Link: http://UBdumb.com

So UB wants to swim in a bigger pond? Hey administration, why not put your money where your mouth is? The World University Rankings published by the Times Higher Education has UB off the list of top 200 schools worldwide. Why? Well, I’m sure there are lots of reasons, but the single biggest one seems to be that UB uses a different scorecard to rate academic quality. UB’s constant emphasis on external funding at the expense of academic and professional quality (pun intended, in case you missed it ) costs UB dearly (oops, two puns in the same sentence; how witty the Frog is today! ). With the Times Higher Education analysis only 5.25% of the overall ranking is based on research funding — often a necessary tool but never a valid measure of an institution’s or an individual’s impact in the larger scholarly community for obvious reasons. In contrast, 32.5% of the overall ranking comes for citation impact — as the man says, “the numbers don’t lie.” Citation impact is a widely used measure outside of UB, including ranking journals for their impact factor often proudly displayed by the top journals luring prospective authors to their pages. The idea behind counting citations instead of the number of papers published is intended to sort out the junk from the articles that have an important impact in their field: Sure, lots of people publish lots of papers, but does anybody actually read all that stuff? And more importantly, does anybody ‘talk’ about it in their own publications (e.g., cite other authors’ work)? That's what citation counts are all about -- they're about other people 'talking about' your work in the professional literature; that's scholarly impact that can be quantified!

Why so much emphasis on quantitative measures? Well, that should be rather obvious to those in the sciences -- quantitative measures minimize the subjective bias in the institutional rankings. Contributions in arts and humanities are unfortunately not measured fairly by these criteria (the criteria used by the Times Higher Education ratings were actually adjusted to place less emphasis on citations and more on "reputation" for these disciplines). But the over-all subjective ratings of reputations by academics also seem to follow the quantitative measures used by the Times Higher Education quite well.

Changing the 'Rules' to Fit the Desired Outcome

Shortly after the Frog moved to Buffalo in 1987, UB had climbed onto the U.S. News and World Reports list of top schools under President Sample’s leadership with a respectable ranking in the top 25% (actual ranking needs verification; check back later). Even the Buffalo News proudly reported UB's new found status among the ranks of the better schools nationwide. Under President Greiner’s tutelage UB slipped off the list again but it was “OK, those reports don’t count anyway.” When Provost Capaldi started getting things back on track in the 1990s UB once again rose up the ratings on the U.S. News and World Reports and, needless-to-say, those ratings were once again deemed important. (FYI: The U.S. News and World Reports ratings are often criticized as being a popularity contest because they are not based on clear objective criteria.)

The administration would like to claim that these types of rankings don’t really count and our ‘peer institutions’ would never rank in the top 200 university worldwide anyway. Wrong again, administration. A number of the institutions that UB claims to resemble are listed and ranked respectfully in the top 200 institutions. You’ll find not only the University of Michigan (#15) and University of Pennsylvania (#19) but also Michigan State (#122) and Pennsylvania State (#109) listed. And what about the other schools in the region from which we're trying to draw an additional 10,000 students? Well, Cornell (#14) which is a pleasant afternoon's drive to the East and Toronto (#17) just an hour's drive North are all top ranked universities. Even little Delaware (population: 885,122 and growing) which has about half the population of the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Region (population: 1,631,418 and declining) is able to support the University of Delaware adequately to make the list at #159. “Harvard” (#1) or “Berkeley (#8) of the East" simply doesn’t work; both of these schools rank very high on the list as expected. Not only are our athletics teams being beaten by “our peers,” but our ‘academic teams’ are as well. So where is all that New York State pride? Does anybody besides the Frog want to do something about it?

UB's Mistaken Emphasis on Grant Support as a Measure of Success

How did the money become primary objective of a university or the measure of a faculty member’s contribution to their ‘host’ institution? There are a lot of factors involved. One of the most important is that business types seem to have taken over governance of the academy. For them, it is understandably all about the money. But who put them in charge and what damage have they done to OUR institution? Money is important and it is necessary to keep the university running and running well. The Frog has no objection to money or to having rich benefactors supporting our institution, and he is proud of his colleagues who have been able to secure substantial funding for their research programs. Furthermore, businessmen can have an important place in guiding the university’s day-by-day operation and weighing in on the feasibility of our academic goals; they just never should have been put in charge of the institution and in setting institutional goals and directives.

Is it better to publish 5 papers per year that nobody reads or one paper every 5 years that people do read and talk about? The administration’s answer is a resounding 5 papers per year. They don’t even consider whether or not any of the papers has an impact in their respective fields! If the ‘bean counters’ in UB’s administration insist on playing it by the numbers, then they should at least know which ‘beans’ to count.

Everyone in the sciences understands the importance of money in conducting their work (with few exceptions where little or no money is required for theoretical or other types of scholarly work). And everyone who submits a grant or other request for external funding knows about indirect costs, but those who don’t write grants may miss one important feature of external funding – it provides the university administration with millions of dollars to spend on their special projects that otherwise would remain unfunded or at least under-funded. These special projects range from building our Center for Fine Arts (I like that, it’s cool, it presents a good ‘face’ to the public, and I’m very fond of the “arts.”) to on-campus student housing (a necessity for bringing in more out-of-town students) and on to building a third, downtown campus (a very questionable endeavor, at best).

The Frog’s last research grant paid 52% indirect costs to the university which gave them roughly an extra $150,000 each year the research program ran on campus. Approximately one-third of the total amount from each grant goes to the university administration ostensibly to support the research program but in actuality to do with as the administration pleases. The research program that was supposed to receive support from these indirect cost funds received no support (e.g., release teaching time, laboratory or office space) beyond that enjoyed by colleagues who had no external funding for their work! Instead much of the money was used for special projects. For example, the President’s office contacted the Frog to see if his sponsor would like to receive recognition on the ‘wall of sponsors’ next to the entrance of the Center for Fine Arts. The Frog’s reply was that his “sponsor didn’t know they made a contribution to that building fund, but that they would probably not mind being acknowledged.” The acknowledgment never appeared; somebody in the President’s office must have explained to the person who contacted the Frog that they weren’t supposed to admit that any of this money was used on that project.

[Dear administration: if you would like to challenge this assertion, I’ll be happy to go over the books with you nickel-by-nickel starting with the residual funds from my direct-costs account when it closed that should have been returned to the sponsor. And if you want to start at the beginning, I’ll be happy to review my state-supplied set-up money account from which $500 [$1,000 in today’s currency] was spent by the Dean’s office to fly in a job candidate’s wife. Coincidentally, that ‘job candidate’ is today a UB administrator and his wife is employed by the University (a seemingly good expenditure but from the wrong account). You left a paper trail, and I have retained many of the scraps of paper myself.]

The University receives, through “indirect cost reimbursement,” millions of dollar each year that are necessary to keep the place running. Much of this money is used for expenses related to conducting research (e.g., physical space costs, library subscriptions, parking lot maintenance), but much of the money is filtered into accounts that are used solely at the discretion of the administration. Some of these ‘other projects’ are indeed great projects that we should all be proud to have contributed to in our small ways; some are not. But the bottom line is that the university needs this extra source of income to function and especially to grow. However, it has never been the mission of university faculty to feed the giant monster’s hunger – at least not until now.

There is a certain irony in the fact that library budgets are being cut and programs are being closed at a time when UB’s research funding is at its highest. The blame is placed on New York State cutting back support but wait, there is a problem with the accounting. The indirect costs from the external research programs are supposed to be used to support library budgets and secondarily to help smaller, under-funded programs that contribute to the overall academic quality and resources of this institution. So why are library budgets being squeezed? What about the football team’s budget? Are the funds being reallocated to support expansion to a third, downtown campus? That wasn’t in anybody’s “research” budget, direct or indirect costs.

The University needs its ‘fix’ of research money to build and to expand -- nothing wrong with that, except when acquiring the money off the back of its faculty researchers becomes the primary mission of the institution. UB’s administration has become too concerned with their special projects and too little concerned with performing the basic mission of an institution of higher learning. Yes, many research programs require external funding which generates indirect costs for the institution, but the volume of grant support was never considered by anyone other than administrators to be a metric of a faculty member’s productivity or (academic) ‘worth.’

Nobody except a businessman would ever think that money is a measure of success at an institution of higher learning or that the impact of a faculty member’s contribution to his ‘home’ university is measured in dollars and cents. Citation counts are not the best measure, but they’re the best single measure of the impact we faculty have beyond the confines of our physical borders. This is part of the mission of a research-intensive university – to ‘spread’ knowledge but acquiring ‘wealth’ for the administrators is not. Indeed, the impact we have in our respective fields will be there a long time after the money has been spent.

The UB Spin Machine

UB counts what they want to ‘count’ to present the best case for whatever they’re trying to sell. Consider, for another example, the listings for external grant support. There are a lot of multi-institutional grants listed in full-dollar amounts as ‘UB grants’ when in fact very little of that money actually shows up on any UB campus (e.g., co-P.I.’s with clinical trials being run in other cities through other collaborating universities). A lot of other "grants" are noncompetitive state grants that outside the region receiving them are referred to as "pork barrel" funding. In the Frog's short hand communication style this is simply “cooking the books” and UB does a lot of this. Like administrative salaries, you have to have inside information or know how to read the ‘signs’ to really see what’s going on in many cases.

Naturally the administration will be quick to criticize these rankings which fail to emphasize their favorite metric of funding level, arguing that they don't really reflect quality of scholarly work or an institution's real reputation. Unfortunately for that argument the rankings are pretty much what most academics might expect, except for the "academics" in UB's administrative tower who will keep chanting the administration's rhetoric! Being positive about ones university is one thing but being delusional is quite another.

With UB's guiding Council composed of businessmen and lawyers, what else would you expect? The UB Council doesn't have a single Ph.D. amongst them and unlike most governing bodies at academic institutions it doesn't have any faculty representation. So perhaps the mistaken emphasis on grant support as a measure of success isn't their fault; perhaps all they need is a little 'education' themselves -- perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps it's the obligation of concerned faculty to remind them of what an academic institution, "research-intensive" or otherwise, is all about. Perhaps if more of them had gone to graduate school they would already understand. (BTW: Ironically the students have an elected representative on the UB Council. Perhaps the faculty could ask the student representative to speak on their behalf.)

Where to we go from here?

Is acknowledging UB’s low ranking degrading the University? From the Frog’s perspective, absolutely not. It’s recognizing that we have a long way to go in order to reach the reputation that UB’s administration purports to desire and that many faculty members and even some departments here deserve. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen by spinning the data and trying to sell a load of Buffalo ‘bull’ to the local community or even to Albany. It simply doesn’t ‘play’ outside of Western New York.

If you find all of the quantitative measures used by the Times Higher Education analysis confusing here's a simple experiment (a type of reality testing) you can perform without any training in the socio-metrics of academic quality. Start driving out of town and stop every 50 miles and ask a random person what they think of UB. Find out how far out of Buffalo you drive before nobody's heard of it. Of course when you reach California people will again have heard of UB, but this time it's because of the University's financial contributions to helping that state out of their economic slump.

The University administration needs to quit ‘cooking the books’ and lying to the public about where we rank; it’s professionally embarrassing to those that see through the ‘smoke and mirrors’ and have a professional presence outside of Western New York. UB as "the Berkeley of the East" is a fantasy that isn't going to materialize any time soon and will never happen with UB's current money-driven Capen-Hall directives. The administration needs to truly understand that UB has some great faculty members and many that aspire to help put UB on the big map, but they need to quit trying to MANAGE the talent and start supporting it. They have to quit killing the goose that laid the golden egg and let things evolve in a supportive, nurturing environment, and that's something that businessman-turned-university-administrators simply don't understand.

The most recent doctoral program ratings by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences ranks about one-third of UB’s 34 rated doctoral programs in the bottom half of the country’s programs. In fact, only 10% make the top quartile of doctoral programs in the United States by both rating scales used with the NRC evaluations. “Berkeley of the East?” I suppose if the administration chants this enough times some people may start believing it, but it doesn't 'play well' outside the area. (BTW: The “Frog” did his part by participating in the NRC evaluations as surely did many of his colleagues at UB.)

"Satish Tripathi, PhD, UB provost, said he was pleased with UB's overall performance in the NRC report. (UB News Release, 29 September 2010)"

The UB administration has essentially turned this place into a mercenary corporate environment -- money, money, money, money. Every department and every project seems to be framed in terms of how much money it will generate. This is certainly not the intellectual environment that will attract the kind of scholars that build an institution's reputation favorably. Ironically, it's also not the type of environment that could attract an additional 10,000 quality students that would help subsidize some of the scholarly work at UB that ultimately builds its reputation. Corporate management style in academia simply doesn't work because it fails to understand the true mission of a university. “It’s all about the money” is not the theme for a ‘real’ university! (End of Part-I.)

Link: http://UBdumb.com

The UB Faculty Senate Executive committee (FSEC) does indeed present an elite group of UB faculty members. Nearly two-thirds of them earn over $100,000 per year with the median salary being $123, 166. They have been rewarded well for their service by the University administration as undoubtedly they deserve. We faculty members at-large owe them a great deal of thanks for their service to us and to the University as well, and this commentary is not intended to impugn or criticize them individually in any manner. But do they collectively represent UB’s faculty?

As most everyone at UB knows there is a great deal of variation in faculty salaries, course loads, departmental duties, and extra-service compensation; even the ‘standardized’ small offices allegedly based by Albany’s planners on the size of the office assigned to a junior New York State Senator seems to have a number of apparent exceptions found around our three campuses. “All pigs [may be are] equal, but some pigs are [clearly] more equal than others” (The reference is to Orwell, not a disparaging remark about those with big offices or ‘fat’ paychecks.). UB’s faculty is actually a very heterogeneous population with some members clearly ‘making out’ much better than others. So who are our FSEC representatives? And do they truly represent the bulk of UB’s faculty population?

The data compiled for this brief analysis are based on information provided by the Faculty Senate website which lists the roster for the 2009-2010 year only and information provided by public-source databases for 2009- and 2010-year salaries. Among our 23 FSEC members we seem to have a representative distribution across our various schools at UB. However, almost half of the select group FSEC members earn greater than $125,000 per year from their regular academic appointments. This figure should be considered a minimum and is likely to be a significant underestimate (e.g., extra-service pay and summer salaries are not included in this calculation which would boost many of these salaries up considerably). Data regarding the median UB academic salary level are not readily obtainable, but considering the rank of beginning Associate Professor to represent the mid-level academic rank at UB this places the median salary of most FSEC members nearly double that of most UB “professors.” And the differences are even greater figuring extra-service and other financial compensation not included in their base salaries. A rather elite group indeed, but deservingly so one must assume. So where’s the “typical" UB professor earning between $60,000 and $70,000 per year? There is just 13% of the FSEC representing them.

Although we should all be appreciative of the service provided by the FSEC, we need to make sure that they represent the best interests of the UB faculty as a whole and not just as perceived by the top-tier ‘super-achievers.’ Granted their exemplary service to the University and to their respective fields as evidenced by their much higher-than-average salary compensation might argue that they should ‘weigh in’ on such issues as university governance much more heavily than most of us ever so humble faculty members. But that’s really a decision to be made by the faculty at-large and not by the elite group themselves. What is needed is an open dialog that encompasses a much wider cross section of UB faculty -- one that is unencumbered by censors (AKA “moderators”) or by those with no time (or interest) to participate in matters that affect every long-term faculty member at this institution. With all due respect, some faculty members have more of a vested interest in these proceedings than others, not only because of their seniority in service but also because of their intention to remain at UB as opposed to using this institution as a ‘stepping stone’ to what THEY perceive as ‘bigger and better things.’ It is appropriate to point out that some members of the FSEC certainly meet these criteria, and we are thankful for that even if we find ourselves in disagreement with how they are handling some of these proceedings.

Editorial note: This is a working draft; the commentary will be updated with some performance-based quantitative measures latter. Grant support, publications, and citation counts can be used for most FSEC members to obtain a rough estimate to determine if their professional contributions are commensurate with their top-tier salaries. For some disciplines this does not work (e.g., Libraries, Nursing), but these departments already rank among the lowest in financial compensation at the University.