Comments

Posted by: LisaM of Bryan On: Saturday, July 04, 2009 5:24 PM

Comment Title: Co-signing with Concerned Faculty
I feel like the luckiest person in the world. I wake up each morning looking forward to my job, and after a hard day at work I look forward to coming home to my family. The fact that probationary period for faculty is 6-7 years doesn't bother me. Most of us do this because we are committed to learning (for ourselves, our students, & for the good of our country). How many "real world" jobs have you wait 7 years before you know its yours? I'm sure there are some bad apples in the profession, and at TAMU. But name a single job where those don't exist? In my experience, the lack of sustained productivity is not rewarded - no merit raises, no bonuses, nada. Good faculty take pride in what we do, and we want to do it well. Most faculty I know work long hours - 50-60-70 hours/week. I don't golf, but I know many who do (yes, during the day). But have people considered that many of these "daytime golfers" are working in the middle of the night? That perhaps while others are golfing on the weekends, they're in their offices preparing for class? I know faculty (bench scientists) who go in the middle of the night to run their experiments in order to enable students to use lab equiptment during more reasonable hours. Faculty positions are not designed to be 9-5, otherwise, there'd be no night classes :) for those full-time workers who want to go back to school. I look around my department and see most of us from very humble beginnings, and not from privileged backgrounds. So it is distressing to read faculty caste in such negative light. We are asking the BOR to do something simple - understand what our jobs are before you go changing things in the name of "improvement."
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: A concerned faculty On: Saturday, July 04, 2009 4:27 PM

Comment Title: Chancellor vs. Faculty
While Al has provided very useful information, and I think it should be spread more widely, there is another aspect that needs informing as well. It is about qualifications and evaluation. Those who talk about bosses and paychecks, etc., may not know how one gets to be a professor. Typically when a new assistant professor is needed there is a national search. Nowadays because of A&M's good reputation (which was jeopardized by the Chancellor) as many as 100, sometimes more, apply. The selection process is rigorous with input from external experts. Even then, the person selected is not given a permanent job. Three years after appointment there is an evaluation, and again in the sixth year for tenure when 8 or more external experts are consulted. Committees at 3 levels - department, college and university - evaluate and only then if positive results are found the Board of Regents approve and the person is allowed to stay. Ironically, the same Board appoints a Chancellor without any input from experts. The only qualification that matters is loyalty and friendship with the governor. Imagine if professors are appointed this way! What assurance would you have that your kids get a good education? How would you know the State of Texas would keep its prosperity? Would you want to trust qualifications and judgment of a political appointee over people who have worked hard and earned their place through constant performance and scrutiny? People of Texas, be reasonable. We professors are not asking you to thank us, but you should not be proud of ignorance.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Saturday, July 04, 2009 4:42 AM

Comment Title:
That's funny.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Friday, July 03, 2009 4:23 PM

Comment Title: New Prez?
With the latest news of Sarah Palin stepping down as governor, can it be long until she is appointed the next president of TAMU? Inquiring minds want to know...
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Interested bystander On: Friday, July 03, 2009 7:40 AM

Comment Title: Response to AL 7/2
Please send these comments to the Eagle/Chronicle/Austin American-Statesman as a Letter to the Editor where the general public can read them!
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:52 PM

Comment Title:
Thank you Eagle to continue to probe and publish. KBTX appears not to consider it newsworthy that the problems of the community's largest employer (TAMUS) have completely disrupted the quality of life in B/CS.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:54 PM

Comment Title: Sigh again...
and, glad you like the name. And, they are all alike in one important way - if the dollars out exceed the dollars in - the doors close. Bottom line. The mission is lost without understanding that and the concept of the boss man. Pap man...
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:50 PM

Comment Title: Sigh, Indeed...
They are all alike only in that we all answer to someone and few of us like it. Missions aside, we all answer to someone. None of us like it much. That's all. Somebody else tells us what to do, we accept orders and paychecks, and we rarely like all of the orders, but we accept the checks. That is as simple as I can make my point, and that is simply my point. I do not mean to complicate things, but am enjoying the discussion.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:46 PM

Comment Title: Sigh, PAP Man
Pap Man (I like your name), you missed the point of churches as an example. The POINT is that churches have a mission different from businesses, and therefore may not use the same criteria for "value" as businesses. Institutions of higher learning are also different from businesses in the way churches are: priorities, intended outcomes, values, etc. At no point did I suggest churches and universities are similar in the way you described. Because they are not businesses (particularly universitieis - I can't speak for churches due to my ignorance in that realm) they don't have "bosses" in the same mold as businesses, nor are decisions derived the same way. For folks to believe that universites should be run like businesses entirely miss the point of universities. This is not to say that business practices are not useful in this setting, but most certainly should not be the primary structure of operations. If TAMU is run wholly like a business, then it will be TAMC (Texas A&M Co.) or TAMI (Texas A&M Industry), not University. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:19 PM

Comment Title: Pap Man Again
Nope, it is not a corporation. Yes, professors do help bring in dollars to keep it going. That is the job of a professor. So is teaching. That is why they get paid. Hopefully the enjoy their work and do it for more enjoyment than the pleasures and necessities the paycheck allows them to have. People get paid to work. If they are lucky enough to get paid to do something they like to do, they are truly blessed. If they get to call the shots, they are called owners or self-employed. Even churches have to bring in more money than they send out. Churches are NOT a good comparison - just look at some of the grand churches in Brazos County, the cars the pastors drive, and then wonder how much good they are doing the parishoners. Universities probably do much more good for students. I am not stating whether I am a believer or nonbeliever, but to bring churches into this discussion is absolutely ludicrous. You might as well get on stage with McKinney and start spouting scripture. TAMU is clearly not a faith-based organization any more than lots of churches are on a mission to help the needy when collection plates are passed out. There are lots of luxury cars at TAMU and in those spots reserved for preachers. Some of those expensive cars might be high-dollar feel-good hibrids out of the reach of the common working man. In the end, we are all just men. Professors are no better than men who dig ditches for a living. Everybody has a boss. That's life. Some just know it and understand that despite how much we might disagree with things, things are what they are. Obama might be president, but no great change is going to come because people whine more or louder. Dogs that bark constantly are eventually not heard. There have been foolish research projects for years at TAMU mixed in with excellent ones. There have been unnecessary staff and professors mixed in with much needed ones. That's the way big companies and government entities operate. That is just what TAMU is. Now that dollars are getting tight, things are getting tough and folks are just going to have to start justifying expenses a bit more clearly. The real world is scary, isn't it?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: aggie supporter On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:00 PM

Comment Title: some thoughts
I've been very impressed by the objectivity of the Eagle in its coverage of the Chancellor's politically inspired erratic behavior. Time and again McKinney has chosen not to answer legitimate questions about his irrational and autocratic conduct. Thus, I don't understand G's charge that "The newspapers and the liberal media love you guys for they would love to tear TAMU down." On the contrary, the Eagle and the faculty have raised legitimate questions about the McKinney's leadership and his ties to Rick Perry. I applaud their efforts to maintain the reputation of TAMU. Second, I imagine the hostility toward professors in some of the postings here arise from the fact that profs not only teach but also evaluate and assign grades. I suspect in fact that poor "bobaloo" may still be smarting from a bad grade. Keep up the good work senators and Vimal.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: G On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:25 AM

Comment Title: Communications and leadership
Debate is good and healthy but good leaders and staff need to work properly through a constructive forum. In my business all ideas were good ideas and disagreements were heard. We could not accept all ideas and suggestions, but after we leave the room we were one voice. Team work is the formula for success.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:17 AM

Comment Title: Misplaced anger
As is usually the case, the anger at the faculty is probably a result of a few bad eggs. When they are seen consistently playing golf during work hours, sitting at home during work watching sports, living in other cities while teaching only one course and on and on, it is easy to get a distaste. Perhaps information showing how many classes the professors are really teaching would be enlightening.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:13 AM

Comment Title: Not run like corporations
That is correct but perhaps economically they should be. Seems that if you work for DuPont and discover anti-freeze that the profits are theirs. How about at the University level?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:40 AM

Comment Title: Churches and Universities and Industry
Churches (and other religious orgs) are not run like corporations, although they use many business practices to enhance the efforts of their respective missions. There is no outcry about why churches are not run like Enron or Exxon because people understand they have a different mission. Well people, universities are not corporations either. Think about this: When hospitals' did not have to worry about costs, then healthcare decisions were made based on need, not the bottom line. When healthcare became a business, then your need for cancer treatment was decided by whether or not it made "business sense" - not based on a non-quantifiable investment in YOUR life. How many of us keep track of how much it costs to raise our kids? I don't. I do what needs to be done because whatever I put into my children is an investment in their future. I'm not looking for a dollar return. I'm not pushing my child into med school or law school in hopes they'll pay me back. Higher education works the same way people. It is an investment that in many ways, can not be quantified. The US was at the forefront of industry because we had excellent engineers, mathematicians, physicists. We've "outsourced" that because of our inability to invest in education beginning at the primary levels. But its not too late. We still have the best universities in the world, which is why China, Korea, Japan, Ghana, Mexico, Qatar, India send the best and brightest (at their governments expense) to US universities for training. Yet I'm reading here how people don't value it? If you are a true patriot of the USA, and you don't want to see our competitive edge continue to decline, then you need to re-evaluate how you perceive higher education. I am surprised at how many posters want to go back to the dark ages! What a waste.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:27 AM

Comment Title: Thumbs to AL
great observations....
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: AL On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:22 AM

Comment Title: Response to G
I appreciate very much your post, and I fully agree with it. Much of the recent hulabaloo is a consequence of broken communications. The BOR used to go out of their way to learn about Texas A&M (it is drastically different, from the point of view of how it is funded, and it's expanded research mission from the 40 year ago model that is in many of their Texas A&M memories). Under Gates, for example, there were frequent roundtables BOR meetings with faculty and administrators where the issues before the University could be discussed in small groups with more light and less heat. The regents as a consequence developed a stronger appreciation of the challenges before the University as a whole, the TAMU administrators, faculty and students. This frequent roundtable practice had been largely discontinued, until the recent rash of meetings to defuse this present crisis. It is difficult for a business executive to parachute into the board of a $1.2B/yr operation (that is quite different from running an oil company) and start making high impact decisions, without accumulating more insights from studying the system as it is now, not how they remember it from 40 years ago. 40 years ago a tiny per cent of A&M's budget came from faculty generated research, we were essentially a 100% teaching institution. A&M was a state university in every sense of the word with about 90% of it's budget from state $ and the rest from tuition. Since state tax dollars have not kept up with the growth and it gets worse every year, the modern A&M we know has literally been built by hiring faculty who can do it all: teach well, research well, and raise half of the 1.2B budget annually through highly competitive research and proposal naitonal competitions. In many of these competiitons, 1/10 of the proposals are funded --- thus the emphasis on hiring as many of the best and brightest as possible. The State of Texas dollars are less than a third of the budget, so we are now a "state assisted" university from a funding point of view. Regarding the "real world" comments by other posters, many of the research projects have heavy industrial participation and quite a few of the research projects result in spinoff companies with the resulting technologies. A significant fraction of the faculty teach, have payrolls of fifteen or more people (funded on over $1M/yr they raise trough marketing of their research), and they have to satisfy their research sponsors or their budget disappears; they are in effect running small high tech research enterprises under university letterhead, while doing their day job of teaching, research and service. Through teaming with industry and serving on corporate boards, many of the faculty have more "real world" experience thay they are being given credit for in these posts. That does not excuse incessant faculty whining - this truth does provide a context however - since the faculty responsibilities includes generating half of the Texas A&M budget, and virtually all of the technical and financial basis for the kinds of high tech ventures that the Chancellor is engaging in --- it is reasonable for the faculty to be more than casually interested in the decisions being made. The regents and the board need to do a more effective job of understanding the full mission of the university and the only way to do this is to more effectively tap the insights of their main source of funding and the people they are trying to lead (the faculty). It usually takes a decade for a strong professor to develop the kind of programs that underwrite the research funding to a significant degree. The senior faculty have been here much longer and have much larger investments in the university's past and future than a random political friend of the Govenor who gets tapped to serve a term as regent. Think about this a while and you might see where some of the faculty frustration comes from.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:07 AM

Comment Title: Performance
Expressin' the hate for faculty will not lessen our commitment for excellence in scholarship, research and teaching: Many of us have worked at other institutions, we have turned down positions elsewhere, yet we can do our work at other institutions. But those of us who moved here recently were swayed by the mission of Vision 2020. We were *recruited* here, and we agreed to that mission. We cannot take the hateful comments seriously, but encourage posters who find financial waste despicable to study the finer details of the Introgen Therapeutics and Lexicon Therapeutics fiasco -- your "money" was involved in that, despite the clear evidence that it was NOT a promising endeavor. Follow the money....always follow the money. And that's common sense.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:59 AM

Comment Title: How many of you actually know a prof?
My goodness, the degree of disdain for faculty here is alarming. Did some of you fail a class in college? How many of you actually know (really know) a professor? Do you truly believe all are lazy overpaid nerds?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:31 AM

Comment Title: Performance in real world
Yes education provides some foundation but success in the real world is much more related to work ethic, perseverance, strong character and yes a good bit of luck. The luck part is provided by the comaradarie. The other parts are being Aggies not by what lazy professors who do not teach provide.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:35 PM

Comment Title: Once Again, It is all pap
Most posters here seem to agree, this is all faculty pap. Feelings have been hurt because professors are just not precious enough or placed on pedestals high enough to suit them. High salaries, awards, and accolades from fawning students and research assistants are not enough. Faculty must have "ownership." How politically correct and new-age. Grow up. You own nothing at Texas A&M. You are privileged to be employed by the university and are required to do the job that you seem to feel you are doing the university a favor by doing. Shared governance is well described in the quote in this article about McKinney - "Last month, McKinney made comments to The Eagle that appeared to downplay the importance of shared governance, the idea of gathering as much input as possible from relevant groups before making decisions." You faculty members just do not seem to understand that in the real world, this shared governance is just lip service. Gathering as much input as possible does not mean nor guarantee that it is valued. It is only gathered to help you feel that you are taking part in the great myth of shared governance. In the end, at TAMU just like any other BUSINESS, one person calls the shots. That's life. Grow up. Share your lunch, because you are not going to govern. Try to pull down a couple of hundred grand a year at another job. Try to get hired at another university - I do not think they are advertising for crybabies. You guys are the burger flippers in the education world. The owners call the shots, not the cooks. The only thing supersized are some egos. The embarrassment you bring to the university is only outweighed by your shameless self-serving attitudes. Please list Murano's wonderful accomplishments along with your own.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:22 PM

Comment Title: Can't have it both ways
There are mixed messages being sent by posters. On one hand, faculty are lazy, overpaid intellectuals who barely do anything useful and most certainly can't make it out in the real world. On the other hand, we have those who post Aggies hire Aggies "Because the graduate doing the hiring went through the curriculum, worked in the real world, and knows the top graduates are well prepared for entry into the real world." Aren't these good-for-nothing-and-not-worth-their-salaries faculty RESPONSIBLE for the education provided to these Aggies? Lesson: One can't have well-educated, well-prepared graduates from any university without excellent faculty to provide this experience. So why bash the faculty who are the work horses, when the problem stems at the top - the non-academics and politicians who are running the place into the ground?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: People were hired solely on the bsis of what school was on their diploma? On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:15 PM

Comment Title:
Absolutely. Still happens. But don't be disillusioned as Texas A&M had highly rated Vet, Engineering, and Business Schools. As to hiring grads for tenure track faculty, I know of no major university that does so. Why proud? Because the graduate doing the hiring went through the curriculum, worked in the real world, and knows the top graduates are well prepared for entry into the real world.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:47 PM

Comment Title: Affirmative Action Aggie Style
My goodness. People were hired solely on the bsis of what school was on their diploma? So I could have graduated with a 1.7 GPR, but as long as I was an Aggie, I'd have a job from another Aggie? And people BRAG about it? This is exactly the mindset that led to Texas A&M acquiring a reputation for "progress" backwards good ol' boys politics. Such incestuous practice leads to narrower ways of thinking, which is why the best universities ("best" as in producing graduates who get jobs based on knowledge and skills, not alumni) don't hire their own graduates as tenure track faculty. Why in the world would one be proud of such a nepotimistic practice?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: The only value to an Aggie degree is from the comraderie of former and fellow students. On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:19 PM

Comment Title:
B-I-N-G-O An Aggie VP of Finance for Tenneco Oil Company hired ONLY A&M grads in late 60's and early 70"s. I was one of three from the '69 class. Thank you Leroy Capps.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: G On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:17 PM

Comment Title: To AL
I have worked at TAMU in research. Although it was while I was in grad school several years ago, I have some first hand knowledge of the need to generate funding for the university from many sources. I also took about 200 hours of courses over 5 1/2 years. After that I went into industry and was reasonably successful(COO). I still work today in a parallel field but not my primary. I would say that my success and other classmates was based upon hard work; the foundation I had learned and built from some professors from TAMU; a little luck; etc. I have given much money to TAMU like many other AGS. I have no quarrel with you or the other professors but what the faculty has done is not good either. If McKinney needs to go, and he will, it will be done by responsible dialogue in the right forum, not via some sensationalized, unorganized vote of no confidence. Many of the companies that fund your research are run that way. Not in the papers or from the outcome of a staff meeting. The newspapers and the liberal media love you guys for they would love to tear TAMU down.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:43 AM

Comment Title: TAMU Faculty
Our faculty is made up of overpaid, not-teaching, and unable to compete in the real world personnel. They use academia to hide their inabilities and feed their egos. The only value to an Aggie degree is from the comraderie of former and fellow students. The education is inferior.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:39 AM

Comment Title: Can anyone tell me????
What part of this faculty has resulted in any of our colleges or majors being recognized in the top 25 in the nation. Come on now faculty, you talk the talk, show me where we are in the top 25.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:37 AM

Comment Title: Dear Al
The 1/2 of income you (the faculty) bring in comes not just from private industry but in fact is mostly Federal money grants and foundation grants. I do not mind telling you are full of it, because that is my (the public) money also!!
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:35 AM

Comment Title: Grenada Ranch
Anyone remember this one. How about Enron with the faculty member on board (yeah the ex-senator from TX wife) and consulting done by accounting department to hide the abuse. It goes on. Not all but A&M has more than its shares of fraud wh..res on staff. TAMU is not a strong academic school and it is because of the faculty.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Tom Arnold On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:32 AM

Comment Title: Monkey business
The problem is businessmen, not necessarily business practices. There is a lot of chaff on these posts regarding whether “business” is good or bad for a University. They miss the point – it is the subversion of good practices that are the problem, as shown clearly by TAMUS actions with Introgen Therapeutics (IT) and Lexicon Therapeutics (LT). In 2005, the business press questioned the wisdom of the $50 million funding from the state to the TIGM project, due in part to the majority shareholders of LT who were large donors to the Governor. The official press release touted the creation of many jobs due to the effort. What happened? LT took their $35 million and baled, refiling with the SEC in 2008 to amend the agreement (signed by Dr Mike), has CUT its workforce twice at roughly 20% each time and had a stock price dropping through the floor. A&M is holding the bag, literally. Who benefited? Who considers this good business?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: E On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:27 AM

Comment Title: r.e. The employees don't get to run the show
This was another one of those 'don't let the inmates run the asylum' posts. There has been adequate descriptions of shared governance in numerous stories & posts, and in the core values & imperatives of Vision 2020. Shared governance is not allowing kooky 'liburl' ex-hippies run A&M. Tenure? Ever heard of the golden parachute? It is essentially a payoff for an ex-executive not to use the knowledge of a company's intimate workings to a competitor's advantage. Business, which so many here tout as the model of efficient administration, would never hire an engineer without signing a non-disclosure agreement, but can't seem to do the same with their executive class. Between the current round of bailouts, the credit meltdown, the resulting economic slowdown, and the post-Enron accounting scandals, just what is it from business that recommends itself to A&M?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: E On: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:27 AM

Comment Title: r.e. The employees don't get to run the show
Bockris was one of the single most detrimental individuals to the reputation of A&M throughout its history. He was NOT a Nobel Laureate! The Ig Nobel Prize is a parody of the Nobel Prize. For 1997 in the field of physics: "Presented to John Bockris of Texas A&M University, for his achievements in cold fusion, in the transmutation of base elements into gold, and in the electrochemical incineration of domestic rubbish." The entire list is hilarious reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners. I recall vaguely a top-ten rating for A&M in Barron's, in fall of 1988 for state schools, or engineering schools. Bockris' scientific fraud in the Cold Fusion debacle, and the bullying in attempting to quell criticism and questions at a scientific conference left A&M with more damage to its prestige and reputation than either Utah school from which the controversy arose. I do not recall what either Barron's or US News ranked A&M in the following year/s, but there were no more stories, or posturing as a top ten school, save for rhetoric from then A&M president William Mobley. The Bockris story didn't end there. In 1992, he brought in a con-man, who called himself a PhD, but was a true con--a TDC ex-con, and $200K gift to the then A&M Development Foundation (to be funds-matched?) to do experimental research in alchemy--specifically transmutation of base metals into gold. Colorful adventures ensued through late 1993, including the threat of using the cold fusion technique of taking scientific claims directly to the media. A letter by 11 chemistry full professors demanding his resignation, was followed by a petition signed by 23 out of the then 28 A&M Distinguished Professors to strip him of that title. The petition failed, and Bockris was eventually exonerated by a four-professor panel, of violating A&M standards, citing academic freedom, but more likely because he didn't make good on his threat to go to the media as the Utah scientists did in the cold fusion case. But his con-man and other associates brought the attention of the SEC, FBI, and other law-enforcement agencies on his Philadelphia Project (was this a play on the old urban legend, the Philadelphia Experiment?)
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: J On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:42 PM

Comment Title: WELL DONE AGGIES!
THIS NEEDED TO BE HEARD AND THE CHANGES ARE FOR THE BEST! GOOD BYE BOARD OF REJECTS!
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:25 PM

Comment Title: The employees don't get to run the show
I could care less how much these over educated cry babies bring into the university. After over 50 years in the community I can attest that if they all left today there would thousands knocking at the door waiting to bring their research funds to TAMU. For every good research project on campus there are at least two or more that are pie in the sky money wasting endeavors. Remember the Nobel Prize winning Dr. John Bockris, cars running on water, cold fusion fraud and free electricity from generators in the Gulf Stream. Well it's been 25 or more years, cars still run on gas, his cold fusion was an outright fraud and the Gulf Stream generators that could barely power a table lamp are rusting in a scrap heap on Hwy 60 West. No business gives it's employees tenure and let's them dictate policy unless they own it. If you don't like it leave you won't be missed except by your colleagues
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:46 PM

Comment Title:
professors are in the same group as politicians...the cannot operate in the real world and live off of others hard earned $'s. I could care less about McKinney or the faculty. A&M is top heavy and the idots at the top should go!
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: BS On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:20 PM

Comment Title: Not bad Al... But
The TIGM fiasco started with Dr. McTeer, not Dr. McKinney. And it was Gates years that caused some of these problems. Everyone is blaming the Chancellor for all this mismanagement. Why doesn’t someone audit the mismanagement of funds by the faculty? They won't. Why? Because no one cares. The executives, President included, are the responsible and accountable, not the faulty. When faculty screws up, the executives get the blame. Remember the CDC incident? Hmmm. Everyone was looking at Chancellor and mmmmm...GATES for responsibly. I don't think THEY were in the lab. The Chancellor has a job to do. Let him do it and leave him alone. He has 10 other universities, 7 State agencies, and a Health Science Center to worry about instead of a disgruntled faculty senate.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:18 PM

Comment Title: excellent post AL
And I thank you as well for providing those details. Most people outside of the system have no idea what successful faculty do in a Tier One university (witness the numerous calls to "go back to teaching!") nor do outsiders understand the federal money involved and how it is managed (or could be mismanaged). Several universities have gotten into serious trouble when unscrupulous people -- arguing for a better "business" model -- marginalized faculty input and misused sums, ultimately at taxpayer's expense (and resulting in fines to the institution for misappropriations). Again, the need for transparency and frank discussion is paramount in these matters.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:59 PM

Comment Title: Thanks AL
Thanks for the info AL. Like some people, I have grown tired of listening to the faculty complain. This is the first coherent post that I have seen that explains the situation. Everything else I have seen can be summed up as "Dr. Mike is a tyrant and I hate his guts." I am glad to see some real information being posted! Hopefully we can all move past personal attacks and focus on the issues at hand. I want this area to be known as Research Valley, and so do most of the other former students.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: AL On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:46 PM

Comment Title: Responding to No confidence in the faculty, typos corrected & extended
Comment Title: Responding to No confidence in the faculty Perhaps some TAMU budget data will help clarify the situation. The faculty’s research proposals attracts from non-state sources about half of Texas A&M’s $1.2B/yr budget. This $600M/yr is raised from federal sources, foundations, and industry, and is almost twice the state tax $ that comes from Austin. These funds support the majority of the graduate students and is responsibie for most of the laboratory facilities that make Texas A&M a top research university. This faculty-raised $600M /yr and significantly exceeds the sum of the state dollars from Austin plus tuition. Attracting these funds and performing this research is remarkable and in part is responsible form Texas A&M being a Tier 1 University. The faculty research volume almost doubled since 2002, in part because we have been doing a lot of things right. A little secret is that the overhead $ taxed off the faculty research projects is well over $100M/yr and this somewhat discretionary money can be pushed around if the System and the University merges services directly under the Chancellor's control ... we may get more TAMUS "investments" by the Chancellor in poorly managed (e.g. the $55M TIGM fiasco) commercial ventures. Since the faculty research effort is collectively the largest source of the annual budget that makes the University go, their push-back in the face of flagrant miss-management should be understandable. The faculty are trying to encourage the Chancellor and the Regents to restore the management process we followed during the Gates years, which were clearly a better way for the University to be run. We are not advocating change, but rather a return to the sound traditional approach we were following prior to the past three years which have brought us to the current crisis.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: AL On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:25 PM

Comment Title: Responding to No confidence in the faculty
Perhaps some TAMU budget data will help clarify the situation. The faculty’s research proposals attracts from none state sources about half of Texas A&M’s $1.2B/yr budget. This $600M/yr is raised from federal sources, foundations, and industry, and is almost twice the tax $ that comes to Austin. These funds support the majority of the graduate students and is responsibie for most of the laboratory facilities that make Texas A&M a top research university. This faculty-raised $600M /yr and exceeds the sum of the state dollars from Austin plus tuition. Attracting these funds and performing this research is remarkable and in part is responsible form Texas A&M being a Tier 1 University. The faculty research volume almost doubled since 2002, in part because we have been doing a lot of things right. A little secret is that the overhead $ taxed off the faculty research projects is well over $100M/yr and this somewhat discretionary money can be pushed around if the System and the University merges services directly under the Chancellor's control ... we can get more TAMUS "investments" by the Chancellor in poorly managed (e.g. the $55M TIGM fiasco) commercial ventures. Since the faculty research effort is collectively the largest source of the money that makes the University go, their push-back in the face of flagrant miss-management should be understandable. The faculty are trying to encourage the Chancellor and the Regents to restore the managgement process we followed during the Gates years, which are clearly a better way for the University to be run.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:00 PM

Comment Title: Response to: No Confidence in the Faculty
No, you don't pay my salary. I bring in funding that pays 1/2 my salary. AND I created jobs (new positions) for 8 other people who work in my lab. So frankly, in addition to raising the research profile of TAMU, I am also making a darn good contribution to the local economy which probably enables YOU to have your job (whatever it is). If I and others like me left (and there are a LOT of us who do this level of work, mind you), College Station would be left with a backwoods pseudo-college conferring degrees unworthy of wiping one's backside during a bad case of the runs.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:45 PM

Comment Title: Faculty
I am disappointed that the Eagle is not soaring - it has stooped to political correctness and is keeping the situation at Texas A&M raging to sell papers. Gene Stallings is one of the finest men that has ever lived and he has the best of A&M at his heart. I am so sick of "Change" - what happened to tradition - yes, we need to move forward, but as you can see on the national front, "Change" is not always positive. As previously reported, about 50% have shown a vote of no confidence - over 1000 were not returned. How about reporting on positives for a change?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: G On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:44 PM

Comment Title: No confidence in the faculty
I have no confidence in the academic community. I have a right to write this since I have been paying their salaries, research, funding buildings, and scholarships, etc.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:38 PM

Comment Title:
31 years here and never have heard of any vote of no confidence until this one.........am pretty sure I wouldn't have missed such a thing! I agree that the faculty here are quite conservative in comparison to the other schools I am familiar with-------so it is pretty amazing when such a large vote is obtained in the summer, when many if not most faculty members are on 9-month appointments........
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:37 PM

Comment Title: bobaloo
Only in academia would the indians try to be co-chiefs. They want to "boss" themselves; and also to make sure that nothing so un-p.c. as demoting a minority woman can possibly happen again. Like in the real world out here, the coaches should coach, the maintenance people should maintain, the cooks should cook, the students should study, and the professors should teach; the managers should manage. As we say in Texas, run it like a "bidness." The faculty should realize that we out here in the public who pay the taxes are not motivated to take up their cause. If any faculty member or "researcher" doesn't want to work at A&M, go work somewhere else. That's your right. You will be replaced the next day. No problem. You desperately over-estimate your importance.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:58 PM

Comment Title: All the time?
This is the first time I can remember a vote of no confidence from the A&M faculty, but what do I know. I've only been here for 17 years.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:49 PM

Comment Title: Re: Concerned faculty memeber
I love the new term "memeber". I think that it is a good description for the faculty. The me-me-bers seem to have one thing in mind. It is the same as my 3 year old. Me! Me!
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:06 PM

Comment Title: Faculty can't do Math!
The report states that 2600 faculty members received the survey and almost 1300 responded and yet they state that over 80% in one survey and over 90% in another have no confidence in McKinney. Hey guys even if all 1300 members who responded don't like McKinney that's barely 50% not 80 or 90. Go back to school and start teaching or leave either way shut up the rest of us are tire of hearing our constant griping. Frankly I think they should terminate each and every one of you and start over
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Randy75 On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:01 PM

Comment Title: Coach Gene is mistaken
I respect Coach Stallings very much,but he has missed the mark on Dr. Mike.Dr. Mike wants the power like the Ags want a national championship in football.The big difference is Dr. Mike's power would hurt the University!!!
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:15 PM

Comment Title: observations
I am proud of faculty and their clear commitment to excellence and to the aspirational goals of a Tier One research university. From the on-line comments and overheard conversations, it is not surprising that the locals lack any real appreciation for the issues, and that they ultimately concerned with the money faculty spend in the community, and on the entertainment value of the football team (money and football -- why care about research and scholarship?). But I am *stunned* at the apparent lack of clout and influence from the Association of Former Students. I came here with the understanding that it was an effective, influential group, yet current events give the impression that it is easily dismissed and ignored (or worse, subservient). I would expect that from an alumni association from a newer urban university, but not one from a flagship university with a rich and long history. I can't envision the Ex's from Austin would ever leave their university so vulnerable to the whims of political appointees and "trustees" who have so little insight or experience with the operation and activity of an internationally-respected, Top Tier research university. The faculty are doing their part to advocate for the university; perhaps there are activities behind the scenes involving the AFS that we know little about.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:05 AM

Comment Title:
What's funny is the faculty votes no confidence in the Presidents and Chancellors all the time if you look at A&M's history. Why don't you guys concentrate on teaching our students? No one's stopping you from doing that are they?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Concerned faculty memeber On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:59 AM

Comment Title: The Coach
It is certainly reassuring to know that a former football coach backs the Chancellor. After all, who has a better sense of academics and research than a football coach?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:36 AM

Comment Title:
This extraordinary vote of NO confidence shows the depth of this problem. Regents, it is time to cut your losses, as they will just grow. Every day that passes after this is just a ticking time bomb for each of you. You are not insulated from responsibility here.
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:22 AM

Comment Title: Coach
Coach Stallings needs to get into the game. Does he not realize that the team that will take A&M to national greatness is the faculty, not the system adminisrators? Does coach stallings think that he could take a football team to a national championship with 92% of the players thinking he did not understand or respect the game or the players? And with 92% of the players not respecting him? A&M faculty as a group are generally conservative like A&M students. It takes a major problem that has continued for years to prompt them into this kind of action. I am not sure this has ever been done before at A&M. If the Board's goals and objectives are in the best interest of A&M, the Board needs to listen to the university and not just to those ones in the unversity or elsewhere who plan to benefit from the demise of the A&M. It is amazing that not one Board member has stood by the university in this fiasco. Loyalty, loyalty??... to Austin?? How about some loyalty to A&M?
Report Abuse

---

Posted by: Tom Arnold On: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:28 AM

Comment Title: Incompetence – not heart and mind
Re Coach Stallings comments, two observations: 1) thanks for not hiding behind the PR hack like the balance of the Regents, you obviously have more class than them, and 2) it is not Dr Mike’s heart and mind that are the issue, it is the fact that his ham-handed, autocratic, incompetent approach to removing Dr Murano had led to the rest of this furor, and has let the cat out of the bag regarding the back-room selections of dubious research partnerships, such as Introgen Therapeutics et al.
Report Abuse

---