Spring, 2002 Vol. XXX, No. 2

(Selected articles only)

VICE CHANCELLOR DAVID SPENCE

A brief summary of presentations given to Spring ACSUP meeting of Long Beach Chapter and to Fall State Conference

David Spence is Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the CSU. He spoke May 3 to a gathering of Long Beach chapter members and guests, and again to the fall conference of the Association in October. Paraphrased below are extracts from what he said in the spring meeting. Both meetings were at the Golden Sails Hotel and Restaurant in Long Beach. The tape of the fall conference cannot be located.

Dr. Spence started by saying that the CSU is the best of the institutions he has been with, and he has been with a lot of them. One of the things that makes it so distinctive is the faculty. What a lot of people don’t know is how hard the faculty work at scholarship and professional development.. We should find a way to let the public know. It is known how seriously we take our teaching responsibilities, but it is less well known that we have distinguished scholars. Some of you have been here for many years, and many of you are retired. We may call on you over the next year or so, because you have so much to contribute. As he goes around the state, Vice Chancellor Spence finds that more and more, the CSU is being talked about in the same breath as the UC. Legislators, superintendents and others respect what the CSU is doing.

Our economy is not in very good shape, particularly here in California. We could hope for some up and down, but it has gotten worse. A huge deficit in the state budget is expected. This will adversely affect us. We may have to cut our budget by 35, or by 5%. If it’s 5%, we will have to start talking about cutting down on part-time faculty, on classes, etc. One good thing about it is that we have such a low ratio of full time to part time, that we won’t need a hiring freeze. We’ve only just now recovered from the past economic crunch.

We’re beginning to talk about what we might have to do this year, but particularly next year. One thing is to look toward the 120 unit degree. Some students are graduating with 150, 160 units. To avoid this, better coordination and advising are needed. We get 12,000 new students a year. We will have to be more efficient in serving them. They need counseling on preparation in community colleges. The average student who transfer to us has as many as 85 lower division credits.

We may have to enlarge classes; we can do that if it’s managed well. We shot ourselves in the foot in the early 90's when we cut back so much on courses. We anticipate further growth in enrollment next year; we are asking for the money to fund it. We over enroll; that is, we admit students for whom we are not funded. We are going to ask the campuses to look into the management of enrollment. We might have to do it differently. If students want to come to the CSU, we must have room for them. We might have to call on retired faculty to help us for a year or two.

Those are some of the things we are going to have to consider. We have been working with the community colleges for several years on getting good transfer programs. Most of them don’t have a clear path to a baccalaureate degree. .Two thirds of our graduates have been transfer students; more than in any other state. We’re making good progress in discussions with the community colleges.

We will also have to make more uniform the requirements for a given major across the campuses of our system. When the student starts in a community college, it is not yet clear to him which CSU he will transfer to, or if he will transfer. We are trying to develop a common core of requirements. Some of you have asked where we are in pursuing the independent doctorate in Education. It will require legislation, and the prospects are not good, for the governor is apt to veto it. We are the only state system that doesn’t get more money for graduate education than for undergraduate work. Alarmed by the existence of a bill to allow us the doctorate, the UC has come to us to offer cooperation on joint doctorates. UC has agreed to fund these programs at their rates. While we get about $7,000 per student, they get $10,500.

Year round operation will help because some of our campuses are filled to capacity. It is a good bargain for the state to fund summer attendance, because it economizes on physical facilities and infrastructure. Last year the state funded 13 of our campuses for year round operation. Six more will be funded this year. Some, like Long Beach, don’t want state funded year round operation.

One issue is the length of time it takes to become a teacher. Year round classes might help there. We are working on other measures. For the first time last year, we surveyed the first year teachers we had trained. They were very positive on the education they had received in our colleges of Education. In the next two years we are planning to do a lot to improve the situation.

There is a lot more that I could say, but for now, thanks again for your concern.

FACULTY WORKLOAD REPORT, ‘01

CSU study team used 2,547 questionnaires from 21 campuses.

There is a CSU Faculty Workload Study Group, consisting of persons from the CSU Senate, the CFA, the CSU administration, and two consultants. They commissioned the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at CSU San Marcos to do the work. They formed a six person study team which administered a survey between April 3rd and July 3rd, 2001. The total returns included 1,655 from tenure faculty and 892 from lecturers. Tenure faculty returns varied from 19 at CSU Monterey Bay to 102 at Pomona. The questionnaire addressed types of activities, the time spent in each, and attitudes about activities and institutions.

African Americans and Latinos were over sampled; other groups proportionately. Tenure and lecturer faculty were treated the same.

Comparisons were made with a similar survey conducted in 1990. In 2001, about 50 hours worked per week were reported, up from 48 hours in 1990. The number satisfied with the scope and nature of their work was up from 1990. Time spent by lecturers on scholarly, creative activities, teaching, advising and administration was up from 1990. Lecturers reported more articles in journals and other publications than in 1990.

Over 50% of tenure track faculty had assigned time in 2001. Though they had fewer classes, teaching units and students, they served on more school and university committees than those without assigned time.

Over 85% of tenure track faculty attended professional meetings in 2001, 65% engaged in professional development and over 80% engaged in scholarly/creative activity in 2001. Costs of professional meetings were shared by the individual (43%), the university (43%) and external sources (14%). For professional development and scholarly/ creative activities, more of the costs were borne by individuals (58%). Full professors bore more of the costs than did those of lower rank

The average number of courses taught in spring, 2001 was 3.02, down from 3.20 in 1990 for semester campuses. For quarter campuses, it was 2.57 in 2001, up from 2.42 in 1990. The number of committee meeting hours per week was about 11 for semester campuses and 10.36 for quarter campuses in 2001; little changed from 1990. All of this applies, of course, to tenure track faculty.

Faculty with assigned time, whether it was internally or externally funded, spent more time with individualized instruction and thesis supervision. They also served on more committees. About 40% said that at least one of the committees dealt with governance (as opposed to curriculum or thesis). They also spent more time in electronic communication with students if they had assigned time.

The average number of office hours per week was about 5, up from 1990. Additional hours available to students were down from 1990, but electronic hour of contact were about 3 per week in 2001, making the total contact out of class at about 13, both in 1990 and 2001, though no electronic contact was reported in 1990. .

Over 60% of faculty believe that the university values teaching over scholarly activity, and service the least. Faculty themselves rate the three activities in the same order, with wider margins.

Most faculty (60%) said that their workload was heavier than their expectations when hired. About 40% said it was about the same; no one said that it was lower. 64% thought it was higher than for others in their discipline; 34% though it the same.

Responses from lecturers were tabulated separately. Their average age was 48.7, compared to 50.9 for tenure faculty. More lecturers were women (53%) than for tenure faculty (41%). This was not much changed from 1990. Eighteen hours a week were spent in teaching activities, 5.48 in scholarly /creative activities, a surprising 2.29 in advising students and 2 hours in service to the university. Most (53% to 69%) would prefer to do the same amount of teaching, advising students and service work. They would like to do more scholarly/creative work.

Most lecturers have day jobs. 32.5% are consultants, 38% are on faculties of other institutions, 11.5% are with foundations, 6.8% are in the private sector and 4.6% in government.

Professional activities do not differ much from those of tenure faculty. 57% attend professional meetings, 56% engage in professional development, and 48.5% are in scholarly/creative activities. Surprisingly, 8.25 hours per week were spent in contact with students outside of class, and 10 students were counseled per term.

Most lecturers had term-to term appointments, but 1/3 had contracts for one year. Only 15% had two or more years in their contracts.

Lecturers have attitudes toward the values of their contributions similar to those of the regular faculty. They think the university values teaching, scholarly/creative and service work in that order; they value them in the same order. Evaluations of their workloads differed somewhat from that of tenure faculty, however. Most felt that it was what they had expected. Compared to others in their discipline, 49% thought it the same and 31% higher. They feel that they are treated with respect, and that they are important to the department. This study shows that the work week for tenured/tenure track faculty is long and getting longer. However, it shows that lecturers spend more time with students than some have thought. Both groups express considerable satisfaction with their lot.