16 Responses to Provost announces TTF hiring plan

  1. honest Uncle Bernie says:

    “Data Science” and “Knight Campus” win big, looks like the existing sciences mostly get blanked out, i.e. positions don’t get filled, aka departmental decline.

    This is what happens when you have a real estate lawyer pres and a “stepping down” provost calling the shots.

    I hope the trustees are happy.

    • UO CC says:

      KC doesn’t win big. The gift alone supports 30+ new faculty.

      • honest Uncle Bernie says:

        The problem is Knight reportedly sucks tons of money money out of “other” UO fundraising. So yes, Knight wins big.

        • Anonymous says:

          UO is courting “one donor” to finance the rest of KC.

          KC received major gifts last year from two prominent donors totaling $20M. You can make the argument that this was a lost opportunity for ROC (Rest of Campus). However, there is no guarantee these donors would have contributed to ROC.

          I think more than anything ROC is jealous (or even envious) of KC. While in reality many of ROC’s programs are bloated, redundant and inefficient.

          • Dog says:

            anon says

            “While in reality many of ROC’s programs are bloated, redundant and inefficient.”

            reality is supported by daa

            where is the data proof that we do have bloated, redundant and inefficient programs …

        • UO CC says:

          UO is courting “one donor” to finance the rest of KC.

          KC received major gifts last year from two prominent donors totaling $20M. You can make the argument that this was a lost opportunity for ROC (Rest of Campus). However, there is no guarantee these donors would have contributed to ROC.

          I think more than anything ROC is jealous (or even envious) of KC. While in reality many of ROC’s programs are bloated, redundant and inefficient. Furthermore, they are a budgetary albatross.

      • Inquiring Minds says:

        Does the gift also support the staff (classified and OA) to support those faculty and the building? Assistants, managers, IT, facilities? Honest question does anyone know the answer?

        Also am I correct that the gift funds HALF the costs, they are still fundraising for the other half?

        • darby says:

          Inquiring Minds:

          I’m quite certain it does not. With the increased outsourcing of facilities work, IT work, etc, this is going to get really expensive.

          If you ask anyone in UO Admin (Including CFO) you can bet you will not get any kind of a real answer.

  2. Deplorable Duck says:

    That’s an amazingly solid list. Only one eye-roll from me, and I’m the sensitive type.

    In terms of chances for a UO resurgence, one couldn’t hope for better.

  3. Anas clypeata says:

    Are these in addition to existing positions that need to be refilled due to attrition? This list does not seem nearly long enough to account for retirements and other departures.

    Also, is there a Plan B for what happens if the proposed PERS changes are passed and there are mass retirements?

    • Dog says:

      Note

      demographically speaking

      I am not sure there are very many PERS Tier 1 left on campus
      so I don’t think the term “mass” applies.

      • New Year Cat says:

        I can think of seven staff in my dept alone who are Tier One and old enough to retire. In a smaller department all it might take would be one person leaving to be “mass” as far as the impact on co-workers goes, esp. as the chances of re-hires the next couple of years could be low.

        • darby says:

          There aren’t that many Tier 1 PERS *and* Tier 1 PERS folks are just a scapegoat for fiscal foolishness on behalf of the State of Oregon and the UO.

          But, if they keep saying it (and proving it by screaming about the top Tier 1 PERS recipients) people will believe it.

    • Nauseated says:

      Existing positions have already gone unfilled for years. Programs are being killed this way: no courses so enrollments fall, falling enrollments mean no need for a replacement. It’s a massive resource reallocation that will, and is intended to, result in unacknowledged program closure.

      That’s why I don’t agree with “UO CC,” above, that the ROC is jealous or envious–let alone a budgetary albatross. A research university is not supposed to have only self-sustaining units. (And if it did, the units that are self-sustaining might surprise you)

    • Peter Keyes says:

      Answering your two questions anecdotally:

      One month from now, our department (Architecture) will be down to 21 TTF – due to long-planned retirements and recent departures. That’s down six or seven TTF faculty from our normal complement of just a couple of years ago. Our last search was two years ago, and there is only one search scheduled for next year.

      We still have six Tier One TTF teaching full time – who would all have been seriously looking at immediate retirement if the Money Match gutting had been kept in the final version of SB 1049. That would have brought us down to 50% of our historic TTF complement.

      The IHP appears to be unconcerned with the staffing of required classes. Our professional accreditation standards (NAAB) lay out strict requirements for our curriculum. (BTW, we have around 500 undergraduate and masters students, almost all of whom take at least 130 credits in Architecture to get a professional degree.)

      • Dog says:

        I fully agree that the IHP is deeply flawed when it comes to having a priority for proper staffing to the classes that are taught. While I am all for data science, those hires don’t directly translate into new teaching resource.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.