The Dark Mirage: A Study in Perception

Universities, these vast hubs of knowledge and innovation, are not immune to a peculiar, often unseen, phenomenon: the Dark Mirage. It is a distortion that festers within the complex networks of deans, faculty members, and administrators, warping reality and casting an enduring shadow over the vibrant tableau of higher education.

In the whirlwind of academia, deans and administrators often face an onslaught of problems and failures, while the tales of progress and success are more like hushed tones. These issues, demanding immediate attention and intervention, inevitably overshadow the multitude of positive achievements. The outcome of this distortion is a grim and misshapen perspective of the academic environment, potentially breeding cynicism, disillusionment, and a jaded outlook. 

However, this Dark Mirage can be confronted and mitigated. The antidote lies in the proactive pursuit of positivity. Engaging in open dialogues with students, conducting focus groups, and soliciting feedback can reveal a rich vein of positivity that is often overlooked. Student evaluations, though often perceived as harsh scrutiny, can shed light on the dedication and commitment of faculty members, illuminating the profound impact they have on shaping students' futures.

Another force that dispels the Dark Mirage is the tradition of academic celebrations, such as commencements and graduation ceremonies. Beyond the pomp and circumstance, these events serve a significant cultural function. They act as a resounding gong that silences the negativity and refocuses our attention onto achievements and victories. Suddenly, it becomes clear that faculty members, even those embroiled in conflicts with each other, receive abundant gratitude from students. Those involved in disputes are, in fact, exceptional educators who all contribute significantly towards a common goal. Their disagreements appear minuscule and trivial, while their shared grievances seem to fade in the brilliance of their collective achievements.

In the quest to overcome the Dark Mirage, the aim isn't to retreat into a rose-tinted reality. Instead, it's about consciously fostering a balanced perspective. It's about choosing to feed the right wolf, acknowledging the presence of the dark but actively nurturing the light, following the wisdom of Native American folklore.

So, as we navigate the intricate ecosystem of academia, we must actively amplify the whispers of positivity and celebrate the triumphs that often go unnoticed. By doing so, we can ensure that the Dark Mirage does not eclipse our shared pursuit of a fair, equitable, inclusive and loving society.

If a robot can beat your writing assignment, it is time to rethink it

The rise of machines, with AI bots like OpenAI's ChatGPT replicating human-like text generation, compels us to question our education system's foundations. Is reflective or expository writing a valid assessment when AI can mimic average student work? The answer isn't straightforward. However, this crisis provides an opportunity to redefine our understanding of writing and its relation to thought.

The advent of AI challenges us to de-emphasize the mechanics of writing, such as grammar, style, and syntax, that a machine can master. Instead, we should focus on more complex aspects of writing that are inherently human: original thought, artful language, and narratives that resonate with the human experience. This shift, although jarring, is necessary. It signals not just a technological revolution, but a cultural, intellectual, and educational upheaval.

The AI revolution illuminates a harsh truth: traditional education and assessment methods are no longer sufficient. The challenge is to teach students not just to write well, but to think originally, create artfully, and understand deeply. In the face of the machine, we must thrive in domains that are distinctly human.

In this technological metamorphosis, we're compelled to redefine our work and our value. Perhaps we are not merely creators, analysts, or workers. Perhaps we are artists, thinkers, dreamers. And perhaps, in this transition, we will find our survival and our redemption.

We must revisit traditional teaching methodologies, challenging the efficacy of our current writing assignments. As educators, a simple test can provide clarity: input your exact writing assignment into ChatGPT. If the AI produces a B-grade paper, it's time to rethink.

One option is to replace the writing assignment with an alternative assessment, such as oral exams, multiple choice, or short answer tests. Another option is to transform the assignment to require students to engage with AI, like ChatGPT. This approach would involve designing assignments that test not just writing ability, but also the capacity to evaluate AI outputs critically, discern the nuances differentiating human intellect from AI, and incorporate these insights creatively. In response to ChatGPT, dramatically raise your expectations of student writing, for now they have a lot of help.

AI's advent should be viewed not as a threat, but as an opportunity to explore new pedagogical frontiers. Our learning community is leading this exploration into AI-integrated education, and we invite all to join this journey.

In essence, AI's rise can help us rethink education. We must focus not just on subject mastery, but also on developing original thinking, creativity, and nuanced intelligence. In the face of the machine, we can still shine in our distinctly human domains, thriving in this technological metamorphosis. The future of education, interwoven with AI, might look different, but it promises a realm of possibilities, allowing us to redefine our unique human value.

The Academic Game of Thrones: Why We Should Keep Students Out of the Fray

In the realm of academia, an intriguing and complex dance often unfolds between colleagues. This interplay of power dynamics is reminiscent of a game of thrones, a battle for influence and alliances in the hallowed halls of learning. Our evolutionary history has primed us for such intrigue, urging us to engage in tactical maneuvering and social alliances. Yet, in these scholarly environs, we must be cautious, for the most insidious complications arise when students are unwittingly pulled into the fray.

For the most part, these academic machinations are innocuous, as scholars engage in passionate debates and vie for recognition. But when the mission of education is subordinated to the natural pull of micropolitics, these skirmishes can become downright detrimental. As faculty members, our responsibility lies in cultivating and nurturing the minds of our students, not in ensnaring them in the pettiness of our personal battles.

Faculty members often form deep bonds with their students, particularly in professional programs, where the lines between mentorship and friendship may blur. It is in these settings that the temptation to draw students into the web of intrigue is at its strongest. The telltale signs of this breach of trust can be observed when students lodge complaints against faculty members that are tinged with details and information only another faculty member could provide.

If ever a student approaches you with gossip or concerns about another faculty member, the only ethical course of action is to gently guide them toward the appropriate channels for addressing their grievances. It is essential to maintain a professional demeanor and resist the urge to engage in the exchange of rumors and hearsay. The student's concerns should be directed to the department chair or the dean, who are better equipped to handle such matters.

Our natural instincts, honed by millennia of evolution, may not always serve us well in the modern world. In the academic sphere, where our primary objective is the pursuit of knowledge and the enlightenment of our students, it is crucial that we resist the allure of intrigue and instead focus on fostering an environment of collaboration and support. When we prioritize the mission of education over our primal fascination with power struggles, we can better serve our students and advance the noble cause of higher education.

The Art of Yielding: How to Lose an Argument and Gain Self-Respect

In the grand arena of human interaction, voices clash and merge, forming a vibrant tapestry of perspectives. It is in these deliberations that people voice their opinions, objections, and counter-arguments, weaving together a rich fabric of collective wisdom. This is normal, as differences in perspectives, when brought together, make for better decisions. However, there is a looming threat that often casts a shadow over these deliberative assemblies—our inability to lose an argument, which poses a risk to democracy and hinders the effectiveness of our communication.

One may argue that falling in love with our own opinions is a natural byproduct of our passion for certain ideas or ideals. Yet, this attachment often blinds us to the possibility of alternative perspectives and can lead us to believe that any rejection of our opinions is a personal affront—a sign of disrespect. The truth is, our opinions and beliefs are not a complete representation of who we are. It is crucial to recognize that we can be respected even when our ideas are not universally accepted.

The trick, then, is not to overinvest in one's own opinion or a particular point. We must learn the wisdom of yielding, of knowing when to let go of our arguments and embrace the insights of others. This does not mean that we should blindly accept every contrary idea that comes our way; rather, it is a matter of acknowledging that our perspective is just one of many.

If you find yourself feeling disrespected when others disagree with you, it is worth examining the root of these emotions. Often, such feelings stem from a place of insecurity or a lack of self-respect. Ironically, the stubborn attachment to our opinions is both a symptom and a cause of these issues. It is a vicious cycle that can only be broken by cultivating a healthy sense of self-respect and a willingness to yield when appropriate.

Indeed, the process of learning how to lose an argument can have profound effects on our self-esteem. When we are able to let go of our need to be right, we open ourselves to the possibility of growth and self-improvement. It is through this willingness to yield that we foster a sense of humility and respect for the ideas of others. Ultimately, it is not about winning or losing the argument; it is about embracing the diversity of perspectives that enrich our collective wisdom.

So, the next time you find yourself in a heated debate, remember to practice the art of yielding. You may just find that, in losing an argument, you gain a deeper sense of self-respect and a renewed appreciation for the complexity of human thought.

The art of rich prompting in writing with AI

In the brave new world of AI-assisted writing, or "wraiting," mastering the art of crafting rich prompts is the key to unlocking engaging, thought-provoking content. Rich prompts set the stage with originality, supporting elements, connectivity, detail, and a clear objective. To excel at creating these powerful prompts, one must commit to practice, experimentation, and continuous refinement.

The world of AI-generated content can be a wild ride, offering profound insights that leave us in awe or underwhelming results that disappoint. Embracing the unpredictability of AI-generated content and adjusting our expectations accordingly is essential to harnessing AI's full potential as a writing partner while preserving our individuality as writers.

Let's dive into two prompts—one poor and one rich—within the realm of philosophy:

Poor prompt: "Write about dialogue and relation."

Rich prompt: "Turn this into a part of a scholarly book chapter. Provide supporting arguments and examples. Do not use subheadings: The ontological understanding of dialogue (Buber) is both powerful and limited. Powerful because it focuses on relations rather than entities or actions. Limited because dialogue is not culturally universal and excludes people with disabilities. Relation is a better category for educational philosophy than dialogue."

Try both, especially if you have access to GPT-4, and appreciate the difference. The poor prompt is vague and generic, while the rich prompt has enough original thought and instructions to invite a nuanced, in-depth exploration of a specific aspect of existentialism, providing context and direction for the AI to generate meaningful content.

When AI-generated content falls short of our expectations, this may indicate one of two things: one is that your prompt is too poor, and another is that you've stumbled upon a unique idea. AI does not understand unique ideas well because it has not encountered them before. Take this opportunity to engage in old-fashioned original writing and then reintroduce AI into the mix to enhance your work with its vast knowledge and pattern recognition capabilities.

In other words, wraiting still involves thinking and generating ideas. All it does is turn compressed, rough ideas into more comprehensible text output. Many people, but not all, start their process by jotting down on paper the initial thoughts, brief arguments, and short thesis statements. This is the most exciting part of brainstorming. Turning it into a coherent text is not necessarily the most rewarding part of the writing process, so we should use AI to assist with that. The synergy between human creativity and artificial intelligence promises to lead us to new intellectual heights.

Anti-CRT is anti-Christian

According to ABC News, at least 35 states have passed or considered legislation on race education1. A total of 16 states have signed into law bills restricting education on race in classrooms or state agencies. There are currently 19 states that are considering bills or policies that restrict race education in schools or state agencies.

According to Brookings, opponents fear that CRT admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims. These fears have spurred school boards and state legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho to ban teachings about racism in classrooms. The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege.

Let me put aside the fact that those claims misrepresent CRT. For a more accurate description, read Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. My argument is the incongruity between the anti-Critical Race Theory movement and Christian values. Emphasizing humility and repentance, Christianity encourages self-reflection and acknowledges the inherent imperfections of humanity. Contrarily, the anti-CRT movement tends to propagate a flawless portrayal of American history, which is fundamentally at odds with the Christian belief system.

Pride, considered one of the deadliest sins, is evident in the anti-CRT assertion that America is exceptional and unparalleled. In contrast, CRT is a structuralist approach that examines the deep-seated, systemic roots of racism and other biases. This perspective aligns with the Christian notion of original sin, which posits that humans are innately, profoundly flawed beings.

To clarify, this is not an endorsement of CRT as a flawless theory; it possesses both strengths and weaknesses. Instead, this critique aims to illuminate the inherent contradictions within the anti-CRT movement, specifically regarding its purported Christian values. Many anti-CRT proponents identify as Christians, but the discord between these two belief systems necessitates a choice. To maintain intellectual and spiritual integrity, one must either embrace Christianity or champion the anti-CRT cause, as the two are incompatible. I am not saying CRT is Christian. But anti-CRT is anti-Christian for sure. 

A billion dollars idea: Learning Workflows and Item Response Theory

Quality control is a vital aspect of many business processes, from financial transactions to procurement. In larger organizations, however, the need for multiple reviewers can lead to time-consuming bureaucracy and a drain on resources. But what if we could revolutionize these processes using learning workflows and item response theory?

An example: One common process that requires multiple approvals for quality control is the expense reimbursement process within an organization. Employees often incur various expenses while performing their job duties, such as travel, meals, and office supplies. To ensure accurate and fair reimbursement, the organization typically implements a multi-step approval process.

1. Expense submission: The employee gathers all necessary receipts and documentation and submits an expense report, detailing the nature and amount of each expenditure.
2. Managerial approval: The employee's direct manager reviews the submitted expense report to verify that the expenses are legitimate, reasonable, and in line with company policy. The manager may ask for additional information or clarification if needed before approving the report.
3. Finance department review: After managerial approval, the expense report is sent to the finance department. The finance team checks the report for compliance with company policies, budgetary constraints, and tax regulations. They also ensure the accuracy of the expense categorization and proper documentation.
4. Final approval and reimbursement: Upon the finance department's approval, the expense report is processed for reimbursement. The employee receives the approved reimbursement amount.

In this example, the multi-step approval process is designed to maintain quality control and ensure that all expense reimbursements are accurate, reasonable, and compliant with the organization’s and governmental policies and regulations.

Learning workflows would differentiate between users based on their performance, allowing those who consistently excel to gain a "master-user" status. You just need to treat every form submission as a test, and keep the record for each employee. This approach would ensure that quality control efforts are focused on those who need it most, saving time and resources while maintaining high standards.

Item response theory (IRT) is a statistical framework used in test development to analyze and model the relationship between an individual's latent ability (e.g., proficiency in a subject) and their probability of responding correctly to test items (e.g., questions). IRT is widely used in educational testing and psychometric research to design and evaluate assessments, ensuring they are reliable, valid, and fair. In IRT, each test item is characterized by a set of parameters, which provide information about the item's difficulty, discrimination, and guessing. These parameters help in understanding how well an item can differentiate between individuals with different levels of ability. It assumes that if you can answer a more difficult test question, you are very likely to answer the easier ones.

Applying IRT (Rasch modeling, to be more specific) to business processes means treating each form submission as a test, incentivizing employees to be more careful with their work. Consistently high performance could lead to master-user status, reducing the need for managers to spend time reviewing numerous forms and requests. Of course, master-users should be paid more, for they cost less to oversee.

This combination of smart workflows and item response theory offers a significant business opportunity. Developing an algorithm that transforms every workflow into a learning system could revolutionize the way organizations operate. As users become more competent and achieve master-user status, the algorithm would automatically streamline processes, freeing up more resources and reducing bureaucracy.

If you want to be the next billionaire and understand organization theory, go for it. Thank me when you make it big.

Carry-Forwards and Smart Cuts

Universities are often struggling financially, dreading budget cuts and facing difficult decisions. Yet, at the same time, they often have significant carry-forward - unspent money from one budget year that gets moved into the next. How can this be? This is especially true for academic affairs – the sum of all colleges – that have to explain other units why they keep all these money, but want all others to take on larger cuts.

Take the CSU system, for example. For the next fiscal year (which starts on July 1), it estimates having $2.5 billion in total core reserves, with $714 million in uncommitted funds. While this may seem like a substantial amount, it's crucial to have a financial safety net and development agenda in place when dealing with multiple priorities and navigating the intricacies of higher education funding.

There are three major reasons for carry-forward in university budgets:

1. The Multicolored Budget: University budgets are complex, with different types of money and spending restrictions. Picture a rainbow, where each color represents a different type of funding. A LOT of carry-forward money is restricted, with only specific ways of spending it. Not all money can be spent instantly due to multi-year commitments. In other words, if we promise a newly hired faculty members certain startup funds for two years, we need to make sure the money is there. And then, there are emergencies – some of them may not be seen by others by emergencies, but sometimes we have to react to changing circumstances with a quick program or an event.
2. Investing in the Future: To thrive, a university needs to focus on more than just maintaining its current state. It must invest in development, which requires accumulating funds. Carry-forward money allows universities to support new projects, research, and initiatives that will help them grow and evolve. The paradox here is that in order to invest in the future, universities must save money today.
3. The disproportional impact of small cuts: Operating Expense (OE) budgets for university's academic units, which tend to be the largest chunk of the budget, usually account for below 5% of the total. 95% or more is in personnel, salaries and benefits. Cutting from personnel is difficult, because we rarely lay off staff. Furloughs are incredibly demotivating and frustrating. So the small cut for the overall budget is actually a huge cut that tend to fall on operating expenses. That's why universities need decentralized reserves, like carry-forward, to maintain stability and keep their promises. By having a sizable carry-forward, academic units can respond to challenges without causing chaos in their operations.

A simple question, like “how much money do we have?” is actually not easy to answer. We always have some kind of money but are short on other kinds of money. We have reserves but cannot spend them. This is not to say that here is how it is supposed to be. I cannot say we figure it out perfectly: there are plenty of inefficiencies and candidates for cost reductions. They are just very hard to implement when state cuts its subsidy. Ideally, a university must engage in smart cuts, which include slow, non-disruptive quest to increase revenues and reduce expenses. Instead, we tend to wait till the next budget crisis and implement dumb cuts instead – hiring freezes, travel bans, cutting student support programs, layouts and furloughs. The dumb cuts do not teach us (the organization) anything. As soon as the budget improves, we go right back to where we were. Smart cuts are slow, more gradual, less disruptive, but more consequential. And of course, the focus should be not on cuts, but on growth, on extending into other markets. But I have written about it already.

We are not as complex as we'd like to think

Stephen Wolfram says tha AI demonstrated: “that human language (and the patterns of thinking behind it) are somehow simpler and more “law like” in their structure than we thought.” His observation is both insightful and thought-provoking. The advent of advanced AI, like ChatGPT, has exposed the limitations of human intellect and language. Our initial encounters with such artificial intellect can be both disturbing and humbling, not because the AI is exceedingly intelligent, but because we, as humans, may not be as exceptional as we once believed.

For centuries, humans have marveled at their own intellect and linguistic abilities, often attributing these capabilities to divine origins. This self-amazement led to the concept of being created in the image of a deity. However, over recent decades, zoologists and zoo-psychologists have been gradually dismantling this grandiose self-image by demonstrating that animals share many traits and abilities with humans.

For instance, chimpanzees exhibit tool usage, problem-solving skills, and even rudimentary communication through gestures and vocalizations. Similarly, dolphins have been observed to possess complex social structures and use unique signature whistles to communicate with one another, while African Grey parrots can mimic human speech and understand a variety of words and phrases.

Now, it is the turn of software engineers to further deflate our pride. The ability to generate language, once considered a unique and sophisticated human trait, is now being replicated by AI algorithms like ChatGPT. This demonstrates that our linguistic prowess is not as mysterious or complex as we once thought. In fact, we often recycle and rephrase what we've heard or read before, which diminishes the perceived essence of our humanity.

This realization, although humbling, can lead to a healthier perspective on our place in the world. The true essence of humanity may be smaller than we initially believed, possibly encompassing higher-level creative thinking and advanced ethical reasoning. These are attributes that, so far, neither animals nor machines have been able to fully replicate.

As we come to terms with the diminishing divide between humans, animals, and machines, it may be time to shift our focus from trying to prove our uniqueness to embracing our similarities. By recognizing that we share many traits and abilities with other beings, we can foster a greater sense of empathy and understanding, ultimately benefiting both our own species and the world around us.

Can negligence be racist?

Lately, I have been thinking about the often-blurred line between bad management and institutional racism. It's something that wasn't always obvious to me, but understanding their complex relationship is essential for creating more inclusive workplaces.

Bad management and institutional racism are not always separate entities; they can intertwine and create toxic environments for faculty and staff of color. Bad management may involve poor leadership, decision-making, and communication, while institutional racism refers to policies and practices that perpetuate racial disparities. Although bad management might not explicitly intend to discriminate, its impact can exacerbate systemic racism if institutional practices negatively affect marginalized groups.

It's crucial to consider both intent and impact when assessing organizational practices. Bureaucratic delays, disorganized and confusing procedures might unintentionally create a hostile work environment for faculty and staff of color. Different groups experience institutional barriers in unique ways, shaped by the specific challenges and obstacles they face. What may seem like a mere annoyance for me, as a white man, could very well feel like full-scale harassment for a person from a marginalized group. It is important to recognize that our own personal experiences and perspectives are not universal. By acknowledging these differences and being mindful of the unique challenges faced by individuals from various backgrounds, we can work together to create a more inclusive and supportive environment for all, and avoid the mistake of confusing our own perception with the universal truth.

In the realm of social justice, negligence in organizational practices can be considered racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic, much like how negligence can be criminal in law. A lack of awareness about accessibility needs for disabled employees may result in ableist practices that hinder their career growth. Though unintentional, this negligence contributes to an unjust work environment.

Organizations must recognize their responsibility to address discriminatory practices, regardless of their origin and intent. By examining policies, improving procedures, offering support and resources for marginalized employees, and fostering a culture of inclusion and accountability, we can create truly equitable workplaces that challenge both bad management and institutional racism.

Budget Cuts: Breaking the Quick Fix Paradox

When financial challenges strike universities, budget cuts become their go-to solution. When prosperity returns, they hold fast to the status quo. This is the quick fix paradox.

Universities often resort to budget cuts in difficult times, seeking immediate relief while neglecting long-term strategies to increase and diversify revenue. However, when times are good, they reinforce the status quo rather than invest in innovative projects that can make them more financially resilient. These investments take time and require setting aside funds for growth, but campus leaders often struggle to justify such frugality when budgets are in good shape. So everyone gets something. Enormous efforts are spent on lobbying state authorities for more budgets, but very little in exploring the higher education market, and opportunities to pivot and to grow. It is especially troubling, given the long-term demographic trend of declining college-age population.

The transition from funding existing programs to investing in innovation is not easy. It will face political resistance and could upset many within the university community. However, embracing this shift is crucial for long-term success. When budgets return to "normal," it's essential to remember that normalcy can breed complacency. To avoid this pitfall, universities should focus on funding units and programs that demonstrate specific plans for cutting costs or generating revenue.

This is nothing new; it is just an attempt to remember those things next time when we have some breathing room. In the sort run, the options are few: spend reserves, freeze hiring, cut expenses. Our system has been hit with budget crises many times before; not one of them produces a meaningful reorientation of the system. It is still heavily dependent on state funding, which is an unsustainable strategy.

This is embarrassing

In higher education, there are certain matters that are handled with more sensitivity and discretion than others. One of the main reasons for this is the strong emotion of embarrassment. When faculty members feel embarrassed, it can have a negative impact on their performance and well-being, and it can set up powerful defensive mechanisms that make matters worse.

Therefore, when it comes to giving feedback on performance problems, it is important to do so in a private, quiet, and supportive manner. This allows the faculty member to save face and maintain their dignity, while also receiving constructive criticism that can help them improve their performance. This is how evaluations are set up, on both unionized and non-unionized campuses.

Some faculty members prefer to keep their own personnel matters confidential, while not minding exposing others. This is not consistent and can create a double standard that undermines trust and respect in the workplace. If you do not want to be embarrassed, it is important to treat others with the same respect and confidentiality that you would want for yourself. This rule does not change if you one is motivated by urgent matters, related to social justice. If we give up on due process, the struggle for equity and justice is undermined rather than enhanced.

Transparency standards do not always apply in higher education, especially when it comes to personnel matters. However, this does not mean that accountability and fairness should be compromised. It simply means that sensitive matters should be handled with care and discretion, in order to avoid causing unnecessary embarrassment or harm.

By recognizing the power of embarrassment and taking steps to minimize it in the workplace, higher education institutions can create a more supportive and empowering environment for their faculty members. This, in turn, can lead to improved performance, job satisfaction, and overall well-being for everyone involved.

Ultimately, the key to handling sensitive matters in higher education is to strike a balance between transparency and discretion, accountability and support. By prioritizing the well-being and dignity of faculty and staff members, while also maintaining accountability and fairness, institutions can create a workplace culture that is both productive and empowering for all.

Wraiting vs. writing

Wraiting is the new writing, only it has AI in it. I bet that a few years down the road, we will all be doing more wraiting than old-fashioned writing. And some of us will be better at it than others because doing it well requires considerable skill. Don’t complain then that I did not warn you, and you fell behind.

Just to give a glimpse of the new world, consider these wraiting tips. It is the tip of the iceberg, for there are a lot more nuances to it than I know about, and even more that I do not. Here are four key roles that AI can play in wraiting:

1. Brainstorming: One of the main roles that AI can play in wraiting is in the brainstorming stage of the writing process. It can help writers generate new ideas, provide suggestions for topics to explore, and even conduct initial literature reviews (only for well-explored topics). These tools can also be used to create outlines and plan the structure of a piece of writing, making it easier to organize ideas and stay on track.
2. Critiquing your ideas: Another important role that AI can play in wraiting is as a critical partner to chat about ideas with. With chatbot-style interactions, the AI can engage in a conversation about the writer's ideas, ask questions, provide feedback, and offer suggestions. This can help writers refine their ideas, explore new directions, and gain valuable insights into their writing.
3. Turning dense chunks of ideas into full paragraphs and segments: By using natural language processing algorithms, wraiting tools can analyze the structure and meaning of sentences and suggest improvements that can help writers better articulate their ideas. This can be especially useful for writers who struggle with writer's block or who find it challenging to organize their thoughts into cohesive paragraphs. AI can look for additional arguments, examples, metaphors, and references to support or challenge your claims.
4. Editing: Finally, AI can play a key role in the editing process of wraiting. From grammar and spelling to structure, flow, style, genre, and audience analysis, wraiting tools can help writers identify areas for improvement and provide suggestions for making changes. AI-powered editing tools can also help writers save time and effort by automatically correcting common errors and suggesting alternative phrasing.

Wraiting is not easy. AI-powered chatbot has several limitations, some of which are very serious, while others are simply annoying. Learning them will save you from disappointment and frustration; it is a part of the skill. But that would be a topic for another blog. In the meanwhile, build your wraiting skills by trying. It is investment in your future. For educators, there is additional significance. We should start teaching students how to wrait soon.

"Only able-bodied are welcome"

Excluding individuals with disabilities by failing to provide appropriate accommodations is just as discriminatory as excluding individuals based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In fact, it would be just as unacceptable to advertise an event as "For Whites Only" or "For Straight People Only" as it is to omit language regarding accommodations for individuals with disabilities. If you say nothing, it literally means “For able-bodied people only.” An I am not being metaphorical here.

In semiotics, the absence of a message can be the same as the presence of a message. This concept, known as "the absence of a sign," highlights the importance of context and interpretation in understanding the messages being conveyed. By failing to include language of accommodation in event advertising, organizers are sending a message of exclusion to individuals with disabilities.

At our college, we are committed to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for all, including people with disabilities. Our new recent policy states that events and media resources that are not inclusive may not be advertised on any college-controlled information resources. When someone asks me to share an upcoming event or put a link to a video in the college's update, I click on the link, and check if there is an RSVP and if it asks for accommodations. I also check if the event is not too soon because we know that finding a captioner or an ASL interpreter at short notice is impossible. Additionally, I check if the video has good, human-edited captions or an ASL feed. If these criteria are not met, I apologize and decline to share.

The policy may be seen as controversial because the events and resources may benefit other marginalized people. The larger society unfortunately has not yet relegated exclusionary silent statements like "for hearing people only" as outrageous. An event or a video may be deemed too important even though it is not accessible. However, just because larger society has not yet recognized the importance of inclusivity, it doesn't mean we should do nothing. One day, we all will all be embarrassed by old pictures where people are invited to an open event, and the message says nothing about accommodation.

Forwarding information about an exclusionary event or resource is endorsing it, and therefore, I personally can no longer do it, and I don’t think anyone else should. 

• I call on the entire campus to adopt a similar policy. 
• I also call on everyone to boycot events and resources that are not accessible. 

To R2 or not to R2: Facts first, debate later

It's so much fun to argue without understanding the basic facts! Yep, it's fun and pointless. Consider discussions around classifying universities based on their research output, such as the R1, R2, and R3 designations. When these discussions arise, people immediately object or raise concerns about potential consequences without first understanding whether or not their university actually meets the criteria for the proposed classification, and what costs and benefits the potential new classification entail. Only rarely does anyone say, “I need to know more before I can weigh in.” And those voices usually drown in the excitement of the debate.

For example, let's say someone suggests classifying an R3 university as an R2 institution. Many people may object, raising concerns about potential negative consequences such as diminishing the quality of teaching and suddenly changing expectations of faculty. Still, others might say, "Yes, but here's what we need in terms of resources to get it and to maintain it.” Without first establishing the basic facts, these objections may be based on misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions.

If we take the time to gather the basic facts before beginning a debate, we can avoid these misunderstandings and have a more productive discussion. In the scenario above, a fact-finding committee could be established to determine whether the university in question already meets the criteria for the R2 designation. If it does, then there's no need for a debate at all - the university simply is an R2 institution; it's a matter of correcting the record by providing current information to the Carnegie Foundation. If it's close to meeting the criteria, then the debate can focus on how the university can make the necessary improvements. If major investment is needed to obtain the R2 designation, then the debate can focus on whether or not that investment is justified. But a debate where participants assume different facts is simply hot air, or an excuse to vent other grievances and anxieties. " It is like debating a movie you have not yet seen.

In general, it's always more productive to establish the basic facts before beginning a debate or raising objections. This allows for a more informed and productive discussion and ensures that any objections or concerns are based on a clear understanding of the situation. So the next time you find yourself in a discussion or debate, remember to start with the facts first, and make sure all involved agree on the facts - it will lead to a more productive and informed conversation.

Poor planning and justice

Some people assume that personal biases, self-interest, and biased policies are the main cause of exclusionary practices. However, I don't believe that's entirely correct. Poor planning and badly designed procedures can also be a major source of actual exclusion. Individuals or groups may be excluded from participating in an event or project due to lack of access or poor organization. That's why good planning is an ethical commitment, not just a good business practice. Whether it's an academic conference, a student event, or any other project, it's important to manage it effectively.

Let us admit it, some faculty members lack project management skills because they haven't had the opportunity to develop them on their career path. It takes courage to admit that you don't know something and learn. And it can be even more difficult once you have those coveted letters after your name. However, these skills are essential for success in any field, so it's important to learn them.

When preparing for an event, it's important to manage it like a project. Here are some commonly known tips on how to manage a project or event with several people involved:

1. Start planning early: Plan the event well in advance to ensure that there is enough time to organize everything. Otherwise, we end up scrambling to find an accessible room or an available ASL interpreter. Improvisation and spontaneity are cute, but end up hurting someone. 
2. Develop a timeline: Create a timeline that outlines the key milestones and deadlines for the event. Counting backward is critical here. For example, if we want to announce an event and advertise it, we need at least a month. To advertise it, we need to confirm key speakers and their topics, which takes another month. Rooms are scarce, so we need to book a room at least two months in advance. To book a room, we need to know the general format, which will take a whole meeting to figure out, etc.
3. Establish roles and responsibilities: Assign clear roles and responsibilities to each person involved in the event. Don't assume that someone will do it; someone does not exist. In academic institutions, seek support from your chairs and deans; they can ask staff to help with specific tasks or match you with other resources on campus. We have the event support request form, but it does not have to be that sophisticated.
4. Communicate and monitor progress regularly: Establish effective communication channels between team members and stakeholders to ensure that everyone is informed about the progress of the event. A weekly check of progress is the most common routine. Put this checks in your calendar.
5. Anticipate and manage risks: Identify potential risks and develop a plan to mitigate them. What could go wrong, and what's the plan B? The most common error is to not ask "what if it rains?" or "what if it's 100F outside?
6. Debrief, identify lessons learned, write them down, pass on to the next person.

Do you want to be a social justice warrior? Get your act together; it's the first step. Remember the rule of the variable barrier: what's a minor annoyance for one person can be an insurmountable obstacle for someone else. We tend to ignore small things because they seem small to us. But from a different perspective, those same things can seem huge. 

Why Innuendo Has No Place in Academia

Innuendo can be a tricky thing. It's a subtle or hinted remark that often carries a suggestive or insulting connotation. It can take the form of a joke, comment, or gesture that is meant to communicate a hidden message or imply something negative about someone else. In academic and business settings, innuendo can have a destructive impact on professional relationships and workplace culture.

Here are some examples of what innuendo might look like in an academic business meeting:

• During a discussion on a curriculum proposal, someone says, "If only most faculty knew the basic facts about curriculum forms." This is a direct attack on the proposer disguised as a general lament about a lack of faculty training.
• Someone says, "Isn't this why we have support staff?" implying that staff are not doing their jobs.
• Someone says in a public meeting, "Some people can't teach and yet they present themselves as scholars." This kind of innuendo is even more damaging because it's not clear who the person has in mind, leaving many people feeling hurt or offended.

Now, you might be thinking, "Don't we need to allow criticism and accountability?" And the answer is yes, but there are many ways to provide negative feedback without resorting to innuendo. If you have a problem with someone's performance, the best first step is to meet with them face-to-face and express your concerns. You may not know the full story, so it's important to hear both sides. There are also official channels for complaining, such as going to a supervisor, union representative, HR, or equal opportunities office. These channels involve due process, whereas innuendo leaves no room for defense.

It's important to remember that personnel matters should not be the subject of public debates. If you're unhappy with someone's performance, you should take the appropriate steps to address it, rather than making hints or implications in a public setting. Engaging in innuendo will only harm your reputation and make others less likely to want to work with you.

As the facilitator of meetings one must make sure that innuendo has no place in the discussion. If someone starts to engage in this behavior, it's the facilitator's responsibility to shut it down and keep the meeting focused on its purpose. Innuendo does nothing to further the discussion and only serves to bring negativity to the table.

Innuendo has no place in academic or any other settings. It's destructive, undermines professional relationships, and goes against the principles of due process and democracy. If you have concerns about someone's performance, there are better ways to address it than through hints or suggestions. By upholding a "no innuendo" rule in meetings, we can create a more positive and productive environment for all.

AI in Education Learning Community

Let's tackle this new language-generating AI tech in a more structured and thorough way. Sure, the jokes and comments on social media are cool, but we need to take a closer look at the tool before making any conclusions. The plagiarism debate, among others, is not productive since most people don't understand what they're talking about. And those students who use AI to cheat aren't eager to share their methods. As we gain more hands-on experience, we'll see how people use the tool for written content and how educators can teach them to use it better. Hence, I propose a professional learning community.

Here's my plan: (1) Each PLC member commits some time to playing around with the OpenAI language engine. Try out different prompts for real-life teaching, research, and productivity situations. (2) Meet bi-weekly on Zoom over lunch to discuss findings. (3) Eventually, find a way to rate the most productive prompts and come up with a list of the top-10 to top-25 most useful ones. This information may not be publishable in a scholarly journal, but it could be shared. To keep things manageable, I'm starting with my colleagues in the College of Education at Sac State. But others can easily start their own groups and work independently. It would be great to compare notes from different groups later. If there's enough interest, I may plan an unconference next fall.

There are many types of AI tools out there. The AI Chat is just the easiest to use and is strictly language-generating, which makes for a better comparison.

Just to give you an idea what sort of prompts can be tested: I found last week that AI excels at writing routine, formulaic texts that humans don't like to write. You can give it a couple of specific points and ask it to write a decent recommendation letter for a student. It's also good at converting lists into narratives. Copy a list of your job experiences from your resume and ask it to turn it into a narrative. One of its best uses is specialized editing, like making your text sound like it was written by a native English speaker. This can be significant for English learners of all ages. But my findings alone aren't enough. We need to collectively test, evaluate, and rate these uses to make meaningful conclusions. Anyone interested?

Chatting with AI about AI

• Me: "I am trying to find a metaphor that describes the feeling when you realize that most of your learning over many years is now becoming obsolete."
• AI: "One possible metaphor for the feeling of realizing that one's hard-earned knowledge is becoming obsolete could be "watching a beautiful sandcastle wash away in the tide." This metaphor evokes the idea of something that was carefully built and treasured being swept away by forces beyond one's control, and also suggests a sense of nostalgia and loss."

OK, the metaphor is not that great. But we all should realize that language-generating AI will change our lives probably even more than Google and social media have changed it. The instant internet searches made access to knowledge radically democratic. Social media made production of content cheap and therefore very accessible. What AI is going to do is to make lower-level skills associated with formal writing, information search and summarizing, and language translation, obsolete. These are very hard news to swallow. We used to link lower-level and higher-level skills in one bundle. For centuries, the appropriate use of written language was an indicator of education and intelligence. We sort of knew that true intelligence, originality, and creativity were separate things. But in reality, and in most cases, if you were able to write grammatically correct, and learn the language conventions, you would be probably also good at more complex, more sophisticated tasks. Now this assumption goes out of the window. And it is not a pleasant discovery. OK I have a metaphor better than that AI provided: It is like watching hyper-inflation wiping out your life-time savings.

I know what is going to happen, and it is not good. Higher ed will start fighting another losing battle. We will look for algorithms to detect the use of AI. We will proctor exams, and make students write with pen and pencil. We will regress back to multiple choice testing, etc. This happens every time. As soon as the real-world changes and asks for something else, we keep teaching the old things, because that is what we have been doing before.

What should happen is something completely different. We need to reimagine how writing in real life will now happen with the help of AI. We need to explicitly teach our students how to use the AI in an ethical way, but also enjoy the potential for increased productivity. And finally, we should find forms of assessment that are not focused on originality of the text, but rather on originality of ideas. Some of the sacred cows, like learning APA format of references, is completely irrelevant now. The AI can fix your references in a second or flip them into another format. It is not a relevant skill anymore, like lighting fire with flintstone is not. Things like editing for grammar, summarizing the argument, or basic lit search are among those irrelevant skills. Therefore, we should spend more time on original, creative, and independent thinking. The question is, how do we do it?

I suspect it is still back to the Bloom's taxonomy. Evaluating and creating knowledge are still the higher goals. However, the definitions of evaluations and creating the new will change. New knowledge will not amount to new text. The quality of new knowledge will not be reduced to proper writing, or even include it.

No one is sure what is going to happen, but one thing is for certain. The world is changing.

So I asked the AI, if it thinks AI will change the world of work. Here is the response. It maybe a little biased, and terribly boring, but I must agree:

“AI has the potential to greatly impact the world of work. AI-powered automation, machine learning, and natural language processing are already being used in many industries to automate repetitive tasks, improve decision-making, and increase efficiency.

In the short-term, AI has the potential to automate many jobs, which could lead to job displacement. However, it also has the potential to create new jobs and make existing jobs more efficient and enjoyable.

In the long-term, AI has the potential to significantly change the nature of work, as well as the skills that are in demand. Companies will likely seek employees with skills in areas such as data analysis, machine learning, and software development to help them take advantage of AI technologies.

AI has the potential to improve productivity and create new opportunities for growth and innovation. However, it will also require a significant shift in the way we think about work and the skills that are needed to succeed in the future. It is important for governments, businesses, and educational institutions to work together to ensure that the benefits of AI are widely shared and that everyone has the opportunity to develop the skills they need to thrive in the new economy.”

Don’t assign homework to your dean or chair

Quite a few people enjoy assigning homework to their leaders - to program coordinators, chairs, deans, provosts, and presidents. At every meeting, at every opportunity, they will say: "We should do this or that," while clearly assuming that someone else has to implement it, somehow. And if the people in authority are hesitant or insufficiently enthusiastic, well, then it's clearly their incompetence or sabotage.

Well, this is not how higher ed, or any other organization, can work. To undertake a project of any significant size, someone must evaluate whether it is worth it (that is the ratio of effort over results), and if it aligns with strategic priorities. Someone must assess the scope of work and find resources – people mainly – to do it. Alternatively, the faculty member who has a brilliant idea can execute it on their own or lead a volunteer ad-hoc committee! Administrators and chairs cannot and should not prevent faculty from exercising their right to faculty governance and initiative. It is also totally fine to make a proposal to the entire group and ask academic leaders to support a project, including finding resources. Those kinds of proposals go through some sort of a debate, then evaluation, planning, etc. But it is critical for sustainable development not to chase every new idea that sounds good at the moment. That is the path to chaos and waste of resources. The entire concepts of mission and strategy are designed to prevent us from scattering attention and resources.

My advice to chairs and coordinators: recognize when people try to give you homework without a good reason. Do not promise anything you may regret. Gently push back by asking: OK, great, who is going to do this? My advice to faculty: keep generating ideas, but also invite others to critique and analyze them. Like a pair of jeans, a good idea has to be worn-down a little. Do not expect that someone else will pick up on your idea and just do it because you think it is great in general, regardless of context.

A fine line separates simple requests from assigning homework. However, here are some examples. I am happy to send you an existing document, but don’t ask me to compile a document especially for you just because you're curious. I am very happy to meet and discuss anything, but don’t ask me to prepare for the meeting in a particular way. I will answer any questions but won’t teach you how to do something complicated. I will match your idea with existing programs and resources, but will normally question the creation of any new program or resource. I will react quickly and use any opportunity to advance our mission but won’t do things that merely look good.

Little kids pass through the stage where they believe there are omnipotent adults who can do anything they want. And if they refuse to do something, it is because they are intentionally hostile towards them. Most of us outgrow this illusion and realize there is no omnipotent authority and unlimited resources at the disposal of those with authority. We live in a very imperfect world and work in very flawed organizations. A dose of realism makes for much better working relationships and fewer disappointments.

Weather and the human condition

The stormy, rainy days we've recently experienced have led me to contemplate how our planet's weather has shaped our evolution as a species. We learned to adapt to annual cycles, which are simply due to our planet's tilted axis. Furthermore, we developed resilience to the unpredictability of weather, knowing that any given day could be cold or warm, sunny or cloudy, calm or windy. One could easily imagine a different planet with no yearly patterns and a much more predictable weather system. Would such a planet cultivate a different kind of intelligence? However, it's our specific mix of predictable annual cycles and unpredictable daily variations that gave rise to our species. We mark our lives in years and take pleasure in being surprised by the shifting weather. Our civilization was largely shaped by our struggles to control these predictable and random changes. Our houses and clothes are just protective measures against adverse weather.

Perhaps the most profound consequence of our astronomical circumstances is this: we can predict with certainty the future weather for the next few months, but anything beyond a week or so remains unclear. For example, we know for sure that Sacramento will be hot by May, but no one can accurately predict the weather two weeks from now. Weather forecasts have slightly altered this situation, but not drastically. Our brains are pattern-seeking machines, yet they are consistently exposed to instances of pure randomness. The very need for free will may stem from weather unpredictability: when things are uncertain, we need to make decisions, which invariably involve assessing risks. It makes me wonder if intelligent life could exist on a planet without weather.

Weather teaches us to be adaptable, to change plans, and to always have a backup plan "in the event of inclement weather". The term "inclement" literally means "unmerciful". The unpredictability of atmospheric events planted a deep-seated belief in us that some divine force is behind a storm or a drought. However, it's more likely the other way around – weather has taught us that we can be unpredictable and random. The concept of free will likely mirrors the weather. We aspire to mirror the unpredictability of the skies. In many respects, we are merely reflections of our planet, despite our foolish belief in our own autonomy.

Teasing in the workplace

Teasing is generally accepted among close individuals across most cultures, but the degree of closeness required varies significantly. These variations can be challenging to discern, particularly as they can differ widely even within subcultures that coexist closely. In some communities (often more homogeneous), people don't need to be friends to tease each other humorously. In others, it can take years of acquaintance before any level of teasing is considered acceptable. When subcultures intersect across gender, class, and race, navigating these multiple cultural norms becomes even more complex. Regional differences also come into play, which is why quick-witted New Yorkers may encounter issues when moving to the Midwest or the West. The person doing the teasing might be saying, "Okay, now we're friends, so I will poke fun at you." It is a symbolic act of recognition and intimacy. At times, it might be a request for closeness, akin to asking, "will you be my friend?" However, the recipient may not interpret it this way and might see it as a sign of aggression or at least, poor taste. This scenario creates a typical cultural conflict, where differing assumptions lead to opposing interpretations of behavior.

Teasing can be seen as a form of verbal aggression masked as a joke. What makes it amusing is its proximity to real aggression or its highlighting of actual faults and blunders. This is why it's so fraught with risk and prone to misunderstanding. The rule in the workplace is straightforward: refrain from teasing unless you are absolutely certain that the other person interprets it as you intend. Establishing such safe boundaries usually requires several years of close interactions.

This rule extends to all forms of humor. In any conversation, I might voice around a quarter of the jokes that come to mind. The rest are too risky, and so, I suppress them. Yes, I have a twisted sense of humor, but I keep it under control. I hope other people do the same. All humor is a form of playful aggression. As Henry Bergson noted, "the comic demands something like a momentary anesthesia of the heart." In a diverse workplace, one must exercise caution when joking, especially at another person's expense. One might be playing a macho character as a joke or self-parody, but co-workers may not understand this and take your performance too seriously. It's not because they lack a sense of humor; rather, their cultural norms and life experiences might be too different from yours. We no longer live or work in culturally homogeneous groups. Thus, curb your urge to tease and joke. Opt for other means of connection. Kindness and politeness usually work better and have broader appeal. The Scandinavian style of self-deprecating humor also tends to work well.

Double consciousness for Russians

We understand others by finding glimpses of their experiences in our own. It is never the same, but sometimes what we experience “rhymes” with those of others.

I was thinking of W. E. B. Du Bois's notion of double consciousness when last week an anti-war and anti-Putin TV anchor misspoke and referred to the invading Russian army as “our army,” and said that he wants to help Russian soldiers to get better equipment. This created an outrage in much of Eastern Europe, understandably. People are on edge, and they reacted harshly.

W. E. B. Du Bois described the phenomenon like this: “One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.” This is not the same, but similar to what this anchor was feeling: He still maintains his Russian identity and feels kinship with Russian soldiers who are cold and hungry on the frontlines of the war they did not start. He may think they are stupid idiots, but somehow related to him. Like many of us, he wants that invading army to be defeated, and his homeland to lose the war it started.

Ukrainians obviously do not feel the split; their hatred for the invaders is both justified and unproblematic. The anti-Putin Russians do. The horror of the story is that one is unable to completely disentangle oneself from the invading horde. One experiences pain and compassion for Ukrainians, and pain and compassion to their tormentors. A person like that looks at one’s self through the eyes of others, and yet retaining his own identity.

Again, I am not equating the two experiences; the power dynamic and histories are very different. Yet, parallels like this open a little window into how confused and painful divided identities can be.

Anger management and academic bullying

Over the years, I've encountered several individuals who seem to possess all the leadership qualities, with one minor yet critical exception: they can't control their rage. For simplicity, let's call them academic bullies. These people are often intelligent, sophisticated, energetic, and well-organized. Moreover, they tend to be good communicators and possess a certain degree of charisma. You'd expect them to take on more responsibilities and advance in their careers. However, they have a significant flaw: they can't help being nasty. During routine work conversations, something triggers them, causing them to lose control and utter or write something unkind. This kind of flaw may be tolerated in some types of private businesses, but in academia, most authority relies on the support from a wide array of constituents. These individuals don't get elected, appointed, or promoted. They fail the test of sound relational instincts. Most people can intuitively discern between someone merely being irritated and someone being mean. While ordinary folks may become angry with each other, they also tend to calm down and rebuild their relationships. They still sense the point of no return during their bouts of anger and avoid crossing it. Bullies, on the other hand, cross it repeatedly. Deep-seated insecurity and possibly a degree of self-loathing drive them to seek instant gratification from belittling others. They're often aware that this isn't the best strategy, but the urge to demean others is too strong. Regardless of the consequences, they can't help themselves. Certainly, bullies gain nothing from their behavior. In fact, they often damage their own careers and opportunities.

At some point, a vicious cycle takes root: Correctly sensing hostility from others, the bully develops a victim complex, which shields them from any potential self-reflection. They lose sight of those they victimize, but become acutely aware of their own perceived victimization. Once the capacity to repent is lost, no relational growth is possible. Negative relational dynamics tend to harden, fall into self-reinforcing patterns, and ultimately make relational healing impossible. All past events slot into a rigidly constructed narrative of mutual hostility. Eventually, any functional group will find ways to isolate bullies, either by ignoring them or by granting them a small domain to control. They become sad and angry; their talent goes to waste. I wish I had a foolproof method to prevent this, but I don't. Among all the issues we tackle in academia, these unhappy individuals represent the most difficult to resolve. In this week following Thanksgiving, I am grateful that these are rare exceptions.

Terrible software. Let us name some names.

How do you know you are stuck with a terrible piece of software? When you are offered a user guide. The longer is the guide,  the worse is the user interface. I am not a software engineer and cannot appreciate the elegance of the code and the creativity of its internal design. But I can definitely tell a bad interface from a good one.

For example, someone called Iiaisonedu sold the CSU system Cal State Apply. Not only the System itself has to maintain detailed instructions, and pay tech support, but every campus is forced to develop its own set of instructions. Ours for one program only has 18 slides. The first couple of steps are easy, but then applicants get lost in whatever terminology the developer things is commonly understood.

As I mentioned before I have a couple of dozen different platforms I use for work only. Here is the picture of my bookmark folder called “Accounts.” Let’s give them some reviews.

OnBase is terrible program, written by space aliens for space aliens. None its terminology is used by normal human beings in their office. Somehow, it opens not with your inbox, where people want you to sign something, but on its very obscure back office page (with reporting, archives, queries, etc.), from which you have to find your way into the inbox that you need 95% of the time. It has little annoying bugs like you need to sign something, but then also find a different button, and say the form is completed. Really? Three clicks instead of one? The program was initially designed in 1991, by Hyland Software, and I don’t think anyone attempted to redesign its user interface since then. And yet governments and hospitals use it, because of the legacy issues.

Concur has another thoroughly confusing interface. It was designed for business executives whose assistants have no choice but figure out what all these buttons mean. It is absolutely unsuitable for the university environment, where most people travel 1-2 times a year and completely forget all its conventions between trips. Tell me again, how do "requests", "authorizations", and "approvals" relate to each other, and how do you "allocate"? Faculty members have no assistants, so we are forced to have a staff person to help them with travel; it is probably 75% of her workload. Some automation, right? You know you got screwed when a software costs you more labor than it saves.  Again, the program is almost 30 years old, and it shows. And yet, because they have a near monopoly on business travel, they seem to be able to sell their terrible product to the likes of us.

Course leaf is actually not bad on the interface part, but it has some weirdly basic gaps in its functionality. It goes back to Leapfrog Technologies, another company from early 90-s. For example, the thing does not let you know when your curriculum proposal is stuck at some level for weeks. The company also has the audacity to charge for every little change in forms we want to make. The idea that only the high priests of soft can have access to the configuration of the software is just so out of touch with this century’s computing practices.

We use a version of PeopleSoft, now the property of Oracle for some 12 years. It is another example of a very old monster that fell behind the times. At least they have an excuse: the databases must be very secure, and security kills agility and user customization. Still, they could figure out a better, more sleek and contemporary user interfaces. You know, something that look more like Instagram and Tok-tok, and less like your grandfather’s bank account.

Our Auxiliary organization that handles all grants and many other things, uses something designed by Ultimate Chronos, another elderly giant, founded in 1977, to keep their timesheets and other HR stuff. The system is not only completely incomprehensible, but is so buggy that I cannot approve my people’s timesheets for five years now.

Microsoft’s SharePoint and Office 365 is a mixed bag. It took them a decade to catch up with Google with respect to functionality, in some aspects it is a more advanced functionality. However, they somehow cannot overcome their curse of perpetual clunkinnes. Everything MS touches will look good and work fine, but… always takes three extra steps to figure out. They really have great engineers, but mediocre user experience specialists. What they think is cool, is actually kinda nerdy, and not in a cute way.

Let’s be fair, some of these are good. Zoom is great, which is why they killed Skype without much of an effort. I am thankful to them for helping us all to survive the pandemic, and for their drive to constantly improve. Qualtrics is a very decent survey software, mainly because the field of surveys is so competitive, and they need to improve to survive. I would call to question several of their choices, but it is something one can learn and use. Adobe Sign is actually a good program to use; kudos to Adobe for coming up with it not long before the pandemic. It worked great to transition our paperwork online. However, its more advanced functions, like branching of signature routes depending on the first user choice – is very-very difficult to use. This is a problem that has been solved a decade ago in various survey platforms. Why is Adobe with all its software engineering might cannot figure it out, is beyond my comprehension. It is simple – if the user chooses College A, it goes to one dean, if they choose College B, it goes to another. I know of workflow feature; it is not there yet and too complicated.

Anyway, I can keep going and going. However, the good news is for kids who want to learn to code and try a start-up. Business software is populated mostly by dinosaurs who don’t know what they are doing. They are also responsible for computer phobia that affects millions of people conditioned to blame themselves for being unable to figure out some terrible programs. Most of these dinosaurs are hopelessly behind times. Hire a very cool user interface designer, and you can beat them all. There is no reason submitting a timesheet should be harder than playing a Tik-tok clip or sending a message. There is no reason signing a document should be harder than liking a Fb post.

The industry is ripe for disruption. It is so behind, because of corporate model of purchasing. If Facebook is hard to use, millions of people make that decision, and Fb would be dead by now. When it is a corporation that buys a platform, the micro-signals from the user-driven market do not make it upstream. Neither the purchasers, not the vendors actually know enough about how end-users work, what they like and they hate about your platform.

Here is my actual list of bookmarked platforms

How to double room capacity on campus?

To do that, we need a couple of tweaks n the scheduling system. First, add Weal A and Weak B to the scheduling greed. For example, if you want to schedule a class in a certain room on only odd weeks of the semester, you can schedule another class in the same room on even weeks. Second, make hybrid modality a default in in the system. If somebody wants to meet every week, it is still fine, they can book a room for both weeks A and B. However, the default would be meeting every other week, and meeting online for the rest. This kind of switch does not require changes in program’s accreditation status. After the pandemic experience, most faculty can manage the online portion of the class. However, most students need some in-class presence to stay focused and motivated, so a hybrid class is often an acceptable compromise.

Figuring out which classes are OK to be taught fully online for which audiences, - this task turned out to be much more complicated that we ever imagined. I expect some time is needed to get a fuller understanding of what is the best mix of modalities. Some problems only time will solve. As I have said before, the dual modality instruction that sounded so great in theory, turned out to be impractical for most faculty (although not for all). In the meanwhile, it seems reasonable to default to a half-way solution of hybrid courses; the solution that blend some of the advantages of online learning with those of f2f classroom. It seems to be the least risky option. It also solves a very practical problem of classroom capacity at a relatively low cost.

We will also eventually arrive at shared offices for staff and faculty who telecommute. There is a lot of psychological barriers to that, including attachment to one’s office, the sense of self-worth, office decorations, the kids’ pictures, and all the other office culture. However, the pragmatics will win in the end. The public will not be paying for hundreds of empty offices if telecommuting continues to be the norm. Taxpayers will start asking questions sooner or later.

In the future, the footprint of workplaces in general will shrink, and commuting will be reduced. As people will work more at home and less in their offices, we won’t need as many offices. It is good for both the environment and for people’s well-being. Less driving means cleaner air and lower cost of gas. Working part of the week from home will become the norm. I do not believe fully remote workers will be very common wither. Again, compromises tend to win the day, unless someone finds real evidence that partial telecommuting reduces productivity. I have not seen any evidence like that yet, which does not mean it does not exist. It is likely, that the partial telecommuting works better for some industries, but not for others. It works fine for universities so far. Let’s think about smaller campuses with lighter footprint.

Minority report

Last week, I had an opportunity to interact with a very small minority within a minority, within another minority. Estonia is a small European country of 1.3 million. Within it, a mostly secular country, there is 20% minority of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Within it, there is a minority of Estonian-speaking people, both ethnically Russian and Estonian. Within that group, there is a group that holds anti-Putin, and pro-European values. That’s who I visited and had a chance to interact with.

The minority point of view is always rich, and always more interesting than that of a majority. It is rich with contradictions, of unsettles identities, rich in alternative memories. A minority always understand the majority better than vice versa; and it understands itself much better. It is easy to blend in, to dissolve in the big sea, but it is hard to hold on to your identity, and even harder to pass it on to your children. This makes for a more complex, more multilayered culture. IN many cases, minority youth have better levels of adaptability, richer repertoire of relational skills.

St. John’s school in Tallinn is quite amazing. A brand-new building in Nordic design traditions, with a very cool chapel built into it. The kids chatter in Estonian, but after about 4th grade will switch to English with guests. An amazing Indian chef cooks home meals, and relaxed, free atmosphere. These are all the signs of a liberal school. And yet is also a religious school. The link between religion and social conservatism is very not universal. Cultural landscape is always more complex than one might imagine. I also enjoyed talking to several theologians at the conference. They are not normally the crowd I hang out with. But I was taught by my adviser Lyudmila Novikova to seek new ideas always outside of my own field. For example, I was reminded that the Patristic literature examined most of thing to know about the human condition. They used different conceptual apparatus but talked about the same things. It would be fun to do a second translation – not just from Greek to English, but also from the language of theology to the language of contemporary secular scholarship. I did a few bits of it in the past, writing about what icons mean today, and how the concept of sin is applicable to the Trump movement and other varieties of populism. But that is for another project.

There is no shame in shrinking

Finally, the waive of declining college-age population reached California. For years we were an exception because of the growing immigrant youth. And yet the trend has reached us after all.

The reaction is predictable: public universities are gearing up for a more competitive environment: rethinking their recruitment and marketing operations, developing more appealing programs, reaching out farther to non-traditional populations. These are all good; a little competition helps to boost productivity, creativity, and helps to attune better to the demands of labor market.

The one strategy I do not see is preparing to actually shrink enrollments. The imperative to grow was so strong for so many years, that it maybe difficult to adjust. Yet indeed, if the demographic changes will be as serious as we expect, none of the above strategies is going to not help much. CSU is too big to steal students from the other two public systems and from private institutions. While there are many people with unfinished degrees, not too many of them will come to complete their degrees. And we are not geared up to accommodate all of them.

Organized retreat is the most difficult operation, and yet it is much better than disorganized retreat. As student body shrinks, the staff and faculty body cannot stay the same. We can wait until the next financial crisis, of course, and then go through a very painful fast shrinking ordeal, with hiring freezes, furloughs, layoffs, etc. Or we can try to spell out a mid-range strategy of organized shrinking: evaluating programs, streamlining services, eliminating redundancies, automating workflows, increasing efficiency, etc. Let’s face the fact that shrinking will increase our costs per student while reducing our tuition revenues. Should we at least run a few models for various scenarios? In other words, we can arrive at a smaller size in better shape and avoid painful shocks to the organization.

I fully realize, learning to be a smaller institution is not as much fun as growing. Growing pains are much more tolerable than shrinking pains. The problem is, we may not have a choice whether to experience the latter. If you know you cannot avoid something bad, a responsible thing is to prepare and mitigate consequences. Let’s not talk about modest reduction in size in funeral tones. It is not the end of the world. We are an overcrowded campus with aging physical plant. Perhaps something good can be gotten in the worsening situation?

Poor department, rich department

All public universities have some sort of a quasi-commercial continuing or extended education shops. All struggle to figure out the right kind of incentive for faculty to engage into putting together more of such programs. State funding is never enough, and there is only a limited set of options to diversify revenues. Basically, only three exists: fundraising, grants/contracts, and continuing education programming. The latter is by far the most significant.

Those campuses more influenced by the neoliberal management theories send some of the profits back to those who create and teach CE programs. The logic is simple: create reach and poor, the poor will see how well the rich have it and will try to do the same thus increasing the overall wealth created. In practice, such an approach does not work, and sometimes has tremendous negative externalities.

First, not all departments and not all colleges are in a position to put together a CE program or any other revenue-generating gig. If you a chemistry department, you may occasionally land a commercial contract. If you are in astronomy, it is much less likely. Colleges of business can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by putting together an Executive MBA. Departments like English and Math that work hard at putting all students through gened courses, can rarely offer something to the market. It is not because of lack of effort or creativity. Academic disciplines have very different relations with external markets; they serve vastly different external populations. One should not incentivize luck.

Other issues with fairness arise. For example, who do you share the income with? Is it the individual, the department, the college or the division? If it is a department, most of it may have nothing to do with the CE program that generates revenues. How is getting extra resources fair, if all you did was to be lucky to work with someone who had an idea and has the persistence to implement it? If it is the college, the same problem of rich and poor colleges produces a very inequitable outcome. I have seen more than one group ruined under the pressure of the irrational inequality. A lot of money not only create fertile sole for nepotism, but what is even more important, they create an inevitable mistrust. Dividing a lot of money that results in extreme inequality is a relational bomb. Seeing a very rich neighbor does not motivate the poor department to act (especially if they cannot do much); but it generates resentment.

But also consider other, less obvious side-effects. For strategic re-investment of CE revenues, you need a relative concentration of the funds. You can build meaningful programs with significant resources. When a small department gets their 5 K a year of play money, they will buy a coffeemaker, and a new furniture. I remember in one of my old places we repainted the main office. It was beautiful, but was it consequential? OK, the rich department faculty will go to a few more conferences, including that questionable one in Hawaii in January, organized by who-knows-whom. All of this is nice, but it is not strategy. I former dean-colleague I admire saved money for something like 8 years and built a whole brand-new facility for one of the programs. Yes, his departments got by without a leather chair, but it was a strategic investment that benefited everyone. And unlike another college, it did not self-destruct in acrimony.

Every CE program lets its authors and participants make extra income. No one does this work for free. If this direct compensation is fair, it is already a strong incentive to keep going, and invent new programs. The excess revenue sharing is a more complicated thing, because this money cannot be individual income. It can only come as some sort of PD funds, with a bunch of strings attached. Or it can be spent on buying stuff. As I mentioned, the more concentrated are those funds, the more strategic is its use. For the revenue, solidarity works better than competition. Deans and provosts cannot “keep” the money; they must invest it in something that supports the mission and benefits as many people as possible. Spending money in academia is not easy; it must come with a plan, and it must do no harm.

California Master Plan, and Why it should be revised

In 1960, the Plan was a recognized achievement in higher education policy. Most states and many nations copied it to some degree. It is still a required reading in higher education history and policy courses. It created three large public education systems with distinct missions: Community Colleges, the CSU, and the UC. The plan performed remarkably well, giving broad access while forcing the three systems to stay focused on their respective missions. Community colleges – for all programs below BA, CSU for bachelors’ and masters’ degrees, and UC for everything, including PhD level programming.

The plan has been changing gradually. Some community colleges were authorized to offer a limited number of bachelor’s degrees. CSU’s can now offer four doctoral degrees for practitioners (Ed D in Ed Leadership, DNP in Nursing, DPT Physical Therapy, and AUD in Audiology). Right now, 68 doctoral programs are offered by the CSU, including many joint programs with UC campuses. These recent shifts recognize the realities of the new knowledge-based economy. While in 1960, a tiny minority of workforce had doctoral degrees. In California now, almost half a million people have doctorate degrees. But per capita, the state lags behind 11 other states, including New Mexico and Rhode Island. Within CA, counties vary greatly by the percent of their doctorate-educated populations, From Modoc at .12% to Yolo at 5.12%.

I am not suggesting we need to churn out more and more doctoral graduates regardless of their employment prospects. It is easy to enter the race to the bottom if regulations are completely abandoned. Unfortunately, we know that free market competition does not work in education. If you deregulate higher ed, the Akerlof’s Lemon Law kicks in. At the same time, CSU should continue to expand its degree offerings for fields that we know are short of workers with advanced degrees, and therefore are guaranteed employment. I imagine some of the hard sciences and computer sciences are among them. I know for sure that mental health practitioners and their supervisors are on that list.  While UC had built am impressive range of research-focused PHD programs, those are not going to feed the labor market for practitioners with advanced degrees. It is time we recognize the trend at the State level, and make actual revisions to the Master plan, rather than keep authorizing one degree at a time. An amendment could be simple: CSU is authorized to offer doctoral degrees other than PHD. There is already a robust approval process all the way to the chancellors’ office to approve new degrees, including labor market analysis. I am just not sure it should take a new legislative action every time we do that.

The conservative in me

In the higher ed, the talk of change, of innovation, of strategy, and moving forward is all you can hear. In reality all administrators worry at least as much about screwing up. Take the CSU System. The public has entrusted us with this very expensive, very sophisticated machine, essential to the State’s economy and its democracy. As President Nelsen said recently, we are the manufacturers of the middle class for the state. Imagine you are in charge of the James Webb Telescope, a 10 billion dollars piece of equipment that took decades to build and launch. Even if you take care of only a small part of it, you don’t want your part malfunctioning, right?

From a certain angle, the CSU System looks like a slow, gigantic, and bureaucratic beast. From another angle, it is one of the wonders of the world, the image of the future for the humanity. How can it take all of this very diverse population, not the elite, but regular kids, many of whom first generation in college, and give them a degree, a profession, give them hope and purpose? It is something the rest of the world needs to learn how to do.

And our telescope can be damaged easily, yes. One scandal will not kill it, but multiple ones can seriously damage its credibility, undermine public confidence, and result in decreased funding and invasive over-regulation. Any kind of bad news can come out about any university: about poor morale, labor conflicts, harassment, bias, inefficiencies, wastefulness, self-interest, poor management, and many others. Of course no one wants to be the cause of such things, - not only because it is professionally embarrassing, but because we don’t want to hurt the miracle machine.

Yes, we all talk about change and progress, and improvement. Silently, all of us are also conservatives, very much so. We won’t admit it because no one likes an overcautious bureaucrat. Yet the stakes can be high. None of us wants to make things worse on our watch. We all want to pass our little part of the telescope onto the next person in a better shape than when we found it.

Administrators are philosophers

They may or may not realize it, but it is true. They all have to practice some philosophy to make good decisions. Here is an example of a dilemma:

1. Some students want to take online classes, but we know (from the pandemic years) that it may not be good for them. Others want to be online and can learn just fine, while improving their access and family lives. Therefore, providing simple choice is not going to work, because choice is based on an assumption that people know what they need. If student knew what they need, they won’t be needing education.

2. There is no easy way to distinguish between the two groups. However, we can make educated guesses about groups of students and types of classes. Our guesses may be poor, but they may be better than unfettered choices of students. We actually do not know that for sure, but professors have more experience than students and should be able to make better decisions.

3. Some instructors want to teach online, but they are not good at it. Other professors want to teach online and are good at it. And yet still others do not want to teach online, but they are good at it anyway. We know this from the pandemic records. However, politically it hard to push them to teach in modality that students need, because the authority of making most curricular and pedagogical decision lies with faculty. We may be able to delegate the decision to groups of faculty members, but small group dynamics may get weird really quickly, we know that from the past experience.

OK, this was only a small subset of major factors that should be considered into the decision on how many online and f2f courses do we need to offer. The other factors include cohorted programs, where choice of modality is impractical, the institutional accreditation rules that prevent arbitrary changes of modality, the practicality of assigning instructors to classes late, after the modality is established, etc. In other words, the problem appears too complex to be solved. We can keep it unsolved for a year or two, but it needs to be solved eventually.

The only way to solve a complex problem involves an act of “zooming out,” that is trying to figure out what is this a case of? It involves getting out of the particulars and trying to find a more general perspective on the problem. Once you do something like that, you start practicing philosophy weather you know it or not. Philosophy is thinking about how you should think about complex problems.

The philosophical move of taking a broader view can be performed in hundreds of different ways. The choice depends on philosophers set of tools, knowledge of theories, and often preferences. The only way to know if you have found the right one is the result – is the solution you offer is any better than others, and better than a random guess? Regardless of the way you move, it takes time to think through. Philosophy is work; it requires some mental effort.

For example, the example I started with can be considered a case of paternalism vs. developmentalism. All educational institutions are riddled with a paradox: On one hand, schools are paternalistic; they make no sense without guiding and limiting student choices. Hence, we have constructed curriculum, and organized instruction. We want to prevent students from making major errors that could ruin their lives. At the same time, schools are developmentalist: if you want to teach students to make rational choices that are good for them, you must allow some errors to occur. Without making some wrong choices and experiencing negative consequences, students will never learn how to make their own good choices. For example, knowledge that you are not a good online student is better if it comes from your own experience, not because you were told so. If you examine closely, most of education is a balancing act between letting students make their own error and preventing them from making errors that are too large. School is a place for safer errors.

Again, I am not saying that my way of “zooming out” is the best one. I may or may not be a good philosopher, but I know the trade’s basic move. My intent was just to show how philosophy helps reframe the problem that is hard to solve otherwise. Indeed, making the philosophical move allows me to focus on a very specific aspect of the problem: taking an online class and having a bad time – is it a big error that can ruin your life, or a small one from which you can actually learn something?

In this particular case, we should probably look for some empirical evidence, and that is where social science comes in. But at least we know what to look for. And even without detailed evidence, I can make a guess that the error is probably not too large, and it can be made educational and less painful. All we need to do is offer some variety of classes with different modalities, so that students who struggle to learn online are not overwhelmed by many small failures. We should probably rule out offering classes by poor online instructors; just find a political solution for that. And finally, to make these choices educational, we should warn students before they sign up, what is involved in an online class, and help them reflect on their experience after it is done. Not all errors are educational; only those you reflected on as errors.

Sometimes solving a problem entails the correct estimation of its scale. Once you realize the problem may not be as big as you imagined, you buy some time for experimenting and seeing what happens.