Survey
NYS AAUP 2005-2006 Annual Faculty Survey Results
12% (101/874) of RIT Tenure Track Faculty participated (2/1/06)
Note: We are very pleased with the number and extent of the written reponses to the survey questions. We have chosen to not publish the specific written responses at RIT because we did not inform faculty before hand that we would and because so many of the responses, though anonymous, were detailed enough to put individual respondents at risk of being identified. The additional governance comments were felt to be generic and are included. RIT AAUP will follow up on the topics and issues mentioned in the survey. Thank you for your participation.
Question # 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Comments |
Question 1: Rate faculty participation in the following areas by selecting the most appropriate response. How appropriate and effective a voice does faculty have in the area of:
A. Faculty tenure, reappointment, promotion, and hiring.
(14%) 14-very good (61%) 60-good (17%) 17-bad (7%) 7-very bad [Total=98]
B. Faculty compensation, including merit raises.
(1%) 1-very good (20%) 20-good (55%) 54-bad (24%) 24-very bad [Total=99]
C. Institutional budget process, including internal allocations.
(2%) 2-very good (23%) 23-good (49%) 49-bad (25%) 25-very bad [Total=100]
D. Establishing, ending, and setting standards for academic programs.
(12%) 12-very good (48%) 48-good (29%) 29-bad (11%) 11-very bad [Total=100]
E. Grading of students and classroom standards.
(48%) 48-very good (41%) 41-good (9%) 9-bad (3%) 3-very bad [Total=101]
F. Student recruitment and admissions.
(6%) 6-very good (51%) 50-good (34%) 34-bad (8%) 8-very bad [Total=98]
Question 2: Is there a difference between governance in theory (as stated in statutes or by-laws) and governance as actually practiced by the administration at your institution?
(80%) 77-yes (18%) 19-no [Total=96]
If so, please give a few details:
- (59 details omitted)
Question 3. Rate the working relationship between administrators and faculty at your institution, on a scale from 1(warm and cooperative) to 4 (cold, closed, and suspicious).
(13%) 13-1 (30%) 30-2 (35%) 35-3 (22%) 22-4 (Total=100)
Feel free to give examples:
- (31 examples omitted)
4. If there have been specific cases of governance failure (where the lack of faculty participation led to bad decisions) in the current academic year, then please provide some details.
- (33 cases detailed but omitted)
5. Are annual upward appraisals conducted in your college for department chairs, and deans/directors?
53-yes 44-no
If so, are you satisfied that faculty concerns that are raised are appropriately addressed?
- (36 responses; 2 satisfied, 9 neutral, 25 not satisfied)
Additional Condition of Governance at RIT Comments:
- faculty appointments made by first in class are not consistent with academic needs of the departments involved. some FIC faculty have been appointed at full professor with tenure with almost no teaching experience.
- I think that relatively few faculty are interested in serving in 'political' roles on campus. This leaves us open for the kinds of abuses outlined in no. 4 above. It's our responsibility to achieve a balance of experience and freshness.
- All too frequently the administration attempts to solve a problem by apppointing another administrator or creating another administrative position. I feel that the administration is top heavy and also somewhat antagonistic toward the faculty senate. I am very anxious to see whether the ombudsman position will be approved by the president.
- Faculty has little voice in the governance of RIT, and the opportunity for input is diminishing
- It's a problem that some colleges do not seem to be able to elect strong senior faculty to the Academic Senate.
- We will not have a tru governance pricess at RIT unless and until the faculty has a governance group independant of administration and participates in the compensation process.
- When it comes to personnel matters governance is at its worst at RIT.
- There is a fundamental lack of respect of the faculty by the upper administration. The lip service is there but we really get no say in the real issues.
- Top down.....
- A lot of lip service with very little faculty influence in the governance
- We have very good policy and structures; our administration simply and boldly disregards them. The Academic Senate includes administration, and it has not sufficiently addressed any of the problems I explained. It is pitiful to see how tremendously fearful the tenure-track faculty is for its jobs.
- Faculty interest in participating in governance is the biggest issue. Until there is outrageous abuse, people sit back. By then it is too late. Therefore, the administration is not completely to blame for the conditions.
- When I first came to RIT in the late 1970's, one of the first professors that I met (an ardent AAUP participant) made this statement about governance at RIT: 'Governance at RIT is top down - all decisions come from the tower and are dropped on unsuspecting faculty. Faculty are like grasshoppers in a cow pasture with cow excrement falling on them from above. At RIT it is 'papa knows best.'
- I have wonderfull colleages at RIT, but the administration is so poorly conducted that I am looking to leave. The president has actually asked us to leave, when the presidents states (not exact quote) 'all faculty should be able to get a position at another university' I will take that as a directive from him, he certainly never states that he want's us to stay. This attitude prevails from president, provost, dean, and my department head.
- I'm concerned about an ideology of shared governance that is little more than free speech--allowing faculty to say what they want but retaining for the upper administration a strict monopoly on actual decision making. Shared governance should be shared decision making--with the understanding that necessarily the upper administration bears the ultimate responsibility.