Danger in Decreased Faculty Courseload
By Sam Glick,
Contributing Writer

As has been pointed out by many before me, Pomona is at a crossroads this year. We have a new president, a new alcohol policy, and the Curriculum Committee is currently reviewing the general education system. The campus is abuzz with excitement and energy about the College’s future, and it seems that everyone–faculty, staff, student, or alumnus–is talking about ways to make Pomona a better place. One important issue, though, seems to have received attention almost exclusively from faculty members: the potential reduction in the teaching load.

Currently, the average Pomona faculty member teaches two courses one semester and three courses the other–a so-called “3-2” load. (Those professors who participate in significant college service, such as chairing a department or a major faculty committee, may be asked to teach four rather than five courses.) The College is feeling pressure from its peer institutions, many of which have “2-2” course loads, to reduce the amount of teaching it requires; many faculty members, claiming to be overworked, support such a change.

Why should students be concerned about what appears to be an administrative matter? Because moving from a “3-2” load to a “2-2” load would, holding all else constant, reduce the number of courses available to students by 20 percent. The College can adjust for this using one of two methods: either offer fewer courses, or hire more faculty members in order to teach the same number of courses. Neither option is appealing. The former would reduce the quality of education Pomona offers its students (particularly those who study in smaller departments), while the latter would simply exacerbate the space problems that already exist on campus.

The danger of a reduced faculty teaching load, however, extends beyond the practical. For over a century, Pomona has wisely chosen to be a teaching institution, first and foremost. Since Pomona’s founding, the education of undergraduates has been the top priority of the College. The proposed reduction in teaching load threatens to redefine Pomona’s identity. Such a reduction would necessarily adjust how faculty members use their time: away from teaching and towards research. Professors would have less face-time with students, and fewer student letters would be available when a faculty member is reviewed for tenure or promotion. This implicitly prioritizes research over teaching. Phrases such as “research college” are being used at faculty meetings, and talk of how a reduced teaching load will allow us to attract “better” faculty members has already begun. Is an adademic who wants to teach less someone Pomona should want to hire?

What, then, should we do to reduce the faculty workload? I certainly don’t suggest that faculty members reduce their scholarly output; such research informs teaching, provides learning experiences for students, and contributes to the world around us. I propose another solution: reduce the amount of administrative service required of faculty members. Pomona has no fewer than 33 faculty committees; most faculty members serve on at least one of these. As someone who has attended quite a few committee meetings here, I can attest to the fact that they are less than efficient. For such a small place, there is an amazing amount of bureaucracy at Pomona.

It is time the College carefully consider streamlining its governance procedures. Just as the administration must take faculty opinion seriously, faculty members must realize that administrators can and do make good decisions about the daily operations of the College. After all, the fewer meetings faculty members attend, the more time they have for both research and teaching.