UVA Computer Science professor resigns over incompetence of board(gist.github.com)
gist.github.com
UVA Computer Science professor resigns over incompetence of board
https://gist.github.com/2955870
26 comments
A fundamental problem is that university boards have an increasing disconnect from anything to do with merit, and a close enough connect to donating money (in two ways) that it's pretty close to just buying a seat. They're mostly made up some mixture of: 1) large donors to the university, who're appointed to maintain good relations, encourage future donations, etc.; and 2) for public universities, large political donors, who're appointed by governors, sort of in the way that ambassadorships often go to big political donors.
It's admittedly long been common for particularly large donors to be flattered a bit with some role, but over the past 10-20 years this seems to have gone from being a few members of the board, to being almost all of them, with very few members appointed primarily because of non-donation-related merit, like someone thinking they're actually good candidates for overseeing an academic/research institution. Note the lack of accomplished scientists on the board, for example. In addition, the political appointees seem to have decreased in quality: it was once more common to appoint someone who, while they were from your own party, was a late-career "elder statesman" type figure, e.g. a former governor or Congressman.
It's sadly not a partisan issue, either: if you look at, say, the University of California Board of Regents, you have a nice bipartisan mixture of big Democratic donors (appointed by Democratic governors) and big Republican donors (appointed by Republican governors). Their expertise is... not too relevant seeming, including such credentials as "former CEO of Paramount Pictures" and "husband of Dianne Feinstein".
It's admittedly long been common for particularly large donors to be flattered a bit with some role, but over the past 10-20 years this seems to have gone from being a few members of the board, to being almost all of them, with very few members appointed primarily because of non-donation-related merit, like someone thinking they're actually good candidates for overseeing an academic/research institution. Note the lack of accomplished scientists on the board, for example. In addition, the political appointees seem to have decreased in quality: it was once more common to appoint someone who, while they were from your own party, was a late-career "elder statesman" type figure, e.g. a former governor or Congressman.
It's sadly not a partisan issue, either: if you look at, say, the University of California Board of Regents, you have a nice bipartisan mixture of big Democratic donors (appointed by Democratic governors) and big Republican donors (appointed by Republican governors). Their expertise is... not too relevant seeming, including such credentials as "former CEO of Paramount Pictures" and "husband of Dianne Feinstein".
I'll add that by all accounts she was beloved and was doing what was widely considered a great job. NOBODY was openly complaining, it was very sudden.
As a current student (undergraduate; CS/Math), and the son of two faculty members (Music/English) I'll agree with this. Every faculty member involved in some sort of administration that I know (both parents, multiple family friends, and people I have had courses for and work for) were in favor of Sullivan's proposed changes: anyone who has spent time around a University can imagine how hard it is to get that level of buy-in from the professors. (Hint: imagine herding irritable, opinionated, and very, very smart cats that are often impossible to fire. Then imagine that some of them have large bullhorns and are willing to write for Slate if they disagree with you, like Siva Vaidhyanathan here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_m...
Point being, it is hard to get consensus, and I might be understating that.)
The main objection that I and most people I've talked to have is that the BOV hasn't given a good reason for its actions. It may very well be that Sullivan deserved to be fired. It may very well be that there needed to be more drastic changes than she was willing to make (although for an appropriate idea of how hard drastic, top down change is at a top University, see my description of faculty consensus above). But without releasing any concrete reason, backed up by publicly available data, and by essentially saying "shut up and trust our judgment", they showed a fundamental disconnect between their idea of acceptable governance and the rest of the university's idea of acceptable governance. For the record, I think that if you look at them as the board of a corporation replacing a CEO, their actions are totally reasonable (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was, in part, how they viewed themselves; this doesn't really say much for their case, though, because that still shows a massive cultural disconnect between them and the university body).
The main objection that I and most people I've talked to have is that the BOV hasn't given a good reason for its actions. It may very well be that Sullivan deserved to be fired. It may very well be that there needed to be more drastic changes than she was willing to make (although for an appropriate idea of how hard drastic, top down change is at a top University, see my description of faculty consensus above). But without releasing any concrete reason, backed up by publicly available data, and by essentially saying "shut up and trust our judgment", they showed a fundamental disconnect between their idea of acceptable governance and the rest of the university's idea of acceptable governance. For the record, I think that if you look at them as the board of a corporation replacing a CEO, their actions are totally reasonable (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was, in part, how they viewed themselves; this doesn't really say much for their case, though, because that still shows a massive cultural disconnect between them and the university body).
Also alum, and I concur with your view. This is a high caliber guy who is resigning; he is (from his letter) married to a high caliber woman also on the faculty.
This is huge. This will cause a loss of confidence in UVA if they don't take effective action to recover.
This is huge. This will cause a loss of confidence in UVA if they don't take effective action to recover.
It was later revealed this was the result of a coup by a
bunch of Darden MBA's because they wanted "radical" change
to the future plans of the University, not incremental
change.
I'm not sure if it's the original source, but the reply-all mishap from the hedge-fund guy, re: "confidential project", is mentioned in this article: http://www.readthehook.com/104250/important-alums-did-they-t...
Perhaps this one?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_m...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_m...
Sounds like an american version of the novel Porterhouse Blue by Tom Sharpe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porterhouse_Blue
[deleted](2)
[deleted]
Additional backstory: the revolt of the faculty is due to the Board wanting to close marginal academic departments at the University.
Further backstory: the expenditures of the academic division at UVA have increased about 80% since 2001. Enrollment has only increased 9%. In-state tuition has increased about 275%.
I'm not a UVA alum, but I grew up in Virginia, so I care about what happens at UVA. UVA's faculty can wax philosophical all they want about academic freedom and the like, but at the end of the day the explosion in university expenses cannot be ignored. Expenditures on faculty salaries have risen 4-5% per year over the last decade even though enrollment has only grown 0.7% per year and salaries in other sectors have been stagnant.
It's insane that there are 3,300 faculty for a school that has only 21,000 FTE students. I'm a strong supporter of public education and public research, but facilitating this faculty growth at the expense of students is absolutely ridiculous and it's high-time the Board made some cuts.
Further backstory: the expenditures of the academic division at UVA have increased about 80% since 2001. Enrollment has only increased 9%. In-state tuition has increased about 275%.
I'm not a UVA alum, but I grew up in Virginia, so I care about what happens at UVA. UVA's faculty can wax philosophical all they want about academic freedom and the like, but at the end of the day the explosion in university expenses cannot be ignored. Expenditures on faculty salaries have risen 4-5% per year over the last decade even though enrollment has only grown 0.7% per year and salaries in other sectors have been stagnant.
It's insane that there are 3,300 faculty for a school that has only 21,000 FTE students. I'm a strong supporter of public education and public research, but facilitating this faculty growth at the expense of students is absolutely ridiculous and it's high-time the Board made some cuts.
I do not know the details, but it does seem incompetent to identify German (language of the most important economy in Europe) and the classics as marginal departments which must be eliminated in the name of economic efficiency.
A vendetta against the humanities perhaps, but economic efficiency? Neither are departments likely to have soaring costs: all you need is a classroom and professor. Lecturers in the classics will probably not even break 50k, while language classes are even cheaper since they're often offloaded to graduate students teaching from standard texts. As long as there are students opting to take those courses, they should be printing money for the university.
So unless there has been gross mismanagement of these departments for decades (aggressive hiring and declining enrollment), it is hard to believe that costs could get out of line. And closing down popular and should-be-profitable classes in order to funnel students to other departments in the name of economic efficiency is a very strange move.
A vendetta against the humanities perhaps, but economic efficiency? Neither are departments likely to have soaring costs: all you need is a classroom and professor. Lecturers in the classics will probably not even break 50k, while language classes are even cheaper since they're often offloaded to graduate students teaching from standard texts. As long as there are students opting to take those courses, they should be printing money for the university.
So unless there has been gross mismanagement of these departments for decades (aggressive hiring and declining enrollment), it is hard to believe that costs could get out of line. And closing down popular and should-be-profitable classes in order to funnel students to other departments in the name of economic efficiency is a very strange move.
Lots of people in Germany speak English.
English speakers learning German gain more from learning another language than the ability to speak the language to its native speakers. I know I've benefited from learning German. As my German teacher said, "I dare anyone to learn a language and not learn anything about its culture or history and more."
Eliminating teaching a language due to economic reasons is extremely shortsighted. What point is a school if it doesn't actually teach a fairly major language?
Eliminating teaching a language due to economic reasons is extremely shortsighted. What point is a school if it doesn't actually teach a fairly major language?
See, this is a great reason to discourage people from learning German - you don't even need to know the language of the people you are doing business with. To the chopping block!
Oh wait, no. There are lots of german speakers in the US, but when German companies do business here, they send people who can speak English. Many (most?) US companies send employees to do business in other countries who speak the local language. It doesn't have to be even a fluent level of speech, but the gesture is well received on all ends. It is a general courtesy to at least attempt to have people who speak the language, as it signals other cultural awarenesses and sensitivities.
Oh wait, no. There are lots of german speakers in the US, but when German companies do business here, they send people who can speak English. Many (most?) US companies send employees to do business in other countries who speak the local language. It doesn't have to be even a fluent level of speech, but the gesture is well received on all ends. It is a general courtesy to at least attempt to have people who speak the language, as it signals other cultural awarenesses and sensitivities.
So is it a university's job to teach "German for business"?
Suppose the CS dept just did Exchange-server admin 101 - people would complain that it wasn't the proper role of a research university.
It seems that closing marginal depts, rather than just milking them as cash cows is a noble strategy - whatever the rest of the UVa management's actions
And does a university need to teach every subject? Should UVa have (for example) an Oceanography dept? Is there much point in having a one person dept teaching Vulcanology when students would be better going somewhere else that specializes in it?
10 years ago the Netherlands started this process for their entire country. They picked the subjects that their universities did very well at and decided to close all the other research depts. There was no point in having the 100th ranked dept of tropical medicine when students could go somewhere else to learn that and you could use the money to support the worlds top dept in some other topic
Suppose the CS dept just did Exchange-server admin 101 - people would complain that it wasn't the proper role of a research university.
It seems that closing marginal depts, rather than just milking them as cash cows is a noble strategy - whatever the rest of the UVa management's actions
And does a university need to teach every subject? Should UVa have (for example) an Oceanography dept? Is there much point in having a one person dept teaching Vulcanology when students would be better going somewhere else that specializes in it?
10 years ago the Netherlands started this process for their entire country. They picked the subjects that their universities did very well at and decided to close all the other research depts. There was no point in having the 100th ranked dept of tropical medicine when students could go somewhere else to learn that and you could use the money to support the worlds top dept in some other topic
It is a University's job to educate students, and to expose them to many fields of study that will give them a grounding for later study and inquiry. Basic instruction in many different topics at least gives the students enough grounding to ask good questions.
Education in foreign languages has far reaching affects on many aspects of life and cognitive abilities - this is a documented fact. The analogy to Exchange is broken in many, many ways. Training on a product only brings some level of competency in that product, as soon as it end-of-lifes, the skill is useless. Learning a language opens many doors, and I don't really see German being end-of-lifed any time soon.
Perhaps every university doesn't need a research oceanography unit, but it sure would be nice if they provided at least a teaching unit or two on those. Or do we just tell the students that would like to know something about it, "screw you, enroll at these other universities too, if you want to learn the basics of that.". I understand that in the Netherlands, this may not be that difficult, it is a small country, but in many places, e.g. the US where UVA is, the college where they kept an oceanography program is probably sever hundred, or even thousands of kilometers away.
Finally, the basics of subject do not need leading experts to teach them well. For low level classes, most people capable of getting a Ph.D and an interest in teaching can cover the material quite well. In fact, there is a whole school of thought (with pretty good evidence) that suggests that experts can't teach novices a subject very well at all. (this is known as the tacit or expert knowledge problem).
Education in foreign languages has far reaching affects on many aspects of life and cognitive abilities - this is a documented fact. The analogy to Exchange is broken in many, many ways. Training on a product only brings some level of competency in that product, as soon as it end-of-lifes, the skill is useless. Learning a language opens many doors, and I don't really see German being end-of-lifed any time soon.
Perhaps every university doesn't need a research oceanography unit, but it sure would be nice if they provided at least a teaching unit or two on those. Or do we just tell the students that would like to know something about it, "screw you, enroll at these other universities too, if you want to learn the basics of that.". I understand that in the Netherlands, this may not be that difficult, it is a small country, but in many places, e.g. the US where UVA is, the college where they kept an oceanography program is probably sever hundred, or even thousands of kilometers away.
Finally, the basics of subject do not need leading experts to teach them well. For low level classes, most people capable of getting a Ph.D and an interest in teaching can cover the material quite well. In fact, there is a whole school of thought (with pretty good evidence) that suggests that experts can't teach novices a subject very well at all. (this is known as the tacit or expert knowledge problem).
There is teaching and training. If they have a German lit prof who has published nothing for years, has no research students, no enrollment and the justification for keeping them is "learning German is useful" - then it makes sense to close the dept, buy some language tapes for the library and pay some German grad students to help. Rather than fire 10% of the post-docs in semi-conductor physics because you are making "across the board' cuts.
In europe where every city has a university this is easier and going to a particular university because of a particular course is more common. There are probably only 4-6 veterinary/dentistry ugrad programs in a country and perhaps half the places will have a medical school.
It's different in the US with in-state tuition, but at some point it is cheaper for the state to just say we aren't teaching Oceanography at U of Iowa - here is a scholarship to UCSD to cover the difference in tuition.
In europe where every city has a university this is easier and going to a particular university because of a particular course is more common. There are probably only 4-6 veterinary/dentistry ugrad programs in a country and perhaps half the places will have a medical school.
It's different in the US with in-state tuition, but at some point it is cheaper for the state to just say we aren't teaching Oceanography at U of Iowa - here is a scholarship to UCSD to cover the difference in tuition.
You can't ask questions of tapes, nor can you ask for extra help from said tapes the same way you can with an actual teacher. A tape base program can't tell you when you are mispronouncing, nor can it detect the areas you are confused in. There are benefits from having someone knowledgable around to teach.
I haven't taken a language class in a decade but last time I was there there was a lot more than speaking going on in class. It's one thing to speak a language (Google translator has you covered), it's quite another thing to know what to say.
>In-state tuition has increased about 275%.
I was thinking about going to graduate school there in 2008, but somehow it was cheaper to take 3 classes remotely at out-of-state rates (at a higher-ranked school, mind you) than to drive 15 miles into town and take 1 class at UVa as an in-state student, so I decided against it.
Edited to add: I later moved to start a PhD program at the other school, stayed here and got a job, so UVa's high tuition indirectly removed me from the pool of people that would work and pay taxes in VA.
I was thinking about going to graduate school there in 2008, but somehow it was cheaper to take 3 classes remotely at out-of-state rates (at a higher-ranked school, mind you) than to drive 15 miles into town and take 1 class at UVa as an in-state student, so I decided against it.
Edited to add: I later moved to start a PhD program at the other school, stayed here and got a job, so UVa's high tuition indirectly removed me from the pool of people that would work and pay taxes in VA.
I don't think that's an entirely accurate backstory.
The facutly are in revolt because the Board fired the President without warning or stated cause. Eventually, the Board said the cause was that the President, who is in the process of making cuts, was not acting fast enough.
For the other stuff, to add to the budgetary woes, the amount of state money that the public universities in Virginia receive (not just UVA) has dropped significantly.
The facutly are in revolt because the Board fired the President without warning or stated cause. Eventually, the Board said the cause was that the President, who is in the process of making cuts, was not acting fast enough.
For the other stuff, to add to the budgetary woes, the amount of state money that the public universities in Virginia receive (not just UVA) has dropped significantly.
The state money argument is a bit of a canard. State funding has dropped $26 million since 2001. All of that since 2007 (i.e. the Great Recession). Expenses have increased $590m since 2001. As the rest of the economy was belt-tightening the last five years, expenditures on faculty salaries kept growing.
"the expenditures of the academic division at UVA have increased about 80% since 2001...In-state tuition has increased about 275%."
This says to me that some other source of funding (state subsidy?) has just about disappeared, is that right?
This says to me that some other source of funding (state subsidy?) has just about disappeared, is that right?
The idea that tuition increases are just to make up for deep cuts in state funding is mostly a myth. State funding was cut during the Great Recession, yes, but even if state subsidies had kept pace with enrollment growth and inflation, tuition would still have had to double.
The problem is that expenditure growth is outstripping all non-tuition sources of revenue. E.g. research grants, which account for 1/4 of the budget, have increased only 60%. Endowment income, of course, has not kept pace either given the state of the markets. The University has grown expenditures far faster than its growth in revenues, and has made up for the difference by tripling tuitions.
The problem is that expenditure growth is outstripping all non-tuition sources of revenue. E.g. research grants, which account for 1/4 of the budget, have increased only 60%. Endowment income, of course, has not kept pace either given the state of the markets. The University has grown expenditures far faster than its growth in revenues, and has made up for the difference by tripling tuitions.
Academics is only part of university budgets. Other principal costs include housing, tuition assistance, administration, buildings, grounds, support services, and athletics. Not exactly sure how UVA divvies things up.
It's usually the return on endowment investments.
Every time the market dips - universities go on a manic cost cutting exercise.
OK, what departments did she want to cut?
Honestly, I've never hard a harder time trying to figure out what an HN story was all about.
Honestly, I've never hard a harder time trying to figure out what an HN story was all about.
Certain programs in the classics and germanic studies.
That seems like more evidence of some kind of clumsy political agenda on the board's part, since there's no way actually looking at the budget could give you a picture where Classics and German studies, of all things, are responsible for unsustainable spending increases; they're among the cheapest programs to operate. I suspect it's just some hedge-fund types who don't like the humanities and are looking for excuses to gut them.
If the goal was really to keep costs in line, then the first thing to do would be to assess where the cost increases have come. Which programs have seen the biggest cost increases? And, in which of those are the cost increases worth the quality the program brings to the university? Rank the programs by both expense and quality, and cut the programs which have the highest expense relative to their quality.
If the goal was really to keep costs in line, then the first thing to do would be to assess where the cost increases have come. Which programs have seen the biggest cost increases? And, in which of those are the cost increases worth the quality the program brings to the university? Rank the programs by both expense and quality, and cut the programs which have the highest expense relative to their quality.
Are you basing this on an analysis of UVA's budget? Someone cited somewhere that the Germanic Studies department had like 15 professors. If they faced declining enrollments, they very well could be in a situation where the size of the department isn't justified by the number of students it is teaching.
The board, apparently spurred by professor Wulf, wanted deep cuts in spending. Sullivan, the president, was moving slowly to implement cuts so she was pushed out by the board. Now Wulf has quit as well, seemingly due to some sort of internal drama within the board due to widespread public condemnation of the ouster of Sullivan.
Sorry. Professor Wulf sided with the board's agenda? That wasn't apparent in his resignation letter. It seemed like his resignation was a response to the board's removal of Sullivan.
Wulf resigned in protest of the BoV's actions.
Right. It's not clear though that Prof. Wulf was pushing the BOV to make deep spending cuts.
He wasn't. He had nothing to do with this before the removal of Sullivan. He is retiring because he is upset the Board is trying to run UVA as a business rather than a university - different forms, different causes.
A different opinion from a UVA alum:
The "revolt" of the faculty is partially due to the Board wanting to close marginal academic departments because they can't pay for themselves, like Classics (which studies Greek and Latin texts from the founding of Western Civ.) I was not a Classics major and in fact never took a Classics class but many of my friends who are lawyers today were and universities want students like this. Everyone understands that cuts need to be made, but the board seems to fail to understand that making cuts at a university is different than cost-saving measures at a corporation.
Beyond this one issue, the faculty is also responding like this because the Board is acting silently, secretively and hastily in making decisions for the university with little to no participation from faculty or administrators, or even information being provided. At this point, after a week of intense scrutiny and questioning, still no one outside the Board knows exactly why President Sullivan was let go.
In 2003 UVA passed a milestone in that more money came from private donors than public funds. Today UVA's budget includes only 8% being covered by the state. The cuts from the state are very real and very keenly felt. UVA is on a tricky path to become a true hybrid private/public school and the questions facing the faculty and the Board are not whether this should happen, but how.
Furthermore, to rebut some of your points a) It's not insane to have 3300 faculty when many of those are working directly on research or employed at the medical center. (I believe this to be the case given that on average about 1000 faculty are employed through the medical center http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/data_catalog/institutional/...) b) The expenditures have increased in an attempt at keeping close with peer institutions for salary and other options. Realistically, despite these attempts the faculty at UVA could easily head to competitive private or public schools and make more money, and will probably be doing so in massive numbers over the next few years following this fiasco. c) I am not sure where you are basing your correlation that this faculty growth has happened at the expense of students. If it has been driven by the growth of costs at the Medical Center that is a source of income as well. If it's been driven by academic faculty then its either been funding research to increase the number of accolades achieved by our faculty (thereby increasing the ranking of the school) or it has been hiring more professors or paying teaching faculty more to keep them from leaving, which would seem to directly benefit students.
Beyond this one issue, the faculty is also responding like this because the Board is acting silently, secretively and hastily in making decisions for the university with little to no participation from faculty or administrators, or even information being provided. At this point, after a week of intense scrutiny and questioning, still no one outside the Board knows exactly why President Sullivan was let go.
In 2003 UVA passed a milestone in that more money came from private donors than public funds. Today UVA's budget includes only 8% being covered by the state. The cuts from the state are very real and very keenly felt. UVA is on a tricky path to become a true hybrid private/public school and the questions facing the faculty and the Board are not whether this should happen, but how.
Furthermore, to rebut some of your points a) It's not insane to have 3300 faculty when many of those are working directly on research or employed at the medical center. (I believe this to be the case given that on average about 1000 faculty are employed through the medical center http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/data_catalog/institutional/...) b) The expenditures have increased in an attempt at keeping close with peer institutions for salary and other options. Realistically, despite these attempts the faculty at UVA could easily head to competitive private or public schools and make more money, and will probably be doing so in massive numbers over the next few years following this fiasco. c) I am not sure where you are basing your correlation that this faculty growth has happened at the expense of students. If it has been driven by the growth of costs at the Medical Center that is a source of income as well. If it's been driven by academic faculty then its either been funding research to increase the number of accolades achieved by our faculty (thereby increasing the ranking of the school) or it has been hiring more professors or paying teaching faculty more to keep them from leaving, which would seem to directly benefit students.
What about the change in money brought in due to research done (aka the main revenue generator for academic institutions)?
Also, do you have a source for the 80% growth?
Also, do you have a source for the 80% growth?
UVA 2000-2001 budget: http://www.virginia.edu/budget/Docs/Budget%20Summaries/summa... (p. 4)
UVA 2011-2012 budget: http://www.virginia.edu/budget/Docs/Budget%20Summaries/2011-... (p. 1, 15)
Note that the 2000-2001 budget lists only the UVA academic division, while p. 1 of the 2011-2012 budget includes the UVA medical center. The academic division is broken down on p. 15 of that budget. Thus the pie charts on p. 1 of the first pdf correspond to the pie charts on p. 15 of the second.
At UVA, sponsored programs (i.e. research grants) make up only a quarter of the budget. Tuition and fees and state appropriations make up almost half. From 2001 to 2012, sponsored program revenues are up 60%, but not nearly enough to cover the 80% increase in expenditures. The other revenue sources haven't kept pace with spending growth either. Of the $590m in additional spending, $276m (or about half) has been supported by tuition increases.
Another way to look at it is that if spending had kept pace with inflation (2.5%) and enrollment growth (0.7%), tuition could have been easily held at 2001 levels. Or, alternatively, had tuition revenues increased to track inflation and enrollment growth, university expenditures could have increased a more modest 50% given the growth in other sources of funding, rather than 80% which was achieved by almost tripling tuition.
UVA 2011-2012 budget: http://www.virginia.edu/budget/Docs/Budget%20Summaries/2011-... (p. 1, 15)
Note that the 2000-2001 budget lists only the UVA academic division, while p. 1 of the 2011-2012 budget includes the UVA medical center. The academic division is broken down on p. 15 of that budget. Thus the pie charts on p. 1 of the first pdf correspond to the pie charts on p. 15 of the second.
At UVA, sponsored programs (i.e. research grants) make up only a quarter of the budget. Tuition and fees and state appropriations make up almost half. From 2001 to 2012, sponsored program revenues are up 60%, but not nearly enough to cover the 80% increase in expenditures. The other revenue sources haven't kept pace with spending growth either. Of the $590m in additional spending, $276m (or about half) has been supported by tuition increases.
Another way to look at it is that if spending had kept pace with inflation (2.5%) and enrollment growth (0.7%), tuition could have been easily held at 2001 levels. Or, alternatively, had tuition revenues increased to track inflation and enrollment growth, university expenditures could have increased a more modest 50% given the growth in other sources of funding, rather than 80% which was achieved by almost tripling tuition.
I'd be interested in what proportion of that is spent on education, because sponsored research is sort of its own (problematic) can of worms. When sponsored program revenues are up by 60%, for example, that almost requires that expenditures go up by 60-80%, because those programs generally come with quite strict conditions on spending the money expeditiously, and often specify exactly how to spend it (this is particularly common with DARPA grants, which are extremely front-loaded and micromanaged). In addition, these grants often come with some co-funding requirement on the part of the university, both explicitly and in terms of "upgrading facilities", though some of that is then taken back again by the university in overhead charges.
UVa, like most research universities, has been quite aggressive in trying to "encourage" faculty to get more grants. If that's successful, overall spending must of course increase proportionately, because the grant requires the recipient to ramp up hiring of program personnel. If that's not a goal, then the university should de-prioritize or even discourage grants, because they mandate spending increases.
A different angle would be to look at breakdowns by department. Which departments have gotten more expensive? My guess is that, as this is likely tied to grant-funded research, it's mostly STEM departments, not the "marginal" humanities.
UVa, like most research universities, has been quite aggressive in trying to "encourage" faculty to get more grants. If that's successful, overall spending must of course increase proportionately, because the grant requires the recipient to ramp up hiring of program personnel. If that's not a goal, then the university should de-prioritize or even discourage grants, because they mandate spending increases.
A different angle would be to look at breakdowns by department. Which departments have gotten more expensive? My guess is that, as this is likely tied to grant-funded research, it's mostly STEM departments, not the "marginal" humanities.
As I said, sponsored programs only make up a quarter of UVA's budget. It's not a heavy science/tech school where most faculty salaries are funded by research grants. A 60% increase in sponsored programs revenue would imply a 15% increase in overall expenditures.
Half the 80% increase in expenditures was funded by A tripling of tuition. This is not a situation where expenditure increases are being funded mostly by grants.
Half the 80% increase in expenditures was funded by A tripling of tuition. This is not a situation where expenditure increases are being funded mostly by grants.
Additional backstory for those not gleaning sufficient context from either the HN title or Bill Wulf's resignation letter (echoing another comment: more a resume than a list of wrongs).
From the Slate article below: On Thursday night, a hedge fund billionaire, self-styled intellectual, “radical moderate,” philanthropist, former Goldman Sachs partner, and general bon vivant named Peter Kiernan resigned abruptly from the foundation board of the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. He had embarrassed himself by writing an email claiming to have engineered the dismissal of the university president, Teresa Sullivan, ousted by a surprise vote a few days earlier.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_m...
From the Slate article below: On Thursday night, a hedge fund billionaire, self-styled intellectual, “radical moderate,” philanthropist, former Goldman Sachs partner, and general bon vivant named Peter Kiernan resigned abruptly from the foundation board of the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. He had embarrassed himself by writing an email claiming to have engineered the dismissal of the university president, Teresa Sullivan, ousted by a surprise vote a few days earlier.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_m...
"Sullivan is an esteemed sociologist who specialized in class dynamics and the role of debt"
Actually kind of a revealing sentence.
Actually kind of a revealing sentence.
Indeed. I may have to look her up.
The most interesting things I've seen written about debt in the past 20 years comes from an anthropologist, David Graeber. Debt, the first 5000 years. Insights I've never seen from an economist.
I'm curious as to what a sociologist has come up with.
The most interesting things I've seen written about debt in the past 20 years comes from an anthropologist, David Graeber. Debt, the first 5000 years. Insights I've never seen from an economist.
I'm curious as to what a sociologist has come up with.
What I've seen of Graeber's stuff is interesting. Economics is too important to be left to the economists.
But I've always regarded sociology as undisciplined and people studying it unrigorous. I haven't missed much by those rules of thumb.
A number of Sullivan's books were written with one Elizabeth Warren. When other academics tried to examine their data they came up short. Look her up if you like, but you're more likely to learn more elsewhere.
But I've always regarded sociology as undisciplined and people studying it unrigorous. I haven't missed much by those rules of thumb.
A number of Sullivan's books were written with one Elizabeth Warren. When other academics tried to examine their data they came up short. Look her up if you like, but you're more likely to learn more elsewhere.
I share some of your sentiments for the softer social sciences. I've also grown increasingly skeptical of significant portions of economics as well. Another author I've recently learned of, still need to start chewing into his work, is Jonathan Nitzan, whose Capital as Power is predicated on the notion that splitting Economics and Political Science apart was a mistake. I'd been leaning that way myself.
Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture notes that much recent copyright wrangling is really a return to feudalism. I've been suspecting that it's rather more than just copyright.
Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture notes that much recent copyright wrangling is really a return to feudalism. I've been suspecting that it's rather more than just copyright.
Apologies in advance for the off-topic comment. But in looking for more information on this story, I read http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/amid-uproar-uva-moves-replac... the Virginian Pilot. Which is not the item.
The item is: I have never in my life read such civilized and respectful comments from blog or newspaper readers who clearly disagree with each other on an important issue. My goodness! Is this a regular feature of Southern U.S. life?
The item is: I have never in my life read such civilized and respectful comments from blog or newspaper readers who clearly disagree with each other on an important issue. My goodness! Is this a regular feature of Southern U.S. life?
Virginia -- particularly Charlottesville and Richmond -- is not some Southern stereotype.
That being said, I think the people most interested in this news are those with vested interests in Virginia higher education -- alums, donors, etc. -- and that tends to raise the average level of discourse.
That being said, I think the people most interested in this news are those with vested interests in Virginia higher education -- alums, donors, etc. -- and that tends to raise the average level of discourse.
Most of the south isn't a southern stereotype. The DC metro is more like a new england city than either of the two you mentioned. This paper is based out of southeastern VA, in the VA Beach and Norfolk area.
Even the VA Beach and Norfolk area is significantly different than the average southern stereotype. It has a medley of cultures, mostly due to the massive military presence there.
That said, I'm surprised the comments are so cordial. I agree with the analysis that the fact that it's mostly UVa alums/students and interested parties commenting contributes to the higher level of discourse.
That said, I'm surprised the comments are so cordial. I agree with the analysis that the fact that it's mostly UVa alums/students and interested parties commenting contributes to the higher level of discourse.
I grew up in the DC area (Virginia side), and myself and others there never considred it "the South." I always thought of it as the dividing line between North and South. This always seemed natural to me, since Virginia seceded in the Civil War, and Maryland did not.
Dirty little secret time - me too. I have moved around a bunch since then, and thats the case at every major metro "in the south." Norfolk considers itself the dividing line with the "real" south (which obviously starts in North Carolina), and guess how people feel about Raleigh? Even by the time that you get to Charlotte or as far as Atlanta, there is a feeling among most people that one is outside of "the south."
Know what? They are.
I would encourage you to compare any east coast city against any other. Then I would encourage you to compare an underpopulated area in Maine against an underpopulated area in Tennessee.
Know what? They are.
I would encourage you to compare any east coast city against any other. Then I would encourage you to compare an underpopulated area in Maine against an underpopulated area in Tennessee.
I live in NY now, in Westchester. I know what you mean about the difference between small towns and major cities. But the small towns up here are still different from the small towns I know from Virginia. I lived in Williamsburg for three years, and Blacksburg for a total of eight and a half years. Both times, I did think of myself as living in the South.
The difference between the DC area and all of the other cities in the South is that the DC area was actually the dividing line between the Union and the Confederacy.
The difference between the DC area and all of the other cities in the South is that the DC area was actually the dividing line between the Union and the Confederacy.
NY is different from VA, that's true. But I think part of that is that you're never that far from a seriously major metro (even upstate). Have you been to Maine?
No, I haven't. But did you ever encounter people in Maine who felt kinship with the Confederacy?
Do you mean people who are overly zealous about the history of their state, people who are bigoted, or both? Because yes. Everywhere. Not just Maine.
Given the distant and not-so-distant history of the South, my personal experience is that attitudes are different there than elsewhere. But, of course, that's anecdote, not data.
The comments found in that post you linked to is indeed a "breath of fresh air" to read through in the sense that differentiating opinions can still hold respect one for another.
Thanks for sharing this. I found it very encouraging.
Thanks for sharing this. I found it very encouraging.
I grew up in Virginia Beach -- you won't find much in the way of overheated rhetoric in the public discourse.
Edit: Sorry, getting frustrated by the other comments about the south. It's nothing to do with your comment.
Beyond the politics (which the Board of Visitors appears to have handled distressingly badly), there's an interesting analogy to software design lurking in the story.
It seems like the philosophical conflict that drove Sullivan't dismissal maps cleanly to the two styles of programming that pg described in "Programming Bottom-Up":
"It's worth emphasizing that bottom-up design doesn't mean just writing the same program in a different order. When you work bottom-up, you usually end up with a different program. Instead of a single, monolithic program, you will get a larger language with more abstract operators, and a smaller program written in it. Instead of a lintel, you'll get an arch."
My reading of Dragas's and Sullivan's statements to the Board of Visitors is that Dragas wants the University designed as a lintel, and Sullivan as an arch.
Dragas argues that "the Board is the one entity that has a unique vantage point that enables us to oversee the big picture of those interactions, and how the leadership shapes the strategic trajectory of the University." [1] The changes Dragas seems to support (though it's hard to find a clear statement of them anywhere?) would be akin to a major rewrite from scratch. University design by lintel.
Sullivan conversely argues that, "[c]orporate-style, top-down leadership does not work in a great university." She seems to be arguing for incremental changes more akin to aggressive refactoring.
[1] http://cvillenews.com/2012/06/18/dragas-sullivan-statements/
It seems like the philosophical conflict that drove Sullivan't dismissal maps cleanly to the two styles of programming that pg described in "Programming Bottom-Up":
"It's worth emphasizing that bottom-up design doesn't mean just writing the same program in a different order. When you work bottom-up, you usually end up with a different program. Instead of a single, monolithic program, you will get a larger language with more abstract operators, and a smaller program written in it. Instead of a lintel, you'll get an arch."
My reading of Dragas's and Sullivan's statements to the Board of Visitors is that Dragas wants the University designed as a lintel, and Sullivan as an arch.
Dragas argues that "the Board is the one entity that has a unique vantage point that enables us to oversee the big picture of those interactions, and how the leadership shapes the strategic trajectory of the University." [1] The changes Dragas seems to support (though it's hard to find a clear statement of them anywhere?) would be akin to a major rewrite from scratch. University design by lintel.
Sullivan conversely argues that, "[c]orporate-style, top-down leadership does not work in a great university." She seems to be arguing for incremental changes more akin to aggressive refactoring.
[1] http://cvillenews.com/2012/06/18/dragas-sullivan-statements/
"More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason — including blind stupidity." — W.A. Wulf
As an alumnus of the University of Virginia in Computer Engineering, kudos Professor Wulf.
As an alumnus of the University of Virginia in Computer Engineering, kudos Professor Wulf.
Thank you.
You've just given me my #1 salvo against systemd :)
You've just given me my #1 salvo against systemd :)
Anybody else completely lost on this?
There's really no explanation in the link.
I read the whole thing and have no idea why he's resigning, or even who he is or why I should care.
"Being President was a full time job in DC..." made me chuckle, though.
There's really no explanation in the link.
I read the whole thing and have no idea why he's resigning, or even who he is or why I should care.
"Being President was a full time job in DC..." made me chuckle, though.
To be clear, this isn't some random professor:
My wife (Anita Jones) and I are in Computer Science and we both hold the title University Professor — the highest rank at UVa. Of the 3300 faculty at UVa, roughly 13 hold that title.
My wife (Anita Jones) and I are in Computer Science and we both hold the title University Professor — the highest rank at UVa. Of the 3300 faculty at UVa, roughly 13 hold that title.
And, not just a cranky emeritus:
"I was President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) for 11 years."
"I was President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) for 11 years."
He may be impressive, but he also sounds like an entitled baby boomer who thinks he should get more and more tuition dollars from young people in the name of "academic freedom." His resignation letter is devoid of even a sop to the budget crisis that has forced the Board to cut departments in lieu of raising tuition beyond the 275% the University has raised it in the last decade.
He may be impressive, but he also sounds like an entitled baby boomer who thinks he should get more and more tuition dollars from young people in the name of "academic freedom."
Source?
Sounds like his entire complaint is about the BOV. I don't see anything in the letter that would give you a different impression about the professor's complaint.
Source?
Sounds like his entire complaint is about the BOV. I don't see anything in the letter that would give you a different impression about the professor's complaint.
It's implicit in the context of the larger debate. The furor is in response to the board trying to cut departments, because UVA has increased expenditures by 80% in the last decade while tripling tuition.
It's easy to say that's not what it's about, but practically that what it's about. The university has been increasing faculty expenditures at 4-5% for years in the face of 0.7% increases in enrollment. The state has no more money. Faculty salary expenditures are the biggest line-item in the budget. If academic freedom is to be preserved by opposing the board's cuts, the practical consequence is continued rises in tuition.
It's easy to say that's not what it's about, but practically that what it's about. The university has been increasing faculty expenditures at 4-5% for years in the face of 0.7% increases in enrollment. The state has no more money. Faculty salary expenditures are the biggest line-item in the budget. If academic freedom is to be preserved by opposing the board's cuts, the practical consequence is continued rises in tuition.
But 4-5% increase in faculty expenditures since 2001 only produces a 60% increase. If the biggest line-item increased by 60%, why did the budget overall increase by 80%? Something else must be growing a lot faster than faculty expenditures!
And why does an 80% increase in expenditures necessarily lead to a tripling of tuition? Shouldn't tuition go up 80% as well? Unless some other source of funding has disappeared?
And why does an 80% increase in expenditures necessarily lead to a tripling of tuition? Shouldn't tuition go up 80% as well? Unless some other source of funding has disappeared?
Nope, the math here is a little different from that.
100 + 5% = 105 + 5% = 112.5 + 5% = 115.7625 + 5% ... = 179.5856326 - which is approximately an 80% increase over 12 years.
As for the tripling of tuition, let's assume that tuition accounted for 30% of the budget at the start of things above. Even if no other funding sources are decreased (which is not the case with public universities, but let's ignore that for now), increasing the cost of tuition by 79.58%, which is the same amount that the overall budget increased, gets us:
30 + 79.58% = 53.874
So if we still have 70% of the original budget covered, and we add it to our newly increased tuition cost, we get:
53.874 + 70 = 123.874
You can see that there's a bit of a deficit here.
All of that having been said, what is going on at UVa is pretty clearly messed up. Regardless of the changes that need to happen in the budget, which I think everyone can agree on, the BOG way overstepped here.
100 + 5% = 105 + 5% = 112.5 + 5% = 115.7625 + 5% ... = 179.5856326 - which is approximately an 80% increase over 12 years.
As for the tripling of tuition, let's assume that tuition accounted for 30% of the budget at the start of things above. Even if no other funding sources are decreased (which is not the case with public universities, but let's ignore that for now), increasing the cost of tuition by 79.58%, which is the same amount that the overall budget increased, gets us:
30 + 79.58% = 53.874
So if we still have 70% of the original budget covered, and we add it to our newly increased tuition cost, we get:
53.874 + 70 = 123.874
You can see that there's a bit of a deficit here.
All of that having been said, what is going on at UVa is pretty clearly messed up. Regardless of the changes that need to happen in the budget, which I think everyone can agree on, the BOG way overstepped here.
Perhaps he's among the people one might want to cut, then—highly paid scientists! Faculty salary increases are mainly going to the prominent STEM faculty, who typically make >$100k (sometimes >$150k recently), because otherwise you are not going to retain them in the face of competition from other universities and the private sector. So I guess the board should be happy about his departure, no? A decrease in payroll! Certainly some $65k philosophers who haven't gotten a raise since 2003 isn't where all the extra money is going.
If those faculty aren't bringing in increased grant funding to cover their salaries, then let them go. Grant funding made up only 1/4 of university revenue, and in the face of only a 60% increase as overall expenditures have grown 80%, has actually dropped from just over 1/4 in 2001 to significantly under 1/4 in 2012.
At the end of the day, the growth in expenses has not been funded by grants, etc. The biggest component of increased revenue has been tuition. A tripling of tuition is what has paid for the 4-5% annual increase in faculty salary expenditures. Opposing faculty cuts is a slap in the face to the students that now pay 1/3 of the university's operating expenses.
At the end of the day, the growth in expenses has not been funded by grants, etc. The biggest component of increased revenue has been tuition. A tripling of tuition is what has paid for the 4-5% annual increase in faculty salary expenditures. Opposing faculty cuts is a slap in the face to the students that now pay 1/3 of the university's operating expenses.
How about the significant decrease in per-student state funding?
In any case, I don't see anyone on either side in this standoff making that tough proposal. Instead, we have the (now-fired) incrementalist looking for across-the-board savings, and the apparently-incompetent Goldman Sachs schemers looking to cut the faculty who don't even account for the past decade's salary increases (humanities, etc.). If someone is actually in favor of making the tough call to fire the 6-figure STEM faculty, they should come out and say so, and lay out their proposal.
In any case, I don't see anyone on either side in this standoff making that tough proposal. Instead, we have the (now-fired) incrementalist looking for across-the-board savings, and the apparently-incompetent Goldman Sachs schemers looking to cut the faculty who don't even account for the past decade's salary increases (humanities, etc.). If someone is actually in favor of making the tough call to fire the 6-figure STEM faculty, they should come out and say so, and lay out their proposal.
> How about the significant decrease in per-student state funding?
One of my beefs with the "decreased state funding" argument is that it presupposes that state funding should keep up with dramatic expansions in University expenditures.
Now, to be fair, state funding has dropped from $166m in 2001 to $140m today. Had it kept pace with enrollment and inflation, it should be about $233m today. State funding keeping pace would have allowed tuition to merely double instead of triple as it has.
On the other hand, all of the cuts have been since 2007. I.e. the greatest recession since the 1930's. During this time, faculty salary expenditures have continued to grow. In an economic environment where nearly everyone's salaries have stagnated or been cut. What should have happened instead is layoffs and salary cuts, as happened in nearly every other field.
One of my beefs with the "decreased state funding" argument is that it presupposes that state funding should keep up with dramatic expansions in University expenditures.
Now, to be fair, state funding has dropped from $166m in 2001 to $140m today. Had it kept pace with enrollment and inflation, it should be about $233m today. State funding keeping pace would have allowed tuition to merely double instead of triple as it has.
On the other hand, all of the cuts have been since 2007. I.e. the greatest recession since the 1930's. During this time, faculty salary expenditures have continued to grow. In an economic environment where nearly everyone's salaries have stagnated or been cut. What should have happened instead is layoffs and salary cuts, as happened in nearly every other field.
[deleted]
The article in the Washington Post mentioned that the Board was unhappy that the ousted President wouldn't cut "obscure" programs like German and classics.
Guess who majored in that obscure field of study? Tim O'Reilly, and he talks about how studying Classics helped him decode trends in technology.
I'm an alum of the Engineering school, but I wouldn't have attended UVA were it not for the strength of some of these obscure programs. Monied interests are ruining this institution in the name of profit.
Guess who majored in that obscure field of study? Tim O'Reilly, and he talks about how studying Classics helped him decode trends in technology.
I'm an alum of the Engineering school, but I wouldn't have attended UVA were it not for the strength of some of these obscure programs. Monied interests are ruining this institution in the name of profit.
Reads more like a resume than reasons for leaving.
Well, it's both, I guess. He uses the extreme body of work to explain that he's got the experience and then some to tell them that this is a managerial and academic failure of nearly unprecedented proportions.
He's not some tenured professor sequestered in the bubble of academia.
He's not some tenured professor sequestered in the bubble of academia.
At a school that large they need to defend why their leaving matters.
It's an open letter: he want's others reading it to know who he is, and why his opinion should matter.
UVA = U.VA. = U. of VA. = the University of Virgina.
Um, thanks? They say UVa actually, but yeah I can see how not everyone would see UVA and know what it was.
I've always associated "uva" with the university of valladolid, spain (www.uva.es). It wasn't until I read this that the letter being in english finally made sense.
Or UvA. (University of Amsterdam, http://www.uva.nl/)
The capitalization is important; in "UVa", the lower-case "a" refers to the last letter in the word of the preceding capital letter (i.e. the "a" in Virginia).
Trivia: Mozilla prefer that you abbreviate Firefox "FFx", not "FF".
Trivia: Mozilla prefer that you abbreviate Firefox "FFx", not "FF".
And I though of this: http://uva.onlinejudge.org/
I think UVA as Universidad valladolid because i use their online judge.
The lack of "strategic dynamism" part is hilarious:
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-co...
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-co...
This article is the most unbiased I've read. As a UVA alum I tend to side with the BOV in this case. Virginia is a notoriously stingy state and it's inevitable that big changes have to be made to keep UVA competitive.
The current leader of any organization is rarely the best choice for making big changes. Unfortunately, it seems Sullivan was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. My guess is the BOV wanted to bring in a hatchet man to make some big cuts of entire departments as opposed to taking a shared sacrifice approach.
I can tell you from my experience in the corporate world "shared sacrifice" rarely works for big organizations facing significant budget cuts. It's usually best to ruthlessly triage the weak parts and leave the strong parts intact instead of trying to cut the strong and weak equally.
However, the BOV handled it poorly.
The current leader of any organization is rarely the best choice for making big changes. Unfortunately, it seems Sullivan was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. My guess is the BOV wanted to bring in a hatchet man to make some big cuts of entire departments as opposed to taking a shared sacrifice approach.
I can tell you from my experience in the corporate world "shared sacrifice" rarely works for big organizations facing significant budget cuts. It's usually best to ruthlessly triage the weak parts and leave the strong parts intact instead of trying to cut the strong and weak equally.
However, the BOV handled it poorly.
UVA is not the corporate world. If UVA wants to maintain its stature it can't be missing entire departments (of thought). You end up with a university that is less than the sum of its parts.
My (CLAS '99 graduate) problem with this is that UVA is known as a strong liberal arts research institution, and even if areas like German & Classics are money sinks, cutting them causes comprehensive reputation damage spanning the liberal arts. I attended engineering graduate school at NC State, which is 100% known for engineering & agriculture/textiles, and not at all for liberal arts. That isn't to say there may not be niches of expertise, but when marketing to prospective undergraduates who judge with a broad stroke and lots of ignorance (most have no idea what course of study they'll actually end up pursuing), it does mean they can stagnate and whither.
While the writer dismisses the term "strategic dynamism", he acknowledges the actual problem that the Board of Visitors tries to address: the imposed large budget cuts make it necessary that entire subjects/departments have to go, instead of small budget cuts across the board. Something that Sullivan apparently in the end wasn't able, or prepared, to do.
(Note: I know nothing about the case, really; I am just pointing out that I think you misunderstood the point of the article you linked.)
(Note: I know nothing about the case, really; I am just pointing out that I think you misunderstood the point of the article you linked.)
I thought that part was interesting as well, and it's a seriously hard problem. I am aware of one institution making that hard choice, though: the College of William and Mary. Sometime before I arrived there in 2003 for grad school, they had eliminated graduate departments that the school felt could not become top-ranked in their area.
Seems to me that a major state university should aim to provide its students with a broad range of fields. Not being able to study German at a public school seems absurd.
For background and context, please see http://leiterreports.typepad.com/
NEWSFLASH: the Vice-Rector has resigned. Let's hope that Rector Dragass [sic] resigns too.
NEWSFLASH: the Vice-Rector has resigned. Let's hope that Rector Dragass [sic] resigns too.
That's too much and not enough at the same time. We really need a decent summary.
You could start with this: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/06/coup-detat-at-...
Very sad to see. We need to save public higher education in this country, especially at the most elite institutions that actually have a chance to compete with the privates.
Bill Wulf who? I spent 5 years at UVA, graduating with honors and an MCS in 2005, but never had a single interaction with him. Ironically I did meet interim pres Carl Z at a breakfast for corporate recruiters last year and was impressed by his welcoming honesty. My anecdotes only reinforce what is obvious: Bill is a peripheral academic overdue for retirement, Carl Z was rightfully recognized, and UVA is in safe hands.
this is Bill Wulf, compiler hacker extraordinaire, designer of Bliss programming language and optimization pioneer.
One of my personal heroes.
One of my personal heroes.
Anyone have any sources for what the situation is?
Just Google it, this is a humongous deal in HooVille. I'll write a brief description above
Here's the local Charlottesville paper, usually breaks stories sooner than the national press
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/
By this email I am submitting my resignation, effective immediately. I do not wish to be associated with an institution being as badly run as the current UVa. A BOV that so poorly understands UVa, and academic culture more generally, is going to make a lot more dumb decisions, so the University is headed for disaster, and I don’t want to be any part of that. And, frankly, I think you should be ashamed to be party to this debacle!
Is this real? That's barely proper English, and certainly not something I would submit to an (interim) university President.
Is this real? That's barely proper English, and certainly not something I would submit to an (interim) university President.
I know this letter was written for a UVA audience but there is almost no actual rhetoric about why he believes the administration to be wrong. I understand the power of losing every title and honor on your own,..but why not put more Ome into drafting a concise and powerful argument?
I don't like the letter. He spent too much time talking about his "experience". Oh come on. It's like "dude I am a Nobel prize winner, and none of you have that title so I am right." I hate people giving that kind of resignation, regardless of their intentions.
I don't know the professor, but seems like he's sticking the school with a problem in the fall with his sudden resignation.
William Wulf is a seriously big deal in my book.
THAT IS HOW YOU DO IT LIKE A BOSS!
[deleted]
I guess being a women in Virgina is an endangered species. Seems all they're good for is government forced medical examinations.
Guess you get what you vote for in a guy like McDonald.
Guess you get what you vote for in a guy like McDonald.
The Rector of the Board of Visitors, Helen Dragas, is also a female.
Gender had nothing to do with this.
Gender had nothing to do with this.
Suddenly, last week she was forced to resign because of a "philosophical difference" with the Board of Visitors, a group that is appointed by the state of oversee University Affairs and top level hirings. It was later revealed this was the result of a coup by a bunch of Darden MBA's because they wanted "radical" change to the future plans of the University, not incremental change.
The students and faculty are outraged because this was done in secret behind closed doors, which is very much contrary to the way things are typically done at UVa (because of Jefferson's vision or whatever, I find a lot of the Jefferson talk to be crap but let's take it for what it is for now).
There have been protests, yada yada yada everybody is pissed and people are starting to quit.
This is a big damn deal that's only getting worse, and although I'm a UVa alum who for some reason doesn't really care, I suggest taking a look at this if you're interested in the bs that can go on at the ivory tower institutions