I have collaborators at UF. They are nervous. Not because they are not performing well (they are). They are nervous at the meddling and the eroding of academic freedom and the antagonistic attitude toward faculty. They are biologists, so not the typical target of political fights. I’m sure they’d be way more nervous if they were in the humanities or social sciences. Some of them are actively looking at other positions and will be taking their $$$ and expertise with them when they go.
One of my friends got fired from his UF position (pre-tenure) for lack of productivity. It was a totally fair decision and he’s in a position that is a better fit for him now. There were already means in place to get rid of underperforming faculty.
Some of the best students in my field used to flock to PhD programs and postdocs there. They are also either not applying to UF, or are accepting offers elsewhere. Will UF still get great trainees? Of course they will, but they won’t get all of them that would normally go there.
I’ve sat at conferences, within the last year, having conversations with fantastic scientists who were considering applying to jobs at UF. They all came to the decision to not apply there.
This latest thing is not going to help. Will the positions get filled? Of course. Will they get filled with the best candidates they could have attracted if had there been more support for the people actually doing the work? No.
Perhaps UF students, like at so many other schools, suffer from professors who put all their efforts into research and provide substandard teaching. Maybe the Trustees, and/or others, are finally listening to student and parent feedback and have decided to try and mitigate that sad reality. Faculties everywhere like to complain about lack of academic freedom and alleged antagonism. These claims are often emotional driven accusations that can rarely be supported by evidence. I don’t believe for a minute that faculty are having their academic freedom taken from them, unless they define that freedom by being given a mandate to force feed their political ideology on students, which I can assure you is a legitimate problem at UF, and most college campuses for that matter.
In the real world that is the private sector, an employee must continually create value for his employer or that person will be out of a job. There is no tenure in the private sector so hearing faculty complain about freedom and antagonism is comical. Being a tenured college professor with access to research funding is a pretty good gig. It’s great work, if you can get it, so faculty should probably accept that as fact and act accordingly . If they don’t like the way in which UF holds them accountable for creating value for the university, then they should absolutely go somewhere else. That’s my definition of academic freedom. I have no doubt that there are a lot of talented scientists out there who would welcome an opportunity to teach at UF and access the incredible facilities and funding to advance their research. They might even be great lecturers who will do their best to prepare the next generation of scientists. That missions seems to have gotten lost in the self importance of the faculty that is all too common on campuses these days.
Thank goodness. Finally, someone who can give an assurance that professors at UF are force feeding their political ideology on students. You made such a lengthy post that you have forgotten to provide the evidence that, I am sure, is the foundation of this assurance. I look forward to your follow up post providing this evidence.
Right…says the person who claims anyone disagreeing with him on education is guilty of an “anti-science, anti-reason, religious-based attack on education.” You provide an appropriate example for why conservative students are afraid to take issue with their professors in the marketplace of ideas, where opposing thought is always welcome and open to debate. LOL. I’m sure this problem is imagined on my end because of the balance of political ideologies among the faculty in the sociology, history, philosophy, English, journalism and ethnic studies departments. Maybe you’ve had better success than I have, or my gator, in finding conservative professors within these studies. When you live in an echo chamber of group think, the protruding nail always gets pounded down.
As one delves deeper into the issues for these topics than the typical “man on the street,” one does tend to end up agreeing with the evidence seen rather than theories that don’t show support IRL.
It’s no surprise that those with a deeper education tend to end up with similar thoughts and it’s not due to being brainwashed. It’s due to being exposed to real life, both now and historical.
Finance will have more conservative thinkers as long as you’re looking at financial topics. The jury is more out on that topic as to which policies work better.
In any event, the impending demographic reality of fewer college age students will contribute to fewer tenure track openings for newly-minted phd recipients. There doesn’t appear to be any data supporting an increase in faculty attrition or openings at UFlorida in any field, anecdotes aside. Top schools like Florida will continue to get far more qualified job applicants than openings, it appears.
College faculty are a stunningly homogeneous bunch, politically, I believe moreso than in any other industry. Many schools recognize this problem but few attempt to address it. Interestingly, well-educated professionals in law, business and medicine do not show this degree of homogeneous thought.
Same reason I posted above for the difference within the fields. It’s not that few colleges attempt to address it. It’s a bit more like finding the 1% of doctors who think that vaxxes are bad and putting them into medical teaching positions because the common man might think it’s an equally valid conclusion. (Then too, that 1% often isn’t an expert in vaccine related diseases even if they’re a doctor.)
When looking at factual evidence, some fields have competing theories and some quite honestly don’t.
You attribute scientific certainy to both fields and subjects in which there is no such certainty. Highly intelligent well educated people will disagree on many issues in politics, sociology, economics, philosophy. Except they do not among the subgroup of college faculty teaching in those areas in the US ( note that there is greater diversity of political opinion in those faculty who actually have expertise in scientific certainty, such as STEM subjects).
It’s not irrelevant at all. These were the fields being discussed in what I quoted:
sociology, history, philosophy, English, journalism and ethnic studies departments
Politics/Economics are not in there, nor would one expect to see them there.
I’m not putting scientific certainty into anything (laws of nature or physics, etc). Data doesn’t have to be scientific. Facts from history or policies that have worked/failed in the past are simply facts. What political parties take or ignore from those facts also are out there. It’s no surprise at all to most that the vast majority end up with similar conclusions.
In other fields (science or whatever), people can have higher priority on other political topics causing their “sides” to differ based upon their preferences.
ETA: Another comparison would be to wonder how many folks working with the athletic teams (coaches and more) would say sports is important in a youngster’s life. I bet all, or nearly all. Outside of athletics one would find more diversity in answers.
If that were true, one might expect all elite undergraduate history majors, for example, to have similar political views upon conclusion their studies, or years later. The fact that they do not indicates students can study facts and come to different conclusions. The bias in higher education hiring has been commented upon for many years, and candidly is a weakness in the academy, except for notable places like U Chicago which tries to address it.
“For a state that has a Sunshine Law and ‘talks’ about intellectual freedom, this says it all. This is about an anti-science, anti-reason, religious-based attack on education.”
You referenced an entire state, not an individual in your post. You and your goalposts appear to be flexible. I will note that this “individual” won 60% of the vote this year after winning his first election by just ~12,000 votes. I’d say there are a lot of people - a strong majority - who agree with the individual you are trying to demonize – and doing so without evidence.
Anyone claiming, or even suggesting, that political bias and the cancelling of opposing views by the left on college campuses isn’t rife serves as a fine example that denial is not only a river in Africa.
The state of Florida has Sunshine Laws requiring openness in government. DeSantis has pushed for secrecy in how University Presidents are selected (which goes against the Sunshine Laws). That was the context you didn’t understand in your (failed) attempt to make a point.
This thread is filled with examples of DeSantis forcing his political agenda into education, which in theory should upset you. Whether you choose to actually read this thread is up to you.
While this may be an example of DeSantis forcing his political agenda onto education, but reducing the openess of Presidential candidates and is not uncommon in education.
"Henry Stoever, president of the Association of Governing Boards, supports the bill.
“They need to attract the best talent,” Stoever said. “Having a requirement to disclose who is in that candidate pool will significantly reduce the quality of the talent pool that they are considering.”"
You’re making the assumption that tenured professors are “top professors”. While that may be true in some cases, it is not always the case. My experience is a tenured professor is like a union guy or an entrenched government civil servant. Can’t be fired, reduced productivity, higher cost…tenure needs to go away everywhere…