Search This Blog

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Thanksgiving

The Thanksgiving Turkey Vulture 

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on the proposals sent by the COCA college? Maybe that vulture can feast on the carcasses of the people who are needed to carry the COCA sedan chairs around campus.

Anonymous said...

Where can we read about these COCA proposals?

Anonymous said...

Is this the emblem of UT administration? Picking off students one wallet at a time while stuffing their own pockets...

Anonymous said...

I don't get this unhealthy fixation with academic configuration. It's not really relevant to fixing the problems at UT, which are revenue-, not expense-centric.

Rocky said...

The major problem that I see at UT is the failure to match expenses to revenues.

While I have now been retired for four years, it was true all of the ten years I served on the Fiscal Advisory Committee (and its variants in name.) It seems that the expenses are long term obligations while the revenues are highly variable and depend on a number of conditions including but not limited to the State of Ohio's economy. Added on to this are the people who want to spend money for pet projects they claim to benefit the university (and probably do in the short term) but become long term liabilities with no offsetting revenue enhancements.
Quite frankly, and I said this over ten years ago during the Johnson Administration, "The University of Toledo tries to do too much with the resources it has."

In my humble opinion, The University of Toledo still has to learn to limit its expenses to the income it can rely on.

Anonymous said...

Because some folks would rather play games and politics rather than face the real issues and challenges that UT faces. These same people are unproductive as faculty, contribute little to improving their departments and programs. They are more interested in debate and discussions, and posting here, rather then actually making a difference and working to address issues such as student recruitment, retention and graduation. For them the Dean and administration are the source of all evil (regardless of who they may be at any given time), ignoring the more important issues of funding, resources, and priorities that need to be addressed - none of which were better under the former A&S nor current or any form of revised college structure. Yet they are obsessed with A&S as some ideal world, forgetting how ineffective it was for most departments, faculty and students and going back, without significant changes and resources, means little for students and enrollment at UT. But they continue to fixate on infighting among faculty, departments from COCA and CLLSS in a silly stupid and ineffective debate all the time Rome burns under them.

Bloggie said...

To 11:18 AM.. Very imaginative. How can you possibly know all this? You have been looking at those dirty inkblots again, haven't you?

Anonymous said...


"The Rockets' offer was for more than $800,000 in total, a different source said, but ISU's offer "significantly" trumped Toledo's. -- "Source: Campbell agrees to become ISU head coach," The Blade, Nov. 29, 2015

What budget crisis?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 11:18. You are 100 percent correct. I would add that this blog is representative of probably less than 10% of the faculty.

I do think we are in a transition period. In the old world great teaching and great research made a great faculty member. Too many of our faculty are still operating on the model. In the new world a great faculty member must still be a great teacher and a great researcher, but she must also be active in community outreach, retention and recruiting, and development.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that the views on this blog (made by perhaps 10 or fewer people) actually represents way under 5% of total UT faculty. Many simply have better priorities and less interest in issues such as college structure or the Dean, but instead focused on their teaching and research. Over the years I have been to many college faculty meetings and Senate only to hear the same few voices (many still around today), often stating the same issues over and over again, year after year. One has to wonder as full time faculty (and some as Department chairs) how they find the time to spend on these debates and still maintain high productivity, is that time and effort at the expense of their work, students and department?? I always admired those faculty who would serve their terms on such bodies, give of their hard work and time, truly intended and achieved results, yet also knew enough to return back to their departments and work as faculty where their contributions were also needed and valued. Service to the institution is valued and needed from faculty, but some have made a career of it, often leaving the impression that they alone speak for all faculty (many of the same are front and center in the UT AAUP and at contract time).

Anonymous said...

I don't see much problem with retention, recruiting, and development. Community outreach is a bit more problematic given the penchant for gotcha politics by liberal and conservative activist groups (or worse yet...legislators). Beyond the gotcha politics, you have to endure a withering amount of social media abuse if you are "part of the conservation." Anything involving identity politics, state politics, prisons, inequality, economic policy, Israel, religion, drugs, and so forth is effectively dancing around in a minefield. I doubt many faculty, even tenured ones, are prepared to withstand a full out assault by those forces. And I seriously doubt that the administration would stand by a targeted faculty member either.

Anonymous said...

You have a pretty narrow view of community outreach as there are a wide range of opportunities, including locally, regionally and nationally that many faculty could be engaged with that do not tread into politically sensitive areas. And UT has a number of outstanding faculty involved with community service (and UT gives out awards for this activity each year) and they deserve to be credited and acknowledged for their efforts. But I do not feel that community engagement should be expected or required as some faculty just do not have the right skill set and abilities for it. Some faculty are best left in the classroom, some are best focusing on their research. However every faculty member in an academic department with students and programs should be involved with student recruiting and retention (and not just their own graduate students)as they are in an academic unit and UT is first and foremost a public teaching institution and budget dependent on students.

Anonymous said...


Let’s add some facts, which often are nonexistent on this blog, to the discussion.

And also recognize an historic, longstanding, award-winning institutional commitment in our midst.

From the 2012 Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools report of comprehensive evaluation visit: “University of Toledo is deeply embedded in its community and has a breadth of community engagement that warrants recognition. The university should consider seeking the Community Engagement classification by the Carnegie Foundation. Application for this designation will facilitate moving toward greater coordination of outreach and engagement efforts and may aid in developing a portal for community engagement, as is suggested in the university’s self-study document.”

From the Jan.7, 2014 issue of UT News: One of the nation’s top educational foundations has recognized The University of Toledo for its focus on community engagement. UT is among 240 U.S. colleges and universities to receive the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s 2015 Community Engagement Classification.

Starting with Jesup Scott and continuing through Asa Knowles and Lloyd Jacobs, community engagement has been and today is woven deeply into the fabric of the institution. Local and regional engagement matters, and UT’s relationships and purposeful actions make positive change.

UT deserves much credit for recognizing civic engagement as a way to enhance the educational experience of students and benefit Toledo and northwest Ohio at the same time. It’s gratifying that others at the national level agree.

Anonymous said...

To 11:20am: How is it that you have the time to troll this blog? As for people "returning" to faculty after serving their term, perhaps some deans should consider doing that as well.

Anonymous said...

When I mentioned community outreach a few days ago in this blog I did not mean to imply that UT wasn't doing any public outreach. My point was that many faculty are not involved in it. If you look at our community outreach/involvement/engagment it is very uneven. I don't have hard data, but I would guess 10% of the faculty are doing 90% of the outreach.

We are a metropolitan university. We should all strive to become the think-tank of our region, a leader in health care, an educational powerhouse for the region, and a center for the arts, culture, and creative thought.

All of us should live UT's mission. In the new world there is more to a university than just teaching classes and doing research. If you can't embrace that than you're part of the problem. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Not all disciplines or faculty fit well with community outreach as it depends on the types of work they are doing and frankly the skill set and abilities of the faculty member which may not be ideal for community outreach. There are plenty of opportunities (and little reward or incentive). Also with increased research or teaching responsibilities efforts and time off campus are not always easy to come by for faculty. I have no idea as to the % but in my department I would place the number at over 50%. I do not see lack of community engagement as an issue at the top of the list of challenges UT needs to address.

Anonymous said...

Two recent posts on this blog point to a huge problem for UT as it relates to community engagement.

The institution hasn’t got the slightest idea what percentage of faculty engage in community engagement activities, and no centralized mechanisms are in place to systematically collect, document, assess and make available to the university’s various publics the impact of how UT faculty and students are connected to and engaged with local/regional community partners via experiential courses and initiatives, research, and public service.

Community engagement is an important component of UT’s mission, and important outreach activities certainly occur as primary missions in all UT colleges. But everything is anecdotal, and information about community engagement is siloed in the colleges.

With no unifying framework or infrastructure that supports community engagement, initiatives in which faculty and staff share their leadership talent and expertise go unrecognized and experiences and effective practices are not shared across the institution.

Numerous initiatives could be launched to address this shortcoming. UT should develop a strategic plan for community engagement, develop guidelines for documenting scholarship of engagement, bring speakers to campus to discuss the theory and practice of community-engaged scholarship, hold faculty development seminars on the scholarship of community engagement and service learning, and annually collect data in order produce an annual report of its community outreach activities that provides a comprehensive record of partnerships, results, and products that advance UT institutional goals.

A prominent Web site that informs the public about the university's outreach initiatives and programs and allows the public to search for faculty expertise could be launched.

Simply put, UT has got to become a more data-driven organization. It needs to do much better job of gathering and analyzing information to support its decision-making and to describe its efforts and impact.

That needs to be an important priority for the new president and the new provost.

Anonymous said...

@6:02: What do you mean by community engagement? Whose community? Is it restricted to Toledo? What about Wood County? What about the State of Ohio? Monroe, Michigan? United States? France? China? Are there really multiple communities embedded in those geographic areas? White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, gay, and so forth? Are some of those communities more worthy of community engagement than others? For instance, do we privilege relatively non controversial service to dominate communities of interest (e.g. the business sector) because they might bring good will to the university? Do we diminish engagement that runs the risk of making the university or particular faculty members political targets because they are deal with unpopular groups (e.g. felons, atheists, transgender people). Does the community of scholars in which one is embedded matter in terms of engagement? What about service to the university community? Should engagement be specifically tied to area of expertise or does service not related to your research or teaching matter? It would be helpful if you spell out what you mean.

Anonymous said...

So we have two proposals coming out of COCA and attempts underway in CLLSS to form a proposal from a selection of widely different options favored by faculty across CLLSS. Does anyone actually think this will end well and as intended - with a agreed upon single college structure proposal within the next several weeks presented to the President? My prediction is that it ends up in confusion conflict and abandoned all together by the President (perhaps that is the intent of many from COCA and CLLSS involved with these proposals) or she simply forces a combined college solution.

Anonymous said...


I'm curious about something. Why doesn't UT have a Master of Fine Arts program? I was actually surprised to learn that we don't. Given our partnerships/proximity to TMA I would think it would be a logical things to do.

Anonymous said...


I know that Health Science Campus is on standby alert, awaiting word of this all-important decision.

Anonymous said...


Two posts on this thread highlight a big problem that UT has when it comes to community engagement.

The university needs to put in place more effective systematic procedures for gathering, documenting, assessing and making available to the university’s various publics on an annual basis the impact of its community engagement and service efforts.

Basic data like the number of faculty members participating in community outreach and service activities, the number of university-community partnerships or the number of experiential learning courses are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Much of the information is anecdotal and information is siloed in the colleges.

With no unifying framework or infrastructure in place, initiatives in which faculty and staff share their leadership talent and expertise with their communities go unrecognized. Experiences and effective practices are not shared across the institution. In addition, duplicate and complementary activities are not identified or addressed, and faculty and staff who might wish to contribute their expertise are unaware of opportunities to do so.

UT should develop a strategic plan for community outreach and engagement. As part of that effort, the Office of Institutional Research should annually administer a faculty/staff survey to obtain information about university community engagement and service initiatives.

If the university is ever going to demonstrate accountability and show its value to Toledo and the region, it needs to gather this data. Making a degree from UT more valuable today than it was yesterday is a hard journey, but one for which the university should strive.

Anonymous said...

Pretty easy already for Departments and Chairs to pull information on community service from individual faculty ARPAs, our department does so every year as part of an annual report to the Dean.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:44, don't forget a lot of outreach is also done by PSA, post-docs, graduate students and undergraduates that might not get mentioned on ARPAs.

Anonymous said...

Rumor has it that big cuts coming in summer teaching in 2016, higher minimum enrollment caps, fewer courses permitted to be taught as too many courses have low number of students, total summer student enrollment down considerably from 2014 to 2015, salary costs up, net revenue way down after state share of instruction. Look for significant reductions in courses and number of faculty teaching in summer 2016 and pressure on department chairs to give summer courses to lowest paid faculty. For faculty including instructors who have been dependent and relying on summer teaching as means to supplement salary, watch out as a hit is coming if your courses have seen low enrollments in recent summers.