Comments on: Tulane http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/tulane/ falling indelibly into the past Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:52:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Liz http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/tulane/#comment-580 Liz Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:36:35 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=301#comment-580 <p>A couple that we’re friends with were both English professors in N.O.--he tenured at Xavier, she a year away from tenure at Dillard. Both have had their jobs cut from their respective institutions, and are now faced with the daunting prospect of trying to find a pair of jobs in one geographic location. :( </p> A couple that we’re friends with were both English professors in N.O.–he tenured at Xavier, she a year away from tenure at Dillard. Both have had their jobs cut from their respective institutions, and are now faced with the daunting prospect of trying to find a pair of jobs in one geographic location. :(

]]> By: KF http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/tulane/#comment-579 KF Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:39:24 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=301#comment-579 <p>Don’t get me wrong; I agree that decisions were probably (at least partly) made based on the relative strength of programs, because otherwise they’d never have cut engineering, at all.  Medicine, though, got cut because the teaching hospital got cut, and the teaching hospital got cut because they have no more patients.  Because no one lives there anymore.  So that’s a whole other issue. </p> <p> I also agree about the general overproduction of PhDs in the world, and agree that such overproduction is likely only to be curtailed by closing programs rather than scaling them back.  But I remain skeptical about the university’s overall motives in closing down programs right now, and particularly in its decisions about laying off academic faculty.  And I’m quite pessimistic about what this means for the long-term health of Tulane—because I don’t think that the cuts are going to stop there… </p> Don’t get me wrong; I agree that decisions were probably (at least partly) made based on the relative strength of programs, because otherwise they’d never have cut engineering, at all.  Medicine, though, got cut because the teaching hospital got cut, and the teaching hospital got cut because they have no more patients.  Because no one lives there anymore.  So that’s a whole other issue.

I also agree about the general overproduction of PhDs in the world, and agree that such overproduction is likely only to be curtailed by closing programs rather than scaling them back.  But I remain skeptical about the university’s overall motives in closing down programs right now, and particularly in its decisions about laying off academic faculty.  And I’m quite pessimistic about what this means for the long-term health of Tulane—because I don’t think that the cuts are going to stop there…

]]> By: Vito Prosciutto http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/tulane/#comment-578 Vito Prosciutto Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:20:24 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=301#comment-578 <p>I’m agreeing with Meg on this one. I think that cutting the PhD programs that they did will definitely strengthen both Tulane and (to a less measurable extent), the academic job market as a whole (since there will be fewer PhDs produced and some small number of teaching positions which will no longer be held by PhD students). </p> <p> On the other hand, to be laid off at that point in the academic career seems to be a rather devastating blow. It would seem awfully difficult to find a new full-time teaching position after being laid off at that point. I can’t even begin to imagine how I would react to that. Especially for those in disciplines which do not easily translate to non-academic positions. </p> <p> Flies eat live tigers. </p> I’m agreeing with Meg on this one. I think that cutting the PhD programs that they did will definitely strengthen both Tulane and (to a less measurable extent), the academic job market as a whole (since there will be fewer PhDs produced and some small number of teaching positions which will no longer be held by PhD students).

On the other hand, to be laid off at that point in the academic career seems to be a rather devastating blow. It would seem awfully difficult to find a new full-time teaching position after being laid off at that point. I can’t even begin to imagine how I would react to that. Especially for those in disciplines which do not easily translate to non-academic positions.

Flies eat live tigers.

]]> By: meg http://www.plannedobsolescence.net/tulane/#comment-577 meg Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:17:53 +0000 http://www.new.plannedobsolescence.net/?p=301#comment-577 <p>For once, I don’t share your pessimism (on the large scale).  I mean, look what’s getting axed, besides English, French, and historical preservation:  Many of the fields are and will remain going concerns (medicine, engineering, law, water management).  I have to take them at their word that these were weak (read: low pay-off) programs. </p> <p> Of course, I’ve only read the pap in the Chronicle. </p> <p> I will say this:  We need to cut back on the number of PhDs we’re producing, for the health of the discipline.  Cutting grad programs is an easier way of doing than persuading large schools not to rely on grad students for their teaching needs. </p> For once, I don’t share your pessimism (on the large scale).  I mean, look what’s getting axed, besides English, French, and historical preservation:  Many of the fields are and will remain going concerns (medicine, engineering, law, water management).  I have to take them at their word that these were weak (read: low pay-off) programs.

Of course, I’ve only read the pap in the Chronicle.

I will say this:  We need to cut back on the number of PhDs we’re producing, for the health of the discipline.  Cutting grad programs is an easier way of doing than persuading large schools not to rely on grad students for their teaching needs.

]]>