Washington Post: "Study: Public universities leaner now than in 2001"

"Public universities overall had 21.1 staff per 100 students in the 2009-10 academic year, compared with 22.9 staff in 2001-02, according to the report from State Higher Education Executive Officers.

Staffing declines seemed to be steepest among the roughly 100 schools in the Carnegie classification “research, high activity,” a group of schools smaller in research scale (if not in size) than the top research institutions. Schools in that group went from 45 staff per 100 students in 2001-02 to 40 staff in 2009-10. Staffing changes in other categories of schools, including the top research schools and non-research institutions, were comparatively smaller." Full article here.

Albert says: The reduction in staff appears insignificant, and I wonder how these numbers compare with higher ed in California. What about in community colleges? Does the ratio of 40 staff per 100 students seem appropriate to you?

For-profits -- Evil incarnate? Excellent opportunity?

Our Spring 2011 issue includes two articles on for-profits. 

From page 10:  "Newly-released internal training documents from several for-profit colleges illustrate a culture that encourages recruiters to increase enrollment by focusing on emotions such as “pain” and “fear” to attract low-income students who are struggling with adverse personal and financial circumstances." (Kirkham, Chris)

From page 11:  "we’re providing an estimated $26 billion in annual federal subsidies to the for-profit industry (Siegel) while our state institutions and community programs are facing hiring freezes and historically deep budget cuts. . . . For-profit colleges are often much more expensive than comparable public ones. According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, one for-profit institution charged over $14,000 for a certificate in massage therapy that a local community college offered for just $520 (Kutz 18). 

Then there’s the issue of how the cost is covered: for-profit colleges take a disproportionate share of federal education loans. Although only 12 percent of post-secondary students go to for-profit colleges, they account for 23 percent of federal loans (Ananthalakshmi, and Mandavia). And students at for-profit schools default on their loans twice as often as their public school counterparts (Kelly), leaving taxpayers with the bill." (Dehn, Jeremy)

Discussion?

Thank you for writing, and please write some more!

It's always wonderful to hear from friends who have read the Journal. Sometimes people don't even know that *I* am the brains behind it! But when you have such a formidable brain as mine (and when I'm not running calculations about mass and energy and the caloric content of cream cheese), you are bound to have an eggggsellent publication percolating.

Soooo, tell me here. What is working for you about the journal? What is not working for you? What would you like to know more about? What letter to the editor would you like to write right here?

Why not get writing? Please subscribe and follow us and all of that social media yada yada! Have you found us on Facebook yet? Please do! Have you found CPFA?

Even more important, have you JOINED CPFA? Remember, our journal helps educate legislators about the contingent faculty condition. Your dues and some advertisements are all that finance distribution from 45,000 to 55,000 readers. We must also somehow finance trips to Sacramento to lobby for your cause. Please help . . . join now!

Fond regards,
E.A.

What is our mission? And why isn't it in the Journal in black and white?

This question was asked by one individual recently at our 2011 conference at Sierra College. The implication seemed to be that the CCCJ must have a very narrow application, that it must continually speak about who and what CPFA is, and what we offer.

Let us address this head on. When we revised the name, appearance, and the content of the CPFA publication, we did so with a very careful plan.

We wanted to make sure that this publication was more widely read than by just our own part-time faculty colleagues. What is the purpose of preaching to the choir? Certainly, some members of this "choir" need to be educated, particularly the new members.

But if we are seeking change, we must also educate others outside this choir. We must educate administrators, legislators, and even full-time faculty. Therefore we must create a publication of interest to all of these potential readers, and yet one which will also educate about equity for all faculty and their students.

With this in mind, the articles provided must be so engaging that the publication will be picked up and read. The concept of equity must always be a theme, but not the only theme. If it is, the journal becomes too heavy-handed and the readership becomes more narrow . . . back to the choir again.

It is the view of the CCCJ Editorial Board that the new direction the journal has taken also demonstrates its "mission" without employing direct blows to the heads of individual readers. If we are wrong we will admit it, but the response so far has been overwhelmingly positive.

Except for that one individual.











CCCJ Editorial Board
Advocate*Educate*Legislate
(it's in our masthead!)