Dave's Policy 76 Video :: FAQ
This is a follow-up FAQ to my video: How to Fix Policy 76 in 19 minutes. It assumes you have watched that video and are familiar with my terminology.
- I do not represent any other organization (e.g., FAUW, Lecturer's Committee, etc.)
- I have attempted to provide a "holistic solution"... this is not a "bargaining position".
If you have questions not covered here, please email them to me at:
dtompkins @at@ uwaterloo.ca
Last Updated: 2022-08-10 at 11pm
General Meeting on August 12, 2022
Will you be available to answer questions at the general meeting?
- Sadly, no -- I will be at the YKF airport waiting for a flight.
What advice would you give to those attending the general meeting?
- Please do not be so divisive. We should all be on the same team.
- Even if we were knee-deep in mediation, there would still be time to withdraw our proposal and come up with a new one.
PPD Activities, PPD Terms and PTR
Note: Progression Through the Ranks (PTR) is also known as Promotion & Tenure (P&T)
The position of the Lecturers Committee is (paraphrasing): "If PTR requires PPD activities, PPD terms should be provided to reduce workloads and allow Professors T.S. to work on those activities". In other words: "the motivation for PPD terms is tied to the need for PPD activities, which are required for PTR". Does your proposal support that argument/rationale?
- No. That reasoning is problematic.
- By that logic, PPD terms should disappear once someone achieves rank of Full Professor, T.S. because PPD terms would no longer be required.
- Similarly, if an Associate Professor, T.S. does not intend to pursue Full Professor T.S., why should they receive PPD terms? There are many O.G. Professors that retire as Associate Professors after two or more decades, and that would likely occur with Associate Professors T.S. as well... what would have been the purpose of those ten or more PPD terms?
- Objectively, if O.G. Professors do not receive teaching reductions to prepare for PTR, it is unbalanced for Professors T.S. to receive reductions for that purpose.
- The argument presented in the video for balanced and fair "effective teaching loads" is a more objective rationale for NTT+Cs.
What would you propose to help new Assistant Professors T.S. prepare for their tenure/permanence?
- They should use their NTT terms wisely to help them prepare, but to repeat the above answer, that should not be the justification for NTT+Cs.
- For units that can afford them, I would encourage definite-term course reductions for new Assistant Professors T.S..
- For example, in Computer Science (and some other units), new Assistant O.G. Professors typically receive a -1 teaching reduction for their first three years. For units that have this reduction, a similar arrangement should be extended to new Assistant Professors T.S..
Would you get rid of all of the PPD language?
If you don't think the PPD language should exist, how would you propose PTR should work for a Professor T.S.?
- I'd just rely on Policy 77, in particular: "The expectations for the granting of tenure are: a record as a good teacher committed to academic and pedagogical excellence; [...] and a record of professional, university or community service."
- Section 3 goes into more detail.
- PTR should be based on workload. For example, if a Professor T.S. has a workload of 60/0/40, then their PTR should be based on 60% teaching and 40% service.
If you don't require PPD activities, what would a Professor T.S. do during a NTT+C?
- First, this seems like a loaded question that is asked surprisingly often. It makes Professors T.S. seem like directionless adolescents instead of professionals.
- Also, for some strange reason, this doesn't seem to be a problem at our peer Canadian institutions where summer (spring) teaching is quite rare.
- In general, they would:
- catch up on all the tasks that "slipped through the cracks" while they were teaching, and
- focus on new tasks and initiatives that they just don't have time to do (or time to do well) while they are teaching.
- Many of the PPD activities already mentioned in this blog post would occur and I would expand upon and publish this list.
- However, I would not publish the list as a requirement for what Professors T.S. need to do on NTT+Cs, but rather as inspiration for what they could be doing.
- Finally, just knowing that an NTT+C is upcoming can help remove tremendous burdens during teaching terms and allow for the postponement of many tasks, which can improve mental health and work-life balance.
I'm an 80/0/20 Lecturer with a teaching load of 5... are you proposing that my teaching load should go up because of your proposal [angry face]?
- I mentioned that differences between faculties and units currently exist and are inevitable, and so it is likely that some faculties/units will make adjustments to my proposal.
- However, any adjustments should endeavour to remain balanced.
- For example, to keep things balanced, the unadjusted teaching load for a Professor T.S. in unit X with an 80/0/20 workload should be twice (or at least close to twice) the unadjusted teaching load of an O.G. Professor in unit X with a 40/40/20 workload.
- Finally, as I said in the video, if you have a sweet "broken" Lecturer contract, then remain a Lecturer.
Are you proposing that the number of teaching tasks or the 10% teaching task rule be codified in Policy 76?
- No. I wanted to give concrete examples that I thought could work in practice.
Not all teaching tasks are created equal, and the teaching tasks currently assigned to Lecturers in my unit are more onerous than the teaching tasks assigned to O.G. Professors. Does your model take that into consideration?
- I 100% agree that not all teaching tasks (or "apples") are equivalent, and I could prattle on about this topic for quite a while.
- I would hope that units would endeavour to keep this in mind when establishing what would be fair and balanced.
- My recommendation is that the MOA should add a section with language similar to section 13.5.1 (b) that specifically requires units to have guidelines regarding how teaching tasks are defined. For example, there could be guidelines regarding large sections, multi-section courses, courses with extraordinary coordination, seminar courses, etc. (again, I could prattle on...)
Sabbaticals and NTT+Cs
In the video, you use the term "early Sabbatical"... did you mean "half-year sabbatical"?
If Professors T.S. are eligible for Sabbaticals, should O.G. Professors be eligible for NTT+Cs as well?
- Yes, I think that should be an option. I even had a slide on this, but it was trimmed out.
- My pitch is that all regular Professors should be able to use their service credit toward either NTT+Cs or Sabbaticals.
- An NTT+C might make sense for an O.G. Professor who doesn't have a sabbatical lined up, or they can't get a sabbatical approved, or their retirement date doesn't line up with a sabbatical, or...
- If this was adopted, NTT+Cs could be completely re-branded as "mini-sabbaticals" or "one term sabbaticals" (I would support that name change)
How would you summarize sabbaticals / NTT+Cs?
- Of course, this is a gross oversimplification:
|Description||Service Credit||Duration||Pay Rate||Service Expected?||Dean/Provost Approval?
|NTT+C||5||1 term (4 months)||100%||yes (**)||no
- (**) This would probably need some further discussion. In my original model, the expectation would be that service is still required, as it would be with a normal NTT (without credit) achieved by load redistribution. This further justifies the rationale for NTT+C terms being paid at 100%. The key counterargument is that NTT+Cs become a bit unbalanced for service-heavy positions.
Wouldn't your proposal require changing Policy 3 in addition to Policy 76?
- There are probably a few policies that will need to be tweaked with the introduction of new ranks.
What about Note 2 in Policy 3, that states that Lecturers that become O.G. Professors accumulate service credit at a reduced rate of 50%?
- That seems like a relic from ancient times and is clearly unbalanced.
- Regardless, my understanding is that switching from a Professor T.S. to an O.G. Professor will now be verboten, so it does not seem wise to have text clarifying that situation.
Are you suggesting that Professors T.S. cannot be excellent researchers and/or deserve low evaluation scores?
- Absolutely not. I admit that the tone in my video is a bit off, so I'll try to be clearer.
- Professors T.S. can be excellent researchers. Likewise, O.G. Professors can be excellent instructors.
- My understanding is that Lecturers with non-zero research components often receive low scores on their Annual Performance Reviews (APRs).
- I have been told this anecdotally on more than one occasion. It most recently came up during a conversation about why Lecturers that start out with non-zero research components often switch to have a zero research component.
- In addition, I got this impression from the 2021 Survey Report.
- Because of this, I felt it was probably prudent to warn potential Professors T.S. that this may occur.
- It might very well be the case that these low scores are the result of bias against Lecturers, or because it is hard to calibrate evaluations for lower research component percentages, but those are problems way beyond the scope of this document.
- However, it is important to point out that even in a fair comparison, the so-called "rock stars" have a disproportionate advantage because they have teaching reductions (from grants and research chairs) and a gaggle of postdocs and grad students supporting them.
You are proposing that the workloads between O.G. Professors and Professors T.S. should be balanced and fair. However, that only makes sense if salaries are balanced and fair as well. If salaries are unbalanced, then shouldn't the workloads be unbalanced accordingly?
- Salary discussions are complicated and involve concepts such as "market forces".
- Given the scope of my proposal I think it's best to focus on the egg, and then perhaps the chicken will come later.
What is the plural of "Professor, Teaching Stream"?
- That is a good f---ing question.
- I tried "Professors, Teaching Stream" and have used that above, but it's hella-awkward to say and I didn't realize it until I made this video.
- I personally prefer "Teaching Professor" or "Teaching Stream Professor"... it's much more consistent with the way that "Research Professor" is currently used for non-regular faculty.
How did you make the video?
- Nothing but PowerPoint, using
[File > Export > Create a Video]
- The breakthrough for me was to record each slide's audio separately
[Record > From Current Slide] so it's less hassle to do a retake or change the content on just one slide. It makes the audio a little choppier and some of the slides messy and full of animations, but it's a better work flow for me.