This is about the way universities frame the relations between the staff and the students. Edit: sorry for forgetting to cross this out, this article is more about the relations among the staff...
This is about the way universities frame the relations between the staff and the students. Edit: sorry for forgetting to cross this out, this article is more about the relations among the staff and how the institutions frame those. I haven't read the entire stuff when I wrote the above, striked-out sentence.
In posting this I also want to ask if we need a separate group for academia and education. This is related to professional life, so that's why I posted it here under ~life, but I'm not sure if this is really fit here or if general discussion about academic life is distinct enough to worth its separate group.
In the UK you either work at a 'we predate your government and will be here long after you're dust, go fuck yourself' university (you know the 2 I mean) or you work somewhere that is getting deep...
In the UK you either work at a 'we predate your government and will be here long after you're dust, go fuck yourself' university (you know the 2 I mean) or you work somewhere that is getting deep dicked by government on the regular.
Here in Australia we got it a little better by effectively saying 'research is all that matters' - it promotes certain forms of rapid output research over others, but end of the day you hit your research 5s and you're all set.
US seems a little different, in that the private ones actually seem freer - look at Olin, they do what they want and if you want to complain you can talk to the mirror. And do quite well for it.
And Cadadr -
"This training was not intended to enhance my interactions with students, but to better equip me to deal with my academic colleagues. I had walked into a very different environment."
The point of the article is that in certain institutions the way of 'breaking down the silos' was to make all departments form a service relationship with all the others. It doesn't work at ALL, but it makes some brain dead failed researchers turned policy makers feel like they're helping. Though again, the writer is NOT in an academic field, but rather is in professional services, which some unis treat like janitors.
I'm curious about the way in which that department is set up, and why they have a PhD "supporting academics to bid for research funding". Or rather, I'm curious about the nature of that support....
Exemplary
I'm curious about the way in which that department is set up, and why they have a PhD "supporting academics to bid for research funding". Or rather, I'm curious about the nature of that support. Are we talking about academic staff (like a crystallographer helping out chemists), or are we talking about grant prep support (i.e. financial) staff? Are they listed as a Co-PI on this funding or not?
The author complains that:
We had to think of our own bad experiences with customer service, for instance with employing plumbers, and then discussed what went wrong. We were taught how to deal with difficult academics, and told how to talk to them to ensure they "feel heard".
As part of my job I'm an academic personnel (i.e. tenured and tenure-track professors) manager, and this training sounds beneficial. Dealing with difficult academics is definitely a thing. And vice-versa; out of ~45 professors in the department I've even had to basically coerce some professors to take similar courses, and the staff manager has had to run staff through similar ones too.
Look, I'll say it plainly: unless the author's university is actually introducing some kind of dumb metric for these "customer" interactions, which I'm absolutely against... this is fuss without reason, and fuss I've heard before. My priority is making sure that when a professor and a staff person put their heads together the result is quick, high-quality, and leaves both sides happy. I want everyone's interactions to be on an equal and respectful playing field. And if this training gets everyone closer to a common vernacular, so much the better. There's no benefit to skipping training like the author describes, attending it (with pay!) doesn't hurt you, and vociferously denouncing it tells everyone else something about you. Everyone likes to think "I am perfectly amiable and the other people are the problem", but come on now.
In the author's specific case, I question why the university management is having a person with a PhD in the field do administrative work on grants. If they're a Co-PI that needs to be addressed, and if they're not a Co-PI then the nature of the "academic support" they're providing should be clarified.
As a side-rant, the problems are always staff that feels like they're above it, and professors that pine for "the good old days before localBureaucracy took over". It's very tiring. "Creeping bureaucracy" is professorial code for "I have to follow a university procedure, whereas before I just gave a nudge and a wink to some other senior professor that was chairing a committee". I wouldn't say a large portion of major universities are well-run, so I don't mean to defend administrations on a blanket level, but there's a well entrenched thread of old-boys-clubism that needs excision from academia.
This is about the way universities frame the relations between the staff and the students.Edit: sorry for forgetting to cross this out, this article is more about the relations among the staff and how the institutions frame those. I haven't read the entire stuff when I wrote the above, striked-out sentence.In posting this I also want to ask if we need a separate group for academia and education. This is related to professional life, so that's why I posted it here under ~life, but I'm not sure if this is really fit here or if general discussion about academic life is distinct enough to worth its separate group.
In the UK you either work at a 'we predate your government and will be here long after you're dust, go fuck yourself' university (you know the 2 I mean) or you work somewhere that is getting deep dicked by government on the regular.
Here in Australia we got it a little better by effectively saying 'research is all that matters' - it promotes certain forms of rapid output research over others, but end of the day you hit your research 5s and you're all set.
US seems a little different, in that the private ones actually seem freer - look at Olin, they do what they want and if you want to complain you can talk to the mirror. And do quite well for it.
And Cadadr -
The point of the article is that in certain institutions the way of 'breaking down the silos' was to make all departments form a service relationship with all the others. It doesn't work at ALL, but it makes some brain dead failed researchers turned policy makers feel like they're helping. Though again, the writer is NOT in an academic field, but rather is in professional services, which some unis treat like janitors.
I'm curious about the way in which that department is set up, and why they have a PhD "supporting academics to bid for research funding". Or rather, I'm curious about the nature of that support. Are we talking about academic staff (like a crystallographer helping out chemists), or are we talking about grant prep support (i.e. financial) staff? Are they listed as a Co-PI on this funding or not?
The author complains that:
As part of my job I'm an academic personnel (i.e. tenured and tenure-track professors) manager, and this training sounds beneficial. Dealing with difficult academics is definitely a thing. And vice-versa; out of ~45 professors in the department I've even had to basically coerce some professors to take similar courses, and the staff manager has had to run staff through similar ones too.
Look, I'll say it plainly: unless the author's university is actually introducing some kind of dumb metric for these "customer" interactions, which I'm absolutely against... this is fuss without reason, and fuss I've heard before. My priority is making sure that when a professor and a staff person put their heads together the result is quick, high-quality, and leaves both sides happy. I want everyone's interactions to be on an equal and respectful playing field. And if this training gets everyone closer to a common vernacular, so much the better. There's no benefit to skipping training like the author describes, attending it (with pay!) doesn't hurt you, and vociferously denouncing it tells everyone else something about you. Everyone likes to think "I am perfectly amiable and the other people are the problem", but come on now.
In the author's specific case, I question why the university management is having a person with a PhD in the field do administrative work on grants. If they're a Co-PI that needs to be addressed, and if they're not a Co-PI then the nature of the "academic support" they're providing should be clarified.
As a side-rant, the problems are always staff that feels like they're above it, and professors that pine for "the good old days before localBureaucracy took over". It's very tiring. "Creeping bureaucracy" is professorial code for "I have to follow a university procedure, whereas before I just gave a nudge and a wink to some other senior professor that was chairing a committee". I wouldn't say a large portion of major universities are well-run, so I don't mean to defend administrations on a blanket level, but there's a well entrenched thread of old-boys-clubism that needs excision from academia.