THE REAL SCOOP ON TECHNICAL RANK

Submitted by M. Therese Gallegos, Associate Professor, Dept. of English & Communications

November 19, 2004

 

In an interview with Jay Philips (Dean of General Studies and Developmental Education), I found out the following regarding Technical rank:

 

1.  We do not need to change anything for departments to start converting instructor lines to or creating new lines for technical rank positions.  The policy already exists in the HOOP (7.3.5).  Basically, it’s for faculty whose teaching load consists primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) of courses that lead to an associate’s degree (i.e., lower division courses). 

 

The Regents’ rules recognize the rank as well.

 

2.  The Provost already has told Jay Philips that he’ll support these requests.

 

3.  SACS requires that faculty members have a master’s degree plus 18 graduate credits in their field, something that we would need to require of our technical rank faculty.  In addition, a certain percentage of the faculty (around 25%, Jay believes) needs to have terminal degrees, but we apparently far exceed that requirement and don’t need to worry about it at this point.

 

4.  Technical rank faculty are tenure rank; they need to be evaluated each year for teaching, service, and professional development.  (They teach a 5-course load and are not expected to do research or publish.)

 

5.  The ranks parallel the standard ranks: Technical Instructor, Assistant Master Technical Instructor, Associate Master Technical Instructor, and Master Technical Instructor.

 

6.  Technical rank positions needs to be advertised nationally (not just on the UTB website).

 

So it appears that we don’t have to change any policies; all we really need to do is inform departments so that they are aware that the technical ranks are options.  In addition, a subcommittee of interested people will be formed to discuss advantages and disadvantages to help departments decide if they want to make greater use of this option.

 

On 11/16/04 a group of faculty interested in the topic met to ask questions and suggest what should be done next. 

 

1) We need to inform departments and schools across campus of the policy, as well as present caveats and solicit input.

 

2)  Departments and schools should consider the benefits:

  1. Offering this rank could increase the pool of applicants and the quality of the pool in some cases;
  2. Converting lecturer lines to MTI lines is cheaper than converting them to academic lines;
  3. It will allow us to hold on to masters-level instructors whom we might otherwise lose;
  4. Converting lines to MTI positions benefits the instructors
  5. It reaffirms our commitment to teaching.  Research institutions often have untrained and uninterested faculty teaching freshman classes; that is not a model we wish to emulate.  
  6. MTI will make a greater contribution to the department and can be expected to meet higher standards of performance.

 

3)  There is at least one caveat: