don’t act now, your voice will never be heard!
8. At UVA last summer, the president resisted an activist BOV who wanted to enact the governor’s plan to gut and transform higher education into something more mercenary; here the president appears to be leading them along the garden path.
-This is short-sighted and serving the transient whims of the state government.
-Education needs to be evaluated over decades and decades, not a single political administration.
9. The claim that this is a national trend is not an argument for doing the review. If everyone jumped off a cliff …
10. A fundamental issue about the role of higher ed is at hand:
-is college primarily for completing the education you began in K-12 or is it vocational/job training?
-No one is denying that finding jobs is important but higher ed doesn’t create demand, it educates minds that can adapt to changing demands.
Tell us about UMW Faculty interactions in the past (e.g. online course evaluations...)
The president has a history of doing things first, obscuring them, and then announcing them long after the fact.
-The provost is a hatchet man hired for a single year to do the president’s dirty work and take the blame when the new provost is hired to execute that plan.
Changing the method of performing course evaluations online--in spite of a total failure with a pilot study--is just one example.
-The president blamed the outgoing provost (Jay Harper) and acted like the contract had not already been signed when made aware of faculty discontent in April.
-In September it was announced that a previous provost had made the decision and now we were stuck with it.
A new method of determining compensation for summer school teaching was imposed without discussion or input from faculty.
-Bringing in consultants is just the latest example of this method of working.
It is problematic that the president, who is a business guy, does not like or care for the liberal arts, and yet he finds himself the president of just such a university. He is growing a college of business at the expense of the liberal arts.
-The provost is a hatchet man hired for a single year to do the president’s dirty work and take the blame when the new provost is hired to execute that plan.
Changing the method of performing course evaluations online--in spite of a total failure with a pilot study--is just one example.
-The president blamed the outgoing provost (Jay Harper) and acted like the contract had not already been signed when made aware of faculty discontent in April.
-In September it was announced that a previous provost had made the decision and now we were stuck with it.
A new method of determining compensation for summer school teaching was imposed without discussion or input from faculty.
-Bringing in consultants is just the latest example of this method of working.
It is problematic that the president, who is a business guy, does not like or care for the liberal arts, and yet he finds himself the president of just such a university. He is growing a college of business at the expense of the liberal arts.
What do UMW Faculty members want/suggest students do?
1. For students to really think about and articulate what they think they get out of a liberal arts education and why they chose a liberal arts college instead of something else.
-Why did you come to Mary Washington?
2. The people who need to hear students most clearly are the BOV.
-I imagine the BOV has been given information by the president and are “on board” with the review to a greater or lesser extent. -The president appears to be “popular” with the BOV.
In the end, you should be contacting BOV, the president’s office, your state legislators, and reaching out to alumni. Fight the fight on every front. The rector of the BOV, made it clear that "we will not eliminate any programs." She even said "you heard it from the horse's mouth." Statements like these as well as President Hurley's claim at the Faculty Senate meeting that "In my 13 years at UMW I have never lied or BSd anyone" need to remain on record.
-Why did you come to Mary Washington?
2. The people who need to hear students most clearly are the BOV.
-I imagine the BOV has been given information by the president and are “on board” with the review to a greater or lesser extent. -The president appears to be “popular” with the BOV.
In the end, you should be contacting BOV, the president’s office, your state legislators, and reaching out to alumni. Fight the fight on every front. The rector of the BOV, made it clear that "we will not eliminate any programs." She even said "you heard it from the horse's mouth." Statements like these as well as President Hurley's claim at the Faculty Senate meeting that "In my 13 years at UMW I have never lied or BSd anyone" need to remain on record.
What are some of the things UMW faculty are concerned about?
Our ability to have autonomy in the workplace, to do work that we think is meaningful, the school’s ability to attract students who want the kind of education that we believe we should give.
It is essential that we remain true to what made us great in the first place: our legacy as a small, public, accessible, liberal arts college that provided an equivalent education to peer institutions such as William and Mary but with a friendlier atmosphere, lower suicide rate, and more accessible professors who go above and beyond in terms of student attention.
That 100+ years of Mary Washington tradition will be undone by a man who does not care about the liberal arts and who wants to please the governor’s appointees rather than serve the school’s traditions or the goal’s of higher education. He is all about enrollment and retention by any means necessary.
That the administration aspires to be “distinctive” by eroding our traditions rather than building on them, by making us like every other mediocre university.
That the administration is responsible for the school’s decline in prestige and desirability and is trying to shift blame to the faculty for producing an undesirable curriculum rather than, say, mismanaging the admissions process, having frequent turnover at the presidency, hiring too many and incompetent administrators (Jay Harper, for example), etc. Is it possible that the problem is not the courses and majors offered but that the admin is not very good at recruiting (admissions, aka enrollment services)? Despite arguments to the contrary, we have not remained stagnant on the academic side. There are faculty across campus working on interesting and cutting-edge scholarship, all the while providing meaningful mentoring to students (sometimes to a fault). That makes us distinctive.
It is essential that we remain true to what made us great in the first place: our legacy as a small, public, accessible, liberal arts college that provided an equivalent education to peer institutions such as William and Mary but with a friendlier atmosphere, lower suicide rate, and more accessible professors who go above and beyond in terms of student attention.
That 100+ years of Mary Washington tradition will be undone by a man who does not care about the liberal arts and who wants to please the governor’s appointees rather than serve the school’s traditions or the goal’s of higher education. He is all about enrollment and retention by any means necessary.
That the administration aspires to be “distinctive” by eroding our traditions rather than building on them, by making us like every other mediocre university.
That the administration is responsible for the school’s decline in prestige and desirability and is trying to shift blame to the faculty for producing an undesirable curriculum rather than, say, mismanaging the admissions process, having frequent turnover at the presidency, hiring too many and incompetent administrators (Jay Harper, for example), etc. Is it possible that the problem is not the courses and majors offered but that the admin is not very good at recruiting (admissions, aka enrollment services)? Despite arguments to the contrary, we have not remained stagnant on the academic side. There are faculty across campus working on interesting and cutting-edge scholarship, all the while providing meaningful mentoring to students (sometimes to a fault). That makes us distinctive.