Thursday, November 29, 2012

MOOC Exploration continues, with the Canvas Network

One of my friends and colleague works for Canvas now, and we happened to be at the same NERCOMP workshop when news of the Canvas Network hit the wires.  Honestly, I've been so MOOCed out recently with all the MOOC coverate and punditry that it's not easy to keep up with all MOOCs all the time. And, to be honest, if you want to really assess a MOOC strategy, my feeling is that you need to be a student in that MOOC in order to really gauge what's going on. I have just started saving all MOOC related articles, opinion columns and blogs (that are more than 1 or 2 paragraphs) to PDF so I can go through them more leasurly once I am done with my current research projects (and maybe something can come out of those that is more scholarly than just a "I read them" note on my blog)

That said, one of my twitter connections reminded me of the Canvas Network and i gave it a quick look. There aren't that many courses on it just yet (or it didn't seem so anyway) but I signed up for a couple of interesting courses, Gender through Comic Books, Game Design Concepts, and David Wiley's Intro to Openness Education. Now, as far as I am concerned, I completed (albeit a bit late) #ioe12 which David Wiley offered on a WordPress setup, so I don't plan on being really active in Wiley's course, but I am curious to see what the differences are between the course I took, and the one on the Canvas Network.

Two innovations that I see (and like!) already in Canvas is exemplefied by this course banner:


This course banner gives potential students a lot of information about the format of the course before they actually sign up. This course lets you know in advance of mature content, that a bok is required, that there are lectures, and how students are expected to participate.  Another course I looked at specifically indicated that there is no possibility of obtaining a certificate of completion.

Now, some students will sign up for these courses regardless of this info and how a course is delivered, but some students need this information ahead of time.  I think it's important to provide this ahead of time in order to help students make the right choices for the courses they sign up for.

The other nice innovation is the "keep me posted" button.  For all the courses I signed up for, I used the "keep me posted" button.  Why? Because I am not sure I want to enroll just yet, but I am interested! What I want is more information about the course as it becomes available, and I can register for the course when the course opens up if I still want to.

I think that these two innovations can go a long way to prevent this drop-out-angst that many in Higher Education, especially the people who dislike MOOCs, but don't know much about them, by not forcing people who are just intersted in course information from signing up for the course.  If I sign up for the course, and there is no penalty for not continuing with the course, why would I do extra work to "unenroll" from the course? Then, I look like a person who dropped out, and those massive drop out rates are what scare people.

Well,  as I've said and written before, we need to reframe our discussion around drop-out rates, because MOOCs are not traditional courses and that makes a huge difference. Even when we reframe the discussion, if you provide avenues for people to get information about a course without enrolling in it, you are also getting valuable information about how many people are interested in a course, versus how many actually enrolled.  And, from those enrolled, if they don't complete the course, you can then find out why. This type of data collection and analysis is important if we are going to make cogent decisions on MOOCs, their future, and how to better design for them.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

What's a credit worth?

This week I am starting my 4th coursera course, offered by Duke University called Think Again: How to Reason and Argue. I signed up mostly because I was intersted in the topic, but as a nice side-effect it allows me to continue to be exposed to a variety of MOOC "accreditation" schemes.  This particular MOOC offers statements of accomplishment on two tiers:

  • Statement of Accomplishment
  • Statement of Accomplishment with Distinction.
To get the "with distinction mark" you need to score 85% or better in the course. It seems like the only gradeable items in this course are the quizzes, which I assume at this point are multiple choice.  The caveat here is that you can only take a quiz twice (and not the same quiz) to have it count for credit.

There are exercises in the course, but they are ungraded, so I am wondering how that works for non-self-motivated autodidacts.   While pondering this, I also came across and readthis article on the Chronicle on the Uneven Value of Academic Credit. What happens when Duke students take Duke MOOCs from Duke Professors and ask for those credits to count toward their degree?

This is not a hypothetical at this point, it is something that will happen sooner or later. And as our own universities start offering massive online courses,either as xMOOCs through edX or Coursera, or as cMOOCs through free online tools, the question will invariably come up.

Even if you take the MOOC out of the equation, it's still an interesting question to ask! For instance, prior to arriving to my current role, the department offered an online, 3 week, graduate course in January (in-between semesters). Our normal course offerings are 13 week courses in Fall, Spring and Summer.  On rare occasions we also had 6 week summer courses online.  If a student has the opportunity to knock out 3 graduate credits in 3 weeks, why belabor the whole affair and take that course in spring or fall when it's 13 weeks? I know that students have told me that they love those courses, but are those courses right for students? Are we doing them a disservice for offering those courses†? And, at the end of the day, are the 3 credits I earn in 3 weeks the same as the 3 credits that I busted my behind to earn in that super-hard-course that was 13 weeks, but really should have been 15?

Along with defining "academic rigor" we need to do a better job of what is deserving of 1 credit, 2 credits, or 3 credits. Butts-in-seats is not the underlying measure (or at least it shouldn't be), but I do believe that time spent in a class does have a connection to how well rounded a course is, and how much practice students can get our of a specific topic.  Your thoughts?


† for what it's worth, I have discontinued this course that ran for 3 weeks, and I am lobbying hard to get rid the odd 6 week courses as well.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

HCI Course done!

Along with CFHE12 ending, this is the last week of the Human Computer Interaction course on Coursera.  This course was mostly a review for me considering that I had already taken an HCI course (grad level) back when I was doing my BA in computer science and I wanted a refresher.

This particular course had 3 levels of participation, and I opted to participate at the lowest level which was to watch videos and take the quizzes, and of course, pass with a satisfactory grade.

I have to say that the course was a nice review.  Initially I wrote that (comparatively) the professor didn't have as much screen presence as the previous coursera MOOC I had taken, but he grew on me. By the end the Lectures weren't bad at all.  Of course, I am seeing this through the lens of someone wanting a review.  If this were my first time around in HCI, that first level of participation would probably not have been enough and I would have to kick it up to the peer reviewed coursework level.

Having done HCI, and having received peer review, I am having issues with the anonymity aspect of the assignments (especially for HCI).  I think anonymity can breed conformity and a sense of not caring.  I think that coursera needs to find a way to do peer review in a way that is not anonymous, and has the ability to match people for language and skill level. Until then, peer review is not going to be an effective means of assessment. Just my 2c.

Monday, November 19, 2012

End of CFHE12

Well, another MOOC is now complete!  I still have a few more readings in Pocket to go through, blogs from fellow bloggers.  I have to say that the materials in this MOOC weren't a revelation for me.  I have encountered these topics before in my professional career, especially more recently when topics like MOOCs and alternative credentialing and badges are hot topics. If I already knew some of these things, why join?  Well, as we've said before, content isn't king.  Content is an important part, but not king.  For me, it's about interacting with other people, and getting to find out other important SMEs and thinkers in the field. To agree, disagree, debate, and write.  In addition to some of the usual suspects, like Serena (which gives me good reasons to practice my Italian :-)  ) and brainysmurf, this time around I met another interesting MOOCer, Rolin Moe (blog here). I don't always agree with what he writes, but his blog was always a good thoughtful read on the subjects.

My apologies to the forum people.  The forums were not very navigable for me, so I decided to keep my participation on blogs and twitter via the daily newsletter.


Just for posterity purposes: the course objectives for this course were:
  • Explore the scope of change pressures that impact higher education systems globally
  • Detail how technology is impacting educational practices within higher education institutions
  • Consider how networks and digital technologies are influencing the balance of power in education and the expectations of the autonomous self-regulated learners driving the power-shift
  • Evaluate the impact of entrepreneurial and commercial activity in all levels of education: curriculum development, teaching, research, and accreditation
  • Detail how “big data” and analytics are impacting teaching, learning, and organizational decision making Analyze and explore the new, distributed, leadership models being utilized by senior administrators
  • Evaluate how faculty and teaching practices are being impacted by new technologies and new teaching practices
  • Detail the impact of current economic conditions and globalization on the academy
  • Describe how the most innovative universities from around the world are responding to change pressures
I think that the MOOC touched upon most of them, some more in-depth than others.  I think, though, for a 5 week course, the above goals are a bit lofty.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Distributed Research: or, can we play nice already?

It's the final week of CHFE12 (edfuture.net) and the topic is something that we've beat to death in the past in MOOCs like #ioe12 (which I completed a bit late this September) and #change11; in which we discussed the topic of Open Research about a year ago. I may have also seen this topic crop up in eduMOOC in 2011 and a MOOC on Open Education (not #ioe12) also running this fall.

In any case, I feel like I am really past the point of talking about Open Research, and I am more in the "doing" phase of things.  I know that academia has a problem with collaboration and co-research and co-publishing.  We are masters of saying one thing (we want collaboration!) but then we are also great at reprimanding people who do collaborate. In hiring committees and tenure decision making, we aren't as comfortable with candidates that don't have as many publications under their name, and their name alone.  A few months ago, I heard some colleagues from another on the elevator discussing merit and how co-published papers, books and chapters should only get 1 point instead of 3 (max) because the people working on it didn't put as much work into it as they would have if they were working on it on their own.

This may perhaps be true, but would the research artefact be compete if they worked on it solo? Would it even have gotten off the ground? We keep talking about how pedagogically we wish that students worked collaboratively, as opposed to carving out the project into pieces, working on these separately and then trying to put them all together in a frankenstein way.  Carving out and frankestenining is easier than truly collaborating, but the end result is far superior! Why would you want your students to collaborate and give each and every one a full mark for their project, but only give partial marks to your faculty? It makes no sense.

I've also previously mentioned that hiding your work until it's published makes no sense. Publishing may take a long time. In my fields what one works on has a definite shelf-life where it's useful. Technology changes, technology dies, technology evolves.  No one wants to read about Jaiku because no one uses Jaiku any longer. Sure, the underlying ideas and behaviors are probably still true, but a study that was done on Jaiku and has yet to be published faces an acceptance hurdle. People need to read some research and they need to be able to go back onto the original platform and experiment. If that platform is no longer available, or the user base isn't there, you can't always replicate or continue on someone else's experiment. Sure, twitter exists, but side factors like User Interface and product features can impact what one does with the service, and underlying human beaviors.

Let's stop talking about collaboration, and let's start doing it already :-)

That said, I am open to working with others on MOOC related research papers :-)

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Leadership isn't about "me too"s

Yesterday, while commuting, I had written a longer post about my MOOC-coverage fatigue.  It seems as though MOOC coverage has gotten out of proportion and it's spilled over to other non educational news outlets that I frequent, where I go for non-educational news. In any case, it seems as though the Google Blogger client of my iPhone ate my post.  Maybe for the best, because I feel like I was getting to have a cranky "get off my lawn" slant to it ;-)†

In any case, in thinking about re-writing that post, I was skimming some recent MOOC related news on Inside Higher Education, the Chronicle and the non academia blogs that suddenly have picked up and started reporting on MOOCs since they are the subject of venture capital news. Despite being an MBA, I don't get all excited about VC news, I am more interested about the product than figuring out right away how to make money with it. While going through a day's worth of RSS feeds, I just had this crystallize: Many "leaders" in Higher Education (at least with regard to MOOCs) seem to be taking a "me too!" approach to MOOCs.

Now, I don't think that MOOCs are some sort of "cool kids" club where only a certain group can initiate, attend and /or participate. Anything but this, actually, since the Open "O" in MOOC is, I would say, about the democratization of education.  What strikes me the wrong way is when there is an unthoughtful joining into MOOCs, a "me too!" as opposed to an "intersting, how can I innovate in this sector and feed forward?"

It seems that  these "me too leaders" are not interested in educational innovation first, but rather the notoriety that it will get them and potentially their institutions. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing about fame and notoriety that's bad. I think Sebastian Thrun did us all a favor by bringing this topic to the limelight, but he certainly was no "the" person whose course started it all and the pedagogy behind one course means neither that (1) it was effective on the first go around nor that (2) it is equally applicable to other courses and topics. To be fair, Sebastian probably doesn't think this, but the "me too leaders" in institutions of higher education are adopting this model in some mistaken notion that this is the cool place to be.

When it comes down to it, "me too" leaders, in my opinion, are no leaders at all.  So, who do we have at the helms of our institutions? Are they "me too leaders," and if they are, how do we get them to be innovative and education (not notoriety) focused first? How do we get them to do stuff because it's worth doing stuff, not because Stanford/MIT/Harvard is doing similar stuff? Now answers in this post, just questions. Your thoughts?


† I have since deleted the Blogger app from my iPhone and all of my iOS devices, considering this is not the first or second time this has happened. If anyone knows of a good Blogger client for the iPhone please let me know!

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

On Academic Management, and running a business

I must admit, I had planned on writing a post about how finding college leaders is like dating at times, you can go with the blind date and be pleasantly surprise, or date one of your friends and (hopefully) know most of the information before hand. As I was reading the Washington Post article, however, I was overcome with a severe sense of facepalm, and as I was responding to the article, it got long enough to need a blog post of its own.  I decided to interweaver some of the dating metaphors where applicable ;-) So here we go:

On Hiring:
The article starts by talking about how most educational leaders get their positions in academia, and the usual path tends to be through becoming a tenured faculty member, and then, at some point, becoming an administator. The article goes on...:
The usual way to accomplish [getting tenure] is to develop expertise in a relatively narrow area and publish like mad in it. Bold efforts to open up entirely new fields or draw grand syntheses are extraordinarily risky and therefore rare. What’s more, the qualities most likely to make one a successful young researcher—avoiding conflict with superiors, isolating oneself from distractions and not getting too involved in department or college business—are almost the antithesis of those that make for a successful university president. - source Washington post artcle
 
Yes, indeed, the usual way of getting tenure is by hyper-specializing and publishing like there is no tomorrow.  Guess what?  The tenure system is not some stone tablet inscribed with the words of God. It is a system put in place and people who are hired into these positions, be they from tenured or non-tenured backgrounds, and they can be changed.  Risk-taking can be rewarded, so long as universities adopt a fail often and recover model to research and publishing and they don't penalize faculty for failing. We need more agility in higher education, and it's not something that we will only get with external applicants.

Over the past 14 years that I've worked in academia (time flies!) I've been torn between the MBA and the Academic. Before going into an MBA program, I thought that the MBA candidate was the way to go. After completing my MBA program, and having my eyes opened to deceptive practices, corruption in order to increase the bottom line, and the "me me me" nature of some CxO or upper level managers, the MBA candidate isn't necessarily the best option•.

Of course, the tenured option doesn't work all the time either. The problem is that PhDs are rarely taught leadership skills in their programs, and any seminar style events that they attend before and after they get tenure are generally pointed toward pedagogy and other teaching related matters.  One could argue for Higher Education Administration/Learnership EdD programs, but in my own inquiries, they only seem to accept people who are already mid-upper tier management. Those people are already lost, in most cases, to the system or their own biases (again in my observations).


On Succession Planning:
So, this educational leader training is a nice tie in to the next section of the article:
While succession planning is a cornerstone of business leadership, it is anathema in academia. It is rare indeed for department heads, deans, provosts or university presidents to groom potential successors. When someone does step down, either expectedly or unexpectedly (I have seen three presidents and four provosts in six years at the University of Arizona), an outside search is usually conducted and it is often at least a year before a permanent successor is in place. No way to run a railroad, much less a university.  - source Washington post artcle
 
Washington post article claims that leadership training is the bedrock of  virtually every company, and of the military academies. Having had a whole lot of classmates and acquaitances from the public sector in my two Masters programs that dealt with Management, I can say that the company leadership training, for most companies, is a bunch of bull. If it does exist, it doesn't translate down to the lower and mid-tiers of the company.  As far as the military academies go, recent articles (like this chronicle article) would care to differ.

Also, it would take one very progressive organization to keep two people on at the same time so that there is overlap.  In my own experiences in academia, one person gets another another, a job vacancy exists, people apply, one person gets it, they learn by trial and error and by navigating the environment. There is a lot of "relearning the wheel" going on, but training your replacement assumes two things:
  • The person leaving know much in advance, and has let people know (more than the 2 weeks notice), or that they are willing to start their new job later in order to train their replacement;
  • The new person already knows they are taking over and they are already hired.
If there are two things I know, it would be that no one works for free, an positions are only filled after a person has already left. Training your replacement is good practice, for sure, but not necessarily a practical reality.  A better practice to strive for is to empower employees to take care of what needs to be taken care of, so that in your absense (planned or unplanned) university business goes on as planned, and people are empowered to make decisions and plans for the university.


On Curriculum Changes:
This may have been the biggest facepalm yet:
The latter [for profit Universities] simply change their curricula to reflect the new needs. They can do this because their “faculty” members are essentially contract employees who teach what they are told to teach. This has its downside, to be sure, but it does mean the for-profits are light on their feet and able to adjust to changing job-market needs. Traditional universities, on the other hand, are captive of their faculties. At best, curricular changes require great deliberation (“eternal” would be a better adjective). All it takes to derail the discussion is a handful of tenured faculty members deciding that they—not prospective employers—know best what students should be taught.

It seems to me that this author wants to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to leadership. They want leaders groomed, but when it comes to another type of leadership, namely academic self-governance, it's all about sit down, shut up, and do as I say.  Hey, wait! This sounds like a particular type of pedagogy we all know and love rebel against!  Academic self-governance is really important in my view.  Sure, I have personally sat in some very frustrating meetings because stuff just doesn't get acted on quickly, however, I am not a subject expert in everything that those faculty members are! True leaders don't lead by fear and intimidation (i.e. do as I saw, you are a contract employee, otherwise I am going to fire you), but they lead by buy-in, consensus building and by forging alliances.

True, some leaders have created insanely great products♠, but once those temperamental leaders are gone, the companies might implode♥. Sacrificing long term gains for short term ones is what has gotten our economy into trouble. The same is true for "new" programs like Homeland Security Studies that are catching on the recent interest in certain topics, for the long term gains of being a balanced learner who can be a life long learner after graduation, and their degree won't be worthless in five years. This is why it's important to have a harmonious working relatioship with faculty self-governance committees, and to make sure that it's not only faculty, but also non-faculty visionaries and leaders on these things so that there is a balance and a more focused gaze toward the future.
 

The No Asshole Rule
A number of years ago, I read this fantastic book called the No Asshole Rule. At the time I was working in a place that I genuinely felt was run by incomptent assholes tha would have reprimanded me for a blog post like this†. Reading the following passage reminded me of this book‡.
Midway through my nearly six-year tenure as a dean, I once griped to a friend about the frustrating difficulty of making even small changes. He said, “Duh. You’re in a profession in which you and your colleagues celebrate graduation by putting on the same silly hats and robes that were worn a thousand years ago. What the hell did you expect?”

He had me there. This almost slavish adherence to faculty governance and tradition (“I teach this way because this is the way I was taught”) and the view that universities should be islands unto themselves, free from such mundane concerns as having to meet a budget, make bold leadership almost impossible.
One of the take aways from the No Asshole Rule was that assholes hire other assholes. So, if you don't want your company (university in this case) to hire assholes, make sure that decent people are on hiring committees. The other thing I've noticed, let's call this my extension to this take away, is that even if decent people are hired, if they are allowed to congregate and be mentored by senior assholes, they in term become assholes themselves, so protect the newbies from these assholes to prevent them from repeating the cycle. The person referenced above may have been joking, or may have been an asshole, I don't know, but the other thing I wanted to point out is that some traditions aren't necessarily bad, and just because they are traditions it doesn't mean that they are immutable. For more on this, I refer you to the top of the blog post. Faculty can, and do, respond to external conditions, but it's a case where admins need to work on their relationships with faculty in order to let them know what's doable, and what's not. If a faculty member has a hissy-fit about why they can't get x,y,z resources for their super important research, it's time to pull them aside and have a polite conversation. If they continue (and thus proving to be assholes) there are remedies.


Tenure, Security and Pedagogy:
Finally, we come to this:
We’ll need bold leaders to shift the mix of faculty from predominantly tenured and tenure-track teachers, who specialize in research, to more of those who specialize exclusively in teaching. We’ll need them to close small departments and even colleges so as to invest in stronger ones. We’ll need them to merge traditional means of teaching with web- and perhaps even social media-based teaching methods.
I have a boatload of problems with one:
First, it seems to be assuming a false-dichotomy where tenure seems to imply research, and those who focus mostly on teaching are othered. Tenure is simply job-security.  You can have tenure (well you should) for a teaching-mostly, or teaching-only position.  If your proposition is tenure for researchers, and semester-long, 1-year, 3-year, 5-year lecturer contracts for everyone else, then I reject your proposition.  It is fundamentally unfair and it depriviledges teaching!

Second, I take issue with closing small departments. In the spirit of leadership and entrepreneurship we need small skunkworks departments to do interesting things. We don't need more mega departments for the sake of mega departments and easier administration (which mega departments just add to the administrative costs, or cut admin costs by sacrificing agility). The whole notion of "underperforming" (which seems to be an undercurrent in this loaded section) needs to be critically examined and interrogated.

Finally, why are admins wedging themselved in Pedagogy? Do admins think that they know better than instructional designers and faculty when it comes to teaching and learning? Admins and leaders are there to make obstacles disappear when an initiative needs to start to improve teaching and learning. They are not there to tell teaching and learning professionals how to do their jobs. This isn't leadership, it's micro-managing.


So, that is my uber-long post.  My apologies, I did not mean to make it go on like this, but the Washington Post fired me up ;-)




Notes, footnotes, and sidebars:
• incidentally, some of the best courses I took as an MBA student were in Organizational Development, Labor Relations and in Business Ethics. Really opened my eyes
♠ see Apple and Jobs for example
♥ see recent Apple shakeups
† well, I guess the academic year is still young, lets see if this gets me in any trouble :p
‡ dear colleagues, just to prevent any miscommunication, I am not calling you assholes, and I don't mean to imply that faculty, and others in academia are assholes. It's just a title of the book. It could have easily been called the No Meanie Rule.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Big Data, Evaluations, Adjuncts, Money

Last week was pretty interesting, but between storms, workshops, and work (it's advising and registration time), I only got away with one initial blog post last week.  I did keep up with the discussion, thanks to a large part to the daily newsletter for #cfhe12.

As I was reading the various blog posts, this popped up to me: MOOCs and the Teaching Profession. I was really surpsised (I think my jaw dropped) when Rolin's acquaintance told him that he didn't think teaching was a profession.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised. In my area (as I am sure in others), K-12 is highly regulated, so much paperwork and documentation to be completed, I guess anyone pushing paper effectively was be seen as competent whethey they are or not.  K-12, however, is not my area of expertise, I know something here and there.  Higher Education I am more familiar with.

I guess, in a higher education context, I am still shocked to hear that teaching is not, by some, considered a profession, but I guess it's to be expected? Think about it, what are tenured professors hired to do?  If you said "teach" you're dead wrong†. Most faculty these days (at least in my own experiences in colleges and universities) seem to be research focus first, teaching second. Even at my university, where we are supposed to provide an accesible education (our "urban mission") faculty in my college are moving to officially teach 1 less course per semester in order to focus on research. Of course we won't be admitting fewer students, and we won't be hiring tenured faculty, so who is left? Adjuncts.

On the one hand, adjuncts are economically disadvatanged. Even though our university pays adjuncts well, compared to other institutions, thanks in part to our faculty's collective bargaining agreement, adjuncts are still underpaid. An adjunct is paid  about $4000 per course taught, and does not get medical or dental insurance unless they've been teaching a certain amount of courses over a certain period of time. For long term adjuncts, this may not be bad, but if there is a downturn, and you are hired semester by semester, you may end up losing your coverage for a semester while you rebound.

Our lecturers fare better, they can get 3 or 5 year contracts, and they generally teach 3-4 courses per semester. Their salaries don't reach the entry-level tenure track faculty, but it's closer than being and adjunct, and you get benefits. Generally lecturers do not have the requirements for research and service. Then of course you have tenure track professors with teaching, research and service requirements, but research seems to be the larger "leg: of the bar stool.

Just by luck, I also read Course Evaluations and External Biases on IHE. This brings me back to adjuncts. Course evaluations are our one official rubric for assessing adjuncts, so if students don't like someone, the adjunct can easily be let go. You could ask for adjuncts to provide some evidence of research, but when they are teaching 10-12 courses per year to make ends meet, there is little time for professional development. Using learning and teaching analytics can be another tool to use to evaluate the effectiveness of adjunct teaching, but what then? Will you use it only as a punitive tool to let "bad apples" go? Or will you use it as a carrot? A path toward a future with more equitable pay, job security, and peer recognition. What's interesting is that some academic department don't want adjuncts creating courses, only tenured faculty are allowed to create and revise courses, but it is those same faculty who are now teaching less, so how does this make sense?

This, sadly, brings me back to teaching as something that is now, or is in the process of, being deprofessionalized. If tenured faculty aren't fighting for the adjuncts; if tenured faculty don't treat adjuncts with peer respect by bringing them into the fold and giving them a voice in govenance and in course creation (courses they will be teaching!); then you have the same situation as in K-12, where some bureacrat creates the content, and masses of underpaid minions are asked to teach it as is, no questions asked.  Is this what education is? Is money making where education should be? How do we put this thing in reverse and get back on the right path?


† unless of course you are working in a community college, or a teaching focused school!