4 ms·

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 highes

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.

mturmon 14y ago
And, not just a cranky emeritus: "I was President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) for 11 years."
rayiner 14y ago
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.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  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.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    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.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      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.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        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.
        _delirium 14y ago
        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.
        rayiner 14y ago
        > 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.

mturmon 14y ago

And, not just a cranky emeritus: "I was President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) for 11 years."

rayiner 14y ago

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.

brown9-2 14y ago
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.
- rayiner 14y ago
  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.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    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.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      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.
      - _delirium 14y ago
        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.
        rayiner 14y ago
        > 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.