The Matrix

Since first posting my 15 Roundtable implementation recommendations some of my colleagues have asked me questions about them. The two most frequently asked questions are: 1) “To what extent do your 15 recommendations address the five significant issues or themes (space, scholarship, teaching modalities, graduate education and curriculum)?” and 2) “Are your 15 recommendations ranked according to their importance or urgency?” These questions have inspired me to provide a “Matrix of Significance and Agreement” and I provide its image above. I constructed the Matrix by assigning the five issues on one axis and my 15 recommendations on the other, after which I symbolized the importance of their relationship if implemented as Significant (S) or Moderate (M). The predominance of the “S” symbol on the Matrix reveals that each recommendation on this short list of 15 is indeed Significant. Letter symbols (ABCDE) on the Matrix represent the five issues and number symbols (1- 15), my recommendations. I have rearranged the 15 recommendations on the Matrix to reflect what I now perceive of as an “urgency” ranking. I invite further discussion. Email me at David.Nemeth@utoledo.edu if you like, or phone 4049.

FIVE ISSUES

A. Space
B. Scholarship
C. Teaching modalities
D. Graduate Education
E. Curriculum

FIFTEEN IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS

1 Transform the main campus to a 12/7/365 activity schedule
2 Emphatically commit to excellence in education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels
3 Hire more tenure-track professors
4 End “Open Admissions” at UT as this policy is incompatible with A&S College “top tier” ranking aspirations
5 Abolish the administrative position of “Chair of Department” in the A&S College and replace it with “Head of Department;” the Department Personnel Committees will evaluate and reward the performance of their Department Heads in teaching, research and service using the annual ARPA and merit processes
6 Return the Center for Teaching Excellence to its original mission and administrative structure
7 Increase campus-wide support of sabbaticals for teaching as well as research
8 Immediately commence a nation-wide search for a new Dean of Arts & Sciences
9 Reopen our Faculty Club to again serve the main campus academic community as the physical and symbolic intellectual center of their informal educational activities
10 Design and build several “nationality” classrooms (see, for example, “Cathedral of Learning” nationality classrooms at University of Pittsburg)
11 Allocate A&S College space at all scales intelligently toward the constant enhancement of its teaching, research and service excellence
12 Allocate additional and sufficient resources to Carlson Library staffing, and to book purchases and on-site accessibility to hard-copy books, with emphasis on holdings in the liberal arts
13 Strengthen commitment to shared governance and faculty control of the curriculum
14 Revisit the UT “Directions” strategic planning document and especially aspects of educational planning that impact negatively on the A&S College and its traditional liberal arts curriculum
15 Assess the costs and benefits, as well as the ethical aspects, of expensive new classroom teaching and learning technologies (given multiple scenarios of instructional needs and priorities across a faculty-controlled A&S College curriculum)

memo to dean

Your Deanship:

Please read Jim Nemeth's suggestions below. They are timely, accurate and to the point.

One other suggestion: If you can't stand the heat, don't be the chief chef.

My List of Recommended "Action Items"

Five draft issue-oriented Roundtable Implementation reports (“Thematic Reports”) are now being redrafted by five implementation task force group leaders. These latest drafts will be synthesized into a single draft report. The full Roundtable Implementation Committee will again convene (on December 2) to discuss the single draft report.

The group leaders presently redrafting the five thematic reports are:

A. Space ~ Lawrence Anderson (Use of space)
B. Scholarship ~ Charlene Gilbert (Definitions of scholarship)
C. Teaching modalities ~ Ben Pryor (Teaching, learning and advising modalities)
D. Graduate Education ~ Jim Benjamin (Strengthen graduate education)
E. Curriculum ~ Renee Heberle (Curriculum addressed to evolving learning
needs)

The overall objective of a final Roundtable Implementation Report is to recommend "action items" that when approved will function to “raise UT to a first-tier level” and thereby “raise the profile, stature and visibility” of the College of Arts and Sciences as the vital “hub” of UT academic activities.

I recommend to you below my personal list of fifteen action items. As faculty members in the A&S College we are each qualified to participate actively in the Roundtable implementation exercise by presenting and promoting our own list of recommendations. I feel qualified to do so because of knowledge and insights gained while participating in Roundtable Implementation Committee activities after September 29, 2009: I served on two of the five “discussion and writing” teams listed above (“scholarship” and “teaching” modalities”) and also participated in two meetings of the full Roundtable Implementation Committee. In addition, I have long-term research interests in higher education trends. I have studied widely and in depth on the complex challenges, transformations and opportunities taking place in state public institutions of higher education, in Arts & Science colleges, and in liberal arts education. My historical perspective on the advent of the Roundtable initiative at the University of Toledo has been shaped by both objective and personal observations and experiences during 20 years of educational service on this campus. I have also acquired classroom experience as teaching assistant, part-time teacher, lecturer, and “full-time visiting professor” in public and private colleges and universities in three different states, in addition to five years teaching experience overseas. I have also taught a college-level course in a prison classroom.

I am now dedicated to my chosen career of teaching, research and service as a senior faculty member of the Arts and Sciences College of the University of Toledo, and to promoting academic excellence across this campus. Here is my list of recommended implementation “action items” in response to the Roundtable challenge:

1 Transform the main campus to a 12/7/365 activity schedule
2 Emphatically commit to excellence in education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels
3 Hire more tenure-track professors
4 End “Open Admissions” at UT as this policy is incompatible with A&S College “top tier” ranking aspirations
5 Abolish the administrative position of “Chair of Department” in the A&S College and replace it with “Head of Department;” the Department Personnel Committees will evaluate and reward the performance of their Department Heads in teaching, research and service using the annual ARPA and merit processes
6 Return the Center for Teaching Excellence to its original mission and administrative structure
7 Increase campus-wide support of sabbaticals for teaching as well as research
8 Immediately commence a nation-wide search for a new Dean of Arts & Sciences
9 Reopen our Faculty Club to again serve the main campus academic community as the physical and symbolic intellectual center of their informal educational activities
10 Design and build several “nationality” classrooms (see, for example, “Cathedral of Learning” nationality classrooms at University of Pittsburg)
11 Allocate A&S College space at all scales intelligently toward the constant enhancement of its teaching, research and service excellence
12 Allocate additional and sufficient resources to Carlson Library staffing, and to book purchases and on-site accessibility to hard-copy books, with emphasis on holdings in the liberal arts
13 Strengthen commitment to shared governance and faculty control of the curriculum
14 Revisit the UT “Directions” strategic planning document and especially aspects of educational planning that impact negatively on the A&S College and its traditional liberal arts curriculum
15 Assess the costs and benefits, as well as the ethical aspects, of expensive new classroom teaching and learning technologies (given multiple scenarios of instructional needs and priorities across a faculty-controlled A&S College curriculum)

A & S Meeting

According to reports the meeting was a fairly calm exchange of ideas about such items as the Confucius Institute and assessment of big shots. Dr. Tinkle is very much in favor of our assessment of the cast of characters that runs this institution. It is my understanding that a suggestion was made that the Council assess our new permanent, stay here forever dean. While some demured saying she would only be with us for another year, Dr. Tinkle doesn't believe that for a second. In fact he clasifies it under wishful thinking. That said, there really are two important reasons for assessing her nibs.

1. It is a real move toward faculty governance. If the Council can establish a schedule for evaluating the dean, then over time instead of arguing about it, it just happens. It becomes a part of the landscape. Any new candidates for the position can be notified that this happens every two years. Live with it.

2. The data will belong to the Council. This will not be something that the administration will have a hand in. They can't grab it and refuse to show it to anybody.

The ball is now in the Council's court. Go for it.

Dean's Letter

By now most of you have been able to read the Provost's effusive letter praising our present interim (sorry) permanent dean. While the letter explains she probably won't stay past next year there are no promises to that effect. There is likewise no promise of an actual search for a dean. Given the tone of the letter, I would not hold my breath waiting for a search. Also given the tone of the letter, one might think that on the eigth day Dr. McClelland created the college of Arts and Sciences as well as a global economy. This is difficult for us mere mortals to actually determine because we never really get to evaluate the gods. Dr. White has provided an excellent critique of the letter and I would ask all to thoroughly read it. Just one last point before I depart. What exactly got put on hold because her title was interim? What has not taken place (besides a real search) that would have taken place with a dean? If her leadership has been that effective, why does the title matter? (Perhaps an intended slap at A & S Council?)Inquiring minds wish to know.

Let me be clear

Just in case there was any ambiguity as to where Dr. Tinkle stands on the idea of personal interviews, I am deadset against them. We have spent the last thirty plus years attempting to take the "personal" out of the tenure process. We have tried to get all levels to approach the process on as unbiased a level as possible. That's why the dossier is the only document anyone gets to base their decision on. To assume that the president of this university is somehow endowed with super human powers to ignore any personal information in a one-on-one interview is nonsense. Just look at the deans' reactions to the idea. Everyone is scared to death to disagree with him. This emperor has no clothes and it is high time someone with more authority than Dr. Tinkle tells him so.

Confused

Please undertand it is easy to confuse me, but this time the administration has done a bangup job. Under section9.2.3.2 it says in discussing the dossier for tenure and promotion, "Thereafter , the file shall be considered sealed and all subsequent evaluators shall make their judgments based on the file as presented. All evaluating units have the right to request in writing to the member a clarification of dossier contents, but "clarification" shall not require additional documentation or materials to be submitted by the member."

There is nothing there to imply a meeting with the President. If the Pres. really wants to get to know the nontenured faculty, this is not the way to do it. This is also not the time to do it. To imply that the Pres. is somehow perfect and would never let any personal issues come between him and a decision begs the question, "Why then have the meeting at all?"

I don't really care what the administration's intentions are; we have a collective bargaining agreement that specifically lays out the process. They want to change the process. Then negotiate the change. I really enjoyed all the Collegian quotes from the deans saying what a great idea this is. Does anyone really believe a dean in this environment will disagree with the Pres.?