The Calendar

Most colleges and universities are on the two semester system – a fall and spring semester plus various sessions in January and in the summer.  When these semesters start, end, and have breaks is much less consistent.  And especially when the calendar is tied to religious holidays, you are subject to great variation.

Last spring for example, both Easter and Passover were late.  Consequently schools using the religious holidays as an anchor for scheduling spring break had a break very close to final examinations.   Losing momentum in a class just before final exam doesn’t serve the needs of students or  faculty.  It is in the middle of  the spring semester  (just before the winter weather moderates) that a break may be most  beneficial.

This fall, with the Jewish holidays almost immediately following Labor Day, many institutions had just a few days of classes before there was a significant break.  Taken to an extreme, in the New York City public school system, classes began the Wednesday after Labor Day and then immediately there was a break until the next Monday.  A one day start followed by an immediate two day stop is disconcerting for students, teachers, and parents.  Did education actually take place during that day?

For institutions with a faith based orientation, a calendar reflective of that orientation makes sense.  For the rest of us, given that we are enrolling an ever more diverse student body being taught by an ever more diverse faculty, we should carefully review the calendar.  We need to respect all the faiths and traditions you find on a University campus.  If a student or a faculty member cannot come to class because of a religious holiday, there need to be alternatives.  A person’s faith should not have to be compromised.  However that does not mean that the calendar needs to be constructed  canceling  classes during those holidays.  To the extent possible the calendar should be constructed in support of the education we provide and those breaks that are scheduled in a semester should be scheduled when a break makes the most sense.

Mentoring

Earlier today, a dean came to see me regarding the future of a faculty member. This faculty member came to Hofstra with outstanding graduate school credentials and is an outstanding teacher.  This person also has a much sought after area of specialty and has been very active in University service.  At this point in time, the faculty member is getting ready to stand for tenure and the dean voiced a concern that the faculty member did not yet have sufficient scholarship to stand successfully.  At the end of the day, the standards for tenure are the standards for tenure.  If at the conclusion of the tenure probationary period, the faculty member’s record in scholarship doesn’t meet the approved standards, the person should not and will not stand successfully.  This is especially clear since these criteria originated with the tenured faculty in the department involved.  But how does an untenured faculty member who is outstanding in teaching and service end up in a position like this?


There can be any number of reasons but one often stands out—a lack of mentoring.  Untenured faculty need systematic periodic feedback and higher education usually does that well: annual evaluations, reappointments, all provide (hopefully comprehensive) feedback on a regular basis.  But the feedback alone is a necessary but often not sufficient condition to assure a successful tenure candidacy.  Mentoring can make a enormous difference.  The human element—taking the time and effort to work closely with untenured faculty—is critical so there is not only regular structured feedback but also continuous informal feedback and support.  For example, a mentor with experience and a track record in research is in a position to co-author an article or book with the untenured faculty member.  In this way the person’s initial efforts to be published are supported and facilitated.  In other cases, having a mentor read your work before submission serves as a valuable review which can ultimately increase your chances of having an article accepted.  Even advice on which journals to submit to is another valuable mentor service.

Shouldn’t the chair carry out the mentor function for all tenure track faculty in that department.  There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.  A chair, in her or his role as a department leader, should view mentoring as part of the job.  It is not unreasonable to assume that for any chair, support of the department faculty has to be a top priority.  Some chairs do this very well; others rarely do it.  And it can’t work without there being a proper chemistry between the individuals.  But some tenure track faculty believe—rightly or wrongly—that having a chair as their mentor places them in  the awkward position of talking through issues and concerns with the person in the organization that will be making a pivotal judgment on their reappointment or their tenure or their promotion.  Can a chair be a source of both formal and informal feedback? Being candid with such a person raises the worry that the information you share will ultimately be used against you; usually not the case but there are no guarantees.

All departments should develop a formal mentoring process from the day that the person starts through the time the person stands (hopefully) successfully for tenure.  The process should start with and focus on the chair but there also need to be alternatives that involve senior faculty members in the department collectively (with the chair) making sure every tenure track faculty member is continuously mentored and supported. 

Many chairs and many faculty will tell you that mentoring takes places so that there is no need for another formal policy.  It does take place but this safety net isn’t always in place across the board and consequently good tenure candidates could be lost in the process.  We can do a better job for these candidates which ultimately means we are doing a better job for the department school or university involved.  We are also then treating tenure candidates the way we would want to be treated.

Park is Not Neutral

Parking on a University campus is always a passionate issue.  In many cases, the issue is the number of spots; in other cases it is the quality of spots.  There is a magnetic attraction—for faculty, students, staff and administration—to a parking spot adjacent to the building that one will be in.  And there is a priority order in place at many colleges and universities regarding who can park where.  Often, even on campuses where there are enough spots, there is a broad base support for construction of a multi-story parking garage so that more people can park more closely to the center of a campus.  My feeling has always been that parking matters but that faculty lines, classrooms, labs, instructional equipment, data bases should be accorded a higher priority. In fair weather, there is broad acceptance of this order of priorities.

On some campuses (as is the case in some cities), there is a protocol to parking.  Certain spots are reserved for compact cars, or hybrid cars, and in certain lots you are told to always park nose in and occasionally, you are told to back into a spot and park nose out.  I am a nose out person whether it is required or not.  In fact, unless it is forbidden to park nose in, I will always park nose out.  I just think it is safer to back into a spot than it is to back out of a spot.  A number of years ago, in an earlier decade, a senior manager articulated his philosophy of parking at a meeting with all those individuals who reported directly to him.  If you park nose in, you are anxious to get to work; and if you park nose out you are anxious to go home.

To this day, I don’t know if the manager who made these comments was serious or was kidding.  However, I can tell you, I decided to conclude that the person was pulling our legs (or our tires).  For me to come to a different conclusion, would also have required a psychological judgment.  As an economist, I strive not to make judgments of that type.  The effect, however, of the parking pronouncement was stunning.  The next morning in the parking lot that I parked in, where previously about one-third of the cars had parked nose out, there was only one car parked nose out, and that was mine.  Unbelievable!

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been that surprised.  There is an important lesson for all of us in this true nose in/nose out story.  Senior management in education, in government, in industry, has very considerable power and influence.  The power to change parking direction is just one small example.  In exercising that power, we should always take the steps necessary to make sure we exercise our power and use our influence as wisely as possible.