Dear Nelson, the category "service" is more or less systematically cutted down in several sub-categories. certain of them are very closely linked to advantages in carrier or salary, others no. This is the case, for instance, for colleagues who work for the organizational environment of a university or a department (the presidents, directors, members of this and that committee, and so on). Needless to say that this specific category of services is highly courted by more and more colleagues and that it becomes a real (symbolic, economic, ...) challenge in to-day's university life.

However, other service-categories are much less coveted because there importance are repeatedly preached but they are not really taken into account in the carrier of a colleague. This is the case of science journalism, LLL activities, science/culture dialogue activities, activities aiming at the valorisation of an academic heritage, and so on.

The French law, for instance, is very explicit with respect to the distribution of the duties of what is called here a "enseignant-chercheur" (a "teacher-researcher") but in the practice, it is unfortunately not really respected.

Dear Djamel, Thanks you for your input.

I mean the teachers one by one. Each category, ¨"research," "teaching," "service," is subdivided into other categories. For instance, under "research" there are books, chapters in others´ books, articles, reference book entrees, and book reviews. Under "teaching," there are courses taught, number of students in each, masters and doctoral advisees, and student ratings. Under "service" there are university-wide committees, departmental committees, professional meetings attended and papers given internationally and nationally, and administrative roles in the individual department. For each category there is a numerical value assigned. The professors with the highest sum of values receive greater salary raises.

Warm regards,

Nelson.

So there is no room for improvement? I suspect there must be.

Dear Nelson, the category "service" is more or less systematically cutted down in several sub-categories. certain of them are very closely linked to advantages in carrier or salary, others no. This is the case, for instance, for colleagues who work for the organizational environment of a university or a department (the presidents, directors, members of this and that committee, and so on). Needless to say that this specific category of services is highly courted by more and more colleagues and that it becomes a real (symbolic, economic, ...) challenge in to-day's university life.

However, other service-categories are much less coveted because there importance are repeatedly preached but they are not really taken into account in the carrier of a colleague. This is the case of science journalism, LLL activities, science/culture dialogue activities, activities aiming at the valorisation of an academic heritage, and so on.

The French law, for instance, is very explicit with respect to the distribution of the duties of what is called here a "enseignant-chercheur" (a "teacher-researcher") but in the practice, it is unfortunately not really respected.

Dear Peter, thank you for that illumining glimpse into French academics. Apparently the United States is not too distant from France in the so-called "service" category. Everything that you have said in your first two paragraphs applies to our system too. However, U. S. law excludes any regulation of academic duties. I suppose that this lack of regulation has to do with "academic freedom" (not that I ever felt free of university assignments to perform ¨service¨ even for which I did not volunteer).

Dear Nelson, many thanks for your answer. Personnally, I am not very convinced of those "regulations" in French academics. Indeed many colleagues believe that the "system" in the USA sems to be much more appropriate to the very specific status of a "teacher-researcher" ("chercheur-enseignant") ... Peter

The proof, Peter, lies in the quality of the research. Some of my colleagues in other universities teach 4 classes per semester. Naturally the quality of their research suffers. I started out with 3 fall semester and 3 spring semester, then was reduced to 2 and 2, and was then easily able to write the equivalent of a book each year. So it is difficult to generalize about the "system" in the USA, because of the wide variety of course- and service-assignments throughout the country.

I think it probebly that Most elite colleges and universities describe their admissions policies as "holistic," suggesting that they look at the totality of an applicant -- grades, test scores, essays, recommendations, activities and so forth.

But a new survey of admissions officials at the 75 most competitive colleges and universities (defined as those with the lowest admit rates) finds that there are distinct patterns, typically not known by applicants, that differentiate some holistic colleges from others. Most colleges focus entirely on academic qualifications first, and then consider other factors. But a minority of institutions focuses first on issues of "fit" between a college's needs and an applicant's needs.

This approach -- most common among liberal arts colleges and some of the most competitive private universities -- results in a focus on non-academic qualities of applicants, and tends to favor those who are members of minority groups underrepresented on campus and those who can afford to pay all costs of attending.

The research is by Rachel B. Rubin, a doctoral student in education at Harvard University. Her findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, which starts later this week.

Many studies of admissions decisions ask colleges and universities what qualities they value (almost always, grades in college preparatory courses rank first), and which they value the most. For colleges that admit large percentages of their students, or colleges that have precise formulas (promising admission to those with certain grades or test scores or class ranks), these questions reveal a great deal. But Rubin's focus is on the elite colleges that admit small percentages of their applicants and that generally say the vast majority of applicants are capable of succeeding academically.

So in a survey (answered by 63 of the 75 most competitive colleges, mostly private, with just a few public flagships) and in follow-up interviews, she focused on the winnowing process: How do colleges decide who gets further consideration for the coveted slots and who doesn't? To encourage frank answers, colleges were given anonymity.

Rubin found that all of these colleges that publicly describe their admissions systems in similar ways, stressing holistic review, actually aren't all the same after all. "Contrary to public opinion, selective institutions are highly systematic with regard to their admissions processes and practices within individual institutions," she writes. "However, there is a great deal of inconsistency across institutions, potentially creating the illusion that student selection is arbitrary."

Almost all of the colleges that provided information first do a winnowing of one of two sorts that yields the group that gets a more thorough review. The most common winnowing process (used by 76 percent of the colleges that answered Rubin) is some measure of academic merit. This may be based on grades, rigor of high school courses, test scores and so forth. While there is some difference in the relative weight given to various factors, there is a straightforward value on doing better than others in whatever formula the college uses.

A minority of elite colleges and universities (21 percent) starts off on measures of "institutional fit." These colleges do the initial cut based on student essays, recommendations and specific questions of whether particular students will thrive at and contribute to the college in various ways. In an interview, Rubin said she believed that these colleges also valued academic merit, but that the vast majority of applicants had an appropriate level of academic merit, so that could be weighed later, while other parts of "creating a class" needed to dominate at the point of first cut.

As a graduate of two of the so-called "most elite" universities, I have information, Mehdi, that the admission staff of one consults the admission staffs of the others. This consultation influences the selection process of the most promising candidates. I will bet that Rachel Rubin will say nothing about this winnowing down because admissions staffs like to keep it secret.

Dear María,

My wife was an adjunct professor at U. Conn. for 14 years, so we both know what you face (lack of benefits, etc.). We both know that adjuncts often publish more or better than tenured faculty. I congratulate you on your "Anales Cervantinos" as a Cervantes scholar myself (see my modest profile article on DQ). We both know the evils of tenure, particularly the inertia it fosters. As to your "black past," I assure you that if you were here in the Northeast, it would be counting all in your favor. ( On the other hand, why would anybody want to live in the Northeast with its incessant snowstorms?) Everything depends on geographical location as far as merit is concerned.

Maria, Plato called the philosopher a "hunter," and the same could be applied to an educator. I am so glad you took up the electronic pen in the name of adjunct faculty. It is a privilege to have this poorly treated but deserving group represented here in RG at last. Could you tell me what the Frida Kahlo Theatre does, who the actors are, which plays they put on. Is there a website?

Dear @Nelson, it's been a long time since we were in touch. Hope you are doing well with your family. Happy Holidays.

I think this story is good one." The data come from Academic Analytics, a company that measures scholarly productivity. It adds up professors’ journal articles, citations, books, research grants, and awards, and compares those numbers with national benchmarks. At the moment, the database includes more than 270,000 faculty members..."

http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Data-Measure-Faculty/234595