Interesting Article in Ed Chronicle

Someone seems to have written a chapter of bad academic history:  See http://chronicle.com/article/Widespread-Nature-of-Chapel/149603/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Arts and Sciences? Really?

Given the responses to the last post, there seems to be some interest in trying to revive (or not) the old Arts and Sciences College.  Anyone who was around knows that our previous president broke up the college because he was mad that anyone would question his decision to name an unqualified dean and did not like the fact that so many faculty actually got together and discussed stuff.  But, the real issue is, "Did he do the right thing for all the wrong reasons?"  or "Did he do the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons?"  It has always been my belief, often stated here, that almost any structure works if you have the right people and almost no structure works if you have the wrong ones.  So to help get the ball rolling let me throw the first log on the fire.  I am not in favor of returning to an Arts and Sciences College.  As a member of a primarily undergraduate program I often felt as if we got the short end of the goodies if we got any at all.  We are now in a much smaller college where we have common interests with the other departments and access to the dean.  Okay folks, have at it. Should we reconstitute the A and S College or not.  Please explain your answer.

Playing Together in the Sandbox of Life

Okay Playdate Friends:

There seems to be, on the part of a few responders, some misconceptions about what we do here in Bloggie Land.  First, we are not omniscient.  While some may believe that getting an advanced degree or being named an administrator comes with this ability, they are wrong.  It follows that we do not know everything about everybody.  We often have opinions, which since it is our blog, we feel free to expound upon.  Second, some of the opinions of responders will agravate some of our readers.  That's the nature of a blog.  Frankly I would be disappointed if someone wasn't getting mad about something.  Third, there are the false assumptions that some responders have about who we are.  To assume that those who respond to the blog aren't working toward bettering the university is nonsense.  I haven't been here over 27 years; served on numerous committees; and wasted enormous amounts of time doing make work that administrators said was important not to care what happens here.  Finally, I would suggest that how this administration handles its problems with deans in several colleges and negotiations with the union will go a long way toward giving the faculty some idea as to whom they really are. 

I lied.  I have one more thing to say.  The blog has no idea who responds to the posts.  They could be faculty, staff, students, alums, or dare I say it, administrators.  Since I'm the only one with a name, we'll just have to guess.  Now return to the previous post where you can confess to Father Bloggie.