UO Senate to vote Wed on Canvas, new programs, Admin attempts to gut the Equal Pay Act and Clark Honors College, etc.

Update: Rumor has it that the EPA resolution will come up around 4:15.

3-5 PM Wed April 28th 2021, on Zoom here: https://uoregon.zoom.us/j/95815283199

  • Land Acknowledgment
  • Intro Remarks: Senate President Elliot Berkman and Senate Vice President Spike Gildea
  • ASUO updates; Ella Meloy

Approval of the Minutes

  • April 7, 2021

State of the University

  • Provost Patrick Phillips

New Business

Open Discussion

  • OICRC update; Nicole Commissiong

Adjournment

5:00 P.M.

Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to UO Senate to vote Wed on Canvas, new programs, Admin attempts to gut the Equal Pay Act and Clark Honors College, etc.

  1. Dog says:

    The response rate for the Student Experience Survey is a useful document and suggest people pay attention to the first figure

  2. Barely hanging on says:

    Response rates have been tiny and not useful! COVID and the scramble to online teaching is not an appropriate time to use to evaluate a new project like this, and shouldn’t be figured into the evaluation period. Instructors hanging by their toenails just to get their class administered are less likely to beg for feedback.
    At the same time, COVID aside, many people don’t like the survey. Regardless of intent, it seems long. It is nearly double the prior number of rating questions (13 instead of 7, 19 total). I got tired just looking at it. For a student in four classes, that’s 76 questions.

    • Note the **40%** drop in response rate when the university got rid of the small incentive of students getting their grades earlier by filling in the course evaluations — this is the blue shaded part in the figure, and is **pre-Covid**. This is a huge drop.

      I agree that the new survey is long and opaque. I’m glad we are trying to improve student evaluations, but I think this version should make way for the next iteration.

      • uomatters says:

        That is the goal – better, more useful feedback for us teachers – not higher response rates with zero or biased information as we got with numbers. I agree the SES is too long and we are looking at factor analysis of the corpus of responses to reduce the questions to their essential orthogonal dimensions. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      • uomatters says:

        That is the goal – better, more useful feedback for us teachers – not higher response rates with zero or biased information as we got with numbers. I agree the SES is too long and we are looking at factor analysis of the corpus of responses to reduce the questions to their essential orthogonal dimensions. Lather, rinse, repeat.

        • Lather and Rinse says:

          This tool seems to provide equally ambiguous information from a smaller set of students biased in ways that are more difficult to anticipate than the highly problematic “old” method. Factor analysis of a text corpus for any tool engaging performance evaluation is an awful idea.

          • Barely hanging on says:

            Fewer questions but more focus might be helpful to make it shorter and still useful. The seeming repetition of [‘support’ PLUS ‘feedback’ PLUS ‘communication’] and [‘active learning’ PLUS ‘student participation’] suggest room for condensing. On assignments/course material, there is just plain ‘assignments’ and then ‘quality’ ‘relevance’ ‘organization’ – would ‘quality’ suffice? And although important, ‘inclusiveness’ is a vague term – how do students or instructors interpret it? I can see this was designed from the point of view of social science/survey, but if it’s not working…..glad to hear there’s an effort to modify.

          • Cat says:

            This is exactly right. The incredibly low response rate generates its own kind of bias. Results from only the super-happy or super-frustrated are useless (e.g., when 1 student of 22 tells me everything is perfect, and the rest leave it empty). The whole point is to reach the ambivalent middle so as to determine how to improve their experience.

            Plainly the students themselves are just not invested in providing the level of feedback this iteration requires. It’s a bust and it’s time to admit it and fix it, instead of doubling down.

            I am especially worried that it will cause complications in the tenure/promotion process. Vulnerable people may have little way to prove that they succeeded in the classroom.

  3. offended says:

    What Patrick Phillips is doing to the Honors College is criminal. Whatever you may think about who should be teaching in the Honors College or how their jobs should be structured, you should be offended by the ignorance, foolishness, callousness, and mendacity of his approach. Phillips says he is having “discussions” with Honors College faculty. That’s not true. The current Honors College resident faculty got pink slips with no warning and a couple of weeks to change their career paths. Phillips is only meeting with them because they demanded it and because Melissa Graboyes wrote a letter that he could not ignore. He offered no meeting himself. Whether in or out of the Honors College, under this administration, no faculty line is safe.

    • Dog says:

      none of this is surprising at all; the second half of Schillips cares not a rat’s ass about the HC

    • uomatters says:

      “criminal” might be a tad strong.

      • This Is The Way says:

        Says the king of headline hyperbole….

      • honest Uncle Bernie says:

        “criminally stupid” perhaps? It always seemed to me that the HC, whatever one thought of its anomalous status, was a big draw for UO. It brought in a lot of the best students, and it showed even in the non-HC classes. A lot of the students with brains, and real intellectual spark, unlike the dreary common run of mediocre careerists and even the smarter grade grubbers. It helped add a touch of class, like at a real elite AAU place or top-notch liberal arts college. Not all of what there was at UO, and not all the HC students, but a lot. From what I hear, things declined a lot a few years ago, and now seem to be getting worse.

        • charlie says:

          The flagship claimed the nearly $6 million pilfered from the MKA bond fund was a “bookkeeping error.” Of course they want to terminate the HC, only imbeciles would believe such stupidity…

  4. Old Gray Mare says:

    offended, would you please clarify? Were HC faculty let go from University employment or were they told that they were being reassigned to departments?

  5. vhils says:

    And look who is doing the actual dirty work for the Provost…Carol Stabile, someone with a track record of bullying faculty all on her own. Coincidence?

  6. charlie says:

    OT, but I don’t know where else to post. Today’s Oregonian ran a story on the MKA bond deficit fund saga. Goes on to say that a certain Econ prof from the state flagship dropped the dime on the shenanigans. But, The Oregonian reports that the school didn’t have the bond documents available, so they didn’t know doing the transfer was illegal….

  7. prof from another school says:

    Can one request the UOM report on the outcome of the senate ESA vote/discussion? After all Bill is a major sponsor of the resolution. Some folks are interested, but dont have the time to watch the video.

    • uomatters says:

      The administration caved and agreed not to appeal to the SCOTUS. So it goes back for a jury trial, unless they settle.

  8. charlie says:

    Given the wrongful termination lawsuit ‘taint going admins way, Moody’s negative bond rating, Lane County an extreme risk almost until July, was the near $6 million “bookkeeping error” a looting of the Treasury before the hammer falls??

    • uomatters says:

      It was a very lucrative “error” – and a lucky one too. While I doubt the UO Foundation’s feckless CIO got the full 40% that the SP500 increased over this period, if he got even close he saved about $2M for Uncle Phil’s Legacy Fund – even after penalties.

      • charlie says:

        Now, that makes sense. Impossible to believe the flagship would mess with bondholders, the ‘grizzly bears’ of financial markets…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.