Thread regarding DeVry Inc. layoffs

It’s good to see some straightforward comments here by our SSAs. I’d take the time to add even more examples of how these overhyped tools are a distraction from doing our jobs, but I’m too busy right now using IFF to send additional gratuitous, perfunctory “nudges” to each of my 100+ students, as if this activity really accomplishes anything beyond increasing my weekly IFF count on some manager’s tracking spreadsheet. Meanwhile, I’m not sure I remember what it is I’m supposed to be teaching.

Technology a distraction? A most resounding yes. As a former SSA we had access to everything student related through some online tool such as IFA, DSAMS, BANNER and several FA related systems, most of which told us who to focus our attention on, but didn't really solve the underlying problems such as under preparedness, lack of comprehension or making real connections. If someone is not attending due to a conflicting priority or distraction, no amount of technology solves that. When you have access to everything, there's a sense that you cannot do much without checking all of these systems first. I found I had the greatest impact where I had an actual in person conversation, sometimes through repeated phone conversations. Technology is a tool, but not the solution for learning and making meaningful connections. This drive to innovate teaching through technology is akin to what we see in the media where "the medium is the message" - the news is about the news, and here the mode of delivery becomes the subject of discussion, the end all and be all. True learning comes through meaningful interactions and activity.

maybe RP could come back along with his toys as Palmer Senior President now that the dream center is nosediving

1glv...sigh...that's pretty much Tim....He's the house hammer. Not much going on from the neck up...but if you need something flattened...he's your guy.

Thank you for sharing these details of your experience, and what you’ve related is consistent with what others have said. Having only taught as a DVU professor, it’s been useful to read these comments from colleagues across the country, both current and former. I know many DVU faculty colleagues and can honestly say there’s not a bad one in the bunch, all take pride in their teaching and genuinely care about their students’ prospects. This makes all the more troubling the meddlesome monitoring and mean-spirited micromanagement as we try to do our jobs with some integrity and grace. We’re all educated, self-motivated professionals but I no longer feel treated as such. I’ve seen how much good we’ve done over years for so many of our students who’ve been very successful, but it’s now a constant insult to toil in this environment. Just another example of how things change.

I now teach both online and on-site for a private liberal arts college. In both modalities, they cap courses at 20. The faculty fought for and won that cap. Faculty develop their own courses--nothing comes out of a can or is developed by a SME (and then everyone else must teach the shell, like it or not). The students are young, marginally better skilled, but not by much. I have a lot more authority over my class, syllabus, policies, and can stick to them. End-course evaluations are given, but the results are only inspected when there is egregious fault. My supervisor appreciates and supports my efforts. When students complain, she is a wise and sanguine arbiter. If I recommend something, she takes it forward enthusiastically. What a night and day difference!

From the most recent comments it appears that, depending upon your region and whom you report to, there are varying levels of management vigilance in tracking and enforcing the inane measures such as IFF tool usage by individual instructors. I’ve explained these metrics and policies to a couple of friends who are faculty at other “real” colleges and they’re shocked at what we’re tracked with and how our academics are centrally controlled through these misguided policies and tools deployed by CTE. These outside professors told me that at their universities such policy would incite a mutiny, and they’re surprised at how “scared” and timid we are in honestly conveying to management the right thing to do. As far as what comes out of the CTE, keep in mind that the interest of the CTE is preserving the CTE. From where I sit, that unit is mostly a hindrance to my teaching, with all of the myth they propagate regarding the value of IFF and similar initiatives. Remember how wonderful VoiceThread was? What a foolhardy tool and naively broadbrushed implementation! I wish CTE would just keep their focus on keeping the LMS infrastructure up and running, period, and let me teach. Meanwhile, like some of the earlier commenters, I also sense that management is deliberately setting us up for “IPP failure” to make it easier for them when the cuts come.

The nudge system was created by Burks. We were told at a meeting that Zorek keeps track of all nudges, and people who don't do it regularly are put on a list and reprimanded.

I think that the micromanaging pressure on adjuncts is vastly different than on full-timers. I have used IFF only rarely as an adjunct prof. and none of my three or so faculty chair ever got back to me for any "feedback" on my lack of following their insane IFF contact policies.

As one who did quit, I came to believe that no matter what I did (and my gifts and productivity were considerable), I could be fired over not achieving a 3.6 or higher. I taught "killer" courses, which students despised because they were so weakly skilled. I inflated grades to survive, but many students just failed out for not handing in any work. Even with 40 in a class, I gave personalized feedback, including an oral wrap-up commentary as well as a detailed rubric. I published. I attended conferences. I volunteered for everything. Yet, I felt in my IPPs that they searched hard and long for cracks--particularly in end-course evaluations where weak-minded punched back. I had been injured in my last session, but that mattered not. I was expected to perform injured or not. So, I quit. I have hard feelings about it. But, I am much better off without the inescapable unfair, unjust, inhumane practices...

Agreed, though many of us know that things were not always this way. We watched the organization devolve from what we were to what we now are, and there’s a whole separate discussion to be had regarding the missteps and missed opportunities that led us here, and how we probably could have better positioned ourselves within our niche so we would have been able to navigate the external pressures in higher ed in recent years. I think it’s too late for that. However, back to the earlier comment about FT faculty jumping ship, some of us are convinced this is now exactly what management WANTS us to do at this point, and that they’re purposely and incrementally stoking misery among our ranks to push many of us out on a “voluntary” basis. I’m no accountant, but I’d submit that by quitting we drastically reduce the organization’s costs and readily enable our replacement by cheaper adjuncts (though I mean no offense at all to our adjunct professors here, as I know that some of you are very good and have been quite loyal). To the point, it just seems that while they will never admit it, management really wants our FT faculty resignations, at least enough to winnow down the FT faculty to a minimum level required to keep at bay the accreditation and approval authorities. Managers will likely say we’re simply paranoid, but I’d welcome hearing informed faculty perspectives on this.

and all of this is the reason why the university will continue to lose good faculty, who'll jump ship, even at the risk of taking a post which pays far less, just for the ability to really teach...to really be the subject matter expert they worked so hard to become. It's also the reason why they'll never attract the top people in a given field, once they see what lies in store for them. I have to believe the people charged with enforcing this, some of whom have actually taught, don't look at themselves in the mirror and ask 'what have I done?'

And IFF specifically serves to conveniently track each faculty member on yet another imposed work task and accompanying “performance” metric, a weekly IFF usage count, that will provide management with an additional documented measure to ultimately justify letting go of faculty “for cause” and preclude any severance or unemployment payment. It’s yet another management tool in the ongoing war against FT faculty, though the official company line for IFF implementation is that it directly benefits students by increasing engagement (retaining each and every student). Our students are adults, yet we apparently are required to change their diapers, serve them warm milk, and tuck them in each night at bedtime as we send them each a pseudo-tailored IFF message either telling them how wonderful they are or “nudging” them to remember to do their coursework. Another indication of what we’ve become.

@xfi, IFF is Inspire For Faculty. It is basically a micromanagement tool for ensuring that faculty are needlessly harassing students as instructed.

I haven't been gone that long, but....I F what now? What is IFF? I know when I left, I was meeting with each online class for weekly webex lecture/discussion--all 1-3 who showed up. The technology was uneven--feedback routine. It wasn't very fulfilling. It seemed a yawn for students. Yet, I did it. Faithfully.

Of course you are not alone, and many of us FT faculty have discussed all of these issues among ourselves. It seems that what is obvious to those of us who teach DVU students each day is unfortunately not so evident to some of the managers who lack our direct perspective. When I hear about such centralized initiatives my sense is that, as with any organization under duress, desperate managers tout desperate silver-bullet measures, hence all of the inane hyperbole about these technologies and process “improvements.” I try to imagine the stress these managers are under as they strive to survive another day in their positions, and in a way I just pity some of them. Also, I’ve heard from several of our former faculty colleagues who’ve since left us to teach at traditional schools that along with their greater classroom autonomy their satisfaction has substantially increased. As for me personally, I’m just treading water and waiting to see what happens in the coming months, since I can’t see how we can continue status quo with all of our current campuses and staff. Adtalem is no longer backing us with its resources and the next “big reveal” under new ownership may make this discussion purely academic, pun intended. I’d be interested to hear other faculty perspectives, and while I would put forth some more thoughts it’s Week 3 and I need to send more IFF messages, get grading done, and produce more videos. It’s a good thing we all completed that CBC201 training, otherwise we’d be lost (sarcasm).