When I wrote a post asking about scholars studying the university as a workplace, the responses I received all pointed me to Kevin McClure. Kevin, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, is working on a book for Johns Hopkins University Press called The Caring University: Reimagining the Higher Education Workplace After the Great Resignation.

Q: Tell us about the book you are writing. What are some of the themes you will explore?

A: The Caring University explores how we can reimagine the higher education workplace through the collective, proactive, ongoing pursuit of organization-level changes. The Great Resignation swept through higher education like wildfire, partly because colleges and universities have a poor track record of prioritizing employee well-being. This reputation for overlooking the employee experience was dry kindling for a higher education labor force whose pandemic experiences sparked new expectations of employers and workplaces. Workers are less willing to blame themselves for an inability to cope or rise above obstacles, instead feeling emboldened to ask how institutions are supporting them.

The main argument of the book is that many of the problems of the higher education workplace are baked into the cultures and structures of colleges and universities at an organizational level. They reflect workplace norms around professionalism, values related to decision-making and beliefs about strategies worthy of investment. Problems become codified in the structures of organizations through policies and widely accepted practices that govern everyday working conditions, such as workload, hours, compensation, promotion and leave. If institutions are going to effectively serve students, meet contemporary and future challenges, and achieve lofty goals, they can’t lean on self-care or replacing disaffected employees. They need to address the cultures and structures that gave people reason to re-evaluate, resist and resign.

It is easy for books to proclaim the need for organizational change but harder to answer: Organizational change towards what? And how? In the book I detail and exemplify six organization-level changes that are designed to address both organizational cultures and structures: making the employee experience a strategic priority; creating working cultures and conditions for real (not ideal) workers; committing to professional growth and fair compensation; pursuing structural change for diversity, equity and inclusion; encouraging shared governance and collective action; and preparing leaders for the caring university. I draw on theories of organizational change in higher education to develop approaches under each of these changes that foster collaboration, build on existing expertise and promote organizational learning. And I make heavy use of narratives and examples so that it’s a research-based but readable resource.

The book’s central message for leaders isn’t “make employees happy or they’ll quit.” Rather, I show how paying attention to the employee experience, correcting problematic norms, investing in people and generally taking the well-being of staff and faculty seriously is the stuff of effective organizations. If you want to Boost student success, demonstrate the value of higher education and unleash innovation, it all comes back to the conditions you set for employees.

Q: Where do scholars who study the university as a workplace congregate? What conferences do you attend, journals do you read and academic/professional associations do you participate in?

A: There is a strange belief that crops up from time to time that colleges and universities have not been subjected to scholarly analysis. This is simply untrue. A half century of organizational theory was built on the study of colleges and universities. Faculty from a wide array of disciplines have been studying academic culture for a century or more. The field of higher education and student affairs has almost single-handedly developed our understanding of the staff experience in higher education. This book is something of a love letter to my colleagues who have dedicated their lives to advancing our understanding of postsecondary education. It’s not an understatement to say the book wouldn’t exist without their labor.

If a reader wants to dive into this research, there’s no shortage of associations, journals and conferences. The Association for the Study of Higher Education, American Educational Research Association, Council for the Study of Community Colleges, ACPA-College Student Educators International and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) are examples of national organizations. All of these operate scholarly journals that publish empirical research, including studies of the university as a workplace. Many of the “functional areas” of university life—from financial aid to fraternities and sororities and faculty development—also have their own associations, events and sometimes journals. I usually tell my students—and remind myself—that the likelihood that something in higher education hasn’t been studied is low. We may not always have definitive answers, but that’s life. We need to do our homework and read.

What I’m proposing here is that there is a lot of knowledge out there about higher education. Before a leader emails a consultant or reads Scott Galloway, they might poke around their own institution’s library or employee directory—chances are, they have in-house resources and experts. And the book tries to make the case that some of the changes to bring about the caring university are not new or radical. It’s often about taking stock of the strengths of organizations, empowering employees and putting into practice what we already know employees—and students—need.

Q: Where would you like to see other scholars who study the university as a workplace focus their research? What are some of the big questions around the intersection of higher education and employment that are getting too little scholarly attention?

A: Despite all the research I just noted, our data around higher education workers and their experience is fragmented and incomplete. Of the few national data sets on staff and faculty, most only provide a general picture of rank or salary. Some of the data is paywalled. Some of it uses outdated and exclusionary categories related to identities. Institutions don’t help much on this front. They often barely have enough staff to keep up with mandatory reporting. They might run an employee engagement survey every couple of years, but then some struggle to act on the data. When the Great Resignation hit higher education, many institutions didn’t have infrastructure in place to understand the employee experience. All that’s to say, there’s a space for improving data on higher education workers.

There are parts of the higher education labor force that haven’t been extensively studied. I’m thinking, in particular, about staff who aren’t in student affairs—they might be administrative support professionals or business managers or registrars. We’re talking about a lot of people who are central to the operations of colleges and universities whose voices are often overlooked. In my interviews with these staff members, I have repeatedly heard about the effects of budget cuts, downsizing, centralization and understaffing. An important question that’s emerged from these interviews is what level of staffing is sufficient in order to effectively—and humanely—run a college or university? My research points to many situations in which offices are simply too thinly staffed to meet expectations. It’s not good for students, it’s not good for institutional efficiency, it’s not good for risk management. There are ripple effects for organizational performance, and I’m not always sure leaders realize that.

Something I’m hoping to write about soon—and I welcome readers’ thoughts on this topic—is how to pursue organizational change from “middle management” positions. One of the most frequent questions I have received while doing this work goes something like this: “I’m a unit manager, and my supervisees are struggling. I’m trying to advocate for changes, but I’m hitting a wall with the leaders above me.” That wall might be barriers created by the organizational cultures and structures, or it might be a leader who just doesn’t see workplace problems because they’ve been privileged enough to avoid them. That’s a really frustrating space to be in, and I suspect that the inability to support supervisees and hitting that wall with leaders has pushed a number of talented emerging leaders away from higher education. Or it gives them reason to wonder if they want to advance into senior leadership, which is itself another big research subject that will need our attention.

In an effort to bring some semblance of order to this response, I’ll offer my perspective that I think our understanding of workplace problems in higher education is more developed than our sense of what strategies work or are worth exploring. In the book, I speak to both problems and solutions, but I often have to work much harder to find examples of good ideas in practice. There’s space for more detailed case studies of promising programs, evaluations of initiatives and analyses of leadership approaches. We need good ideas and we need platforms to amplify effective practices. One of my soapbox subjects is that funders have demonstrated very little interest in financially supporting work focused on the well-being of staff and faculty.

There’s plenty of work to do, both in research and practice. There are many talented scholars and practitioners who are working hard to create a better higher education workplace. Hopefully, my book helps to shine a light on their contributions. But in many ways, the enthusiasm I saw from leaders about supporting employee well-being has waned. Change needs champions, and we’re going to need leaders and donors to step up and see how working conditions, organizational performance and outcomes are all intertwined.

The Arts faculty will conduct its entrance tests from September 4 to 8, whereas the science faculty will hold admission tests from September 7 to 9. The tentative date for declaration of results for Arts subjects is September 21 while the results of the science subjects will likely be declared on September 15. tnn

The Drug Enforcement Administration has for years violated its own policy of ruling out for employment candidates who fail or cheat on a polygraph examination, according to a watchdog review, which found the agency created potential security risks and the perception of unfair hiring practices. 

The DEA has brought on 66 special agents and 11 intelligence research certified who created a “significant response” during their required pre-employment lie-detector test—the term the agency uses to “indicate deception” during the exam—according to a mid-audit “management alert” sent on Wednesday by the Justice Department’s inspector general. Under a DEA policy established in 2019, any applicant who fails the test is disqualified for three years from the position and any other at the agency requiring a polygraph. 

Applicants for certain DEA positions are given two polygraph exams during the hiring process, one for national security and the other for general suitability. Questions relate to past drug use, criminal activities, truthfulness on application materials and other issues. DEA has used polygraphs since 1994, but only started requiring that applicants pass them as a precondition for a job offer in 2019. 

Human resources personnel for the agency told the auditors the 2019 policy only applied prospectively and it therefore continued to use the old procedures for any preexisting job posts. The IG found examples of applicants who failed polygraphs in 2020 and were onboarded as recently as 2021 or 2022, but the agency said they were applying to jobs originally posted before the policy change went into effect. The watchdog noted that dating back to at least 2016 DEA told applicants they had to pass screening exams. HR’s reasoning “runs contrary to the DEA job announcements,” the IG said. 

The IG also flagged that some employees disclosed legacy applicants related to current or former DEA employees were receiving special treatment with regard to the polygraphs. After the auditors initially informed agency officials about the issue earlier this year, DEA put out new guidance reminding staff to avoid nepotism in hiring. The watchdog said the reminder did not go far enough and DEA officials agreed to update and clarify the agency's nepotism policies. 

Polygraphs are used throughout the government, including for any individual seeking at least a top secret security clearance. Their effectiveness has been called into question by many groups and researchers, including the American Psychological Association. The IG said that while the policy remains in effect, it is incumbent upon the agency to enforce it. 

“Given the DEA’s determination that the successful passing of a polygraph examination is an important part of the hiring process,” the IG said, “these issues have resulted in potential security risks to DEA operations and the appearance of unfair hiring practices when individuals who have not completed the polygraph process are nonetheless hired by the DEA.”

The watchdog added the issue required "immediate attention" due to the "significant and unmitigated risks" presented by DEA's implementation. 

DEA agreed to no longer hire any applicant who fails a polygraph, collect a full review of any employee who previously had failed and ensure that all of those individuals take a new exam for any other position for which they apply within the agency. Still, Michael Ciminelli, DEA’s acting chief compliance officer, disputed the IG’s finding that the agency acted in contrast to its policy. Prior to 2019, he said, DEA made clear that a polygraph would never be a sole factor in rejecting a candidate. When implementing the change, he added, agency officials explicitly stated that it would not apply retroactively. 

“DEA has consistently followed the policy established in 2019 since its inception and will continue to do so,” Ciminelli said.

For the hiring of 1,841 TGT, PGT, laboratory assistant, and other positions, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) has issued an invitation for applications.

Through the official website, dsssb.delhi.gov.in, applicants can submit their applications for the DSSSB teachers recruitment 2023.

The DSSSB Teachers' application form must be submitted by September 15, 2023, at the latest. The official announcement states that a single-tier examination process will be used to make the selection.

The 'Online Application Registration System' on the DSSSB's official website is where applicants must register in order to submit an online application.

The general knowledge, arithmetic, and reasoning examinations, as well as assessments of English language and comprehension, numerical aptitude, and data interpretation, will all be part of the DSSSB Teachers Recruitment Test.

The application fee for candidates who fall under the general or unreserved category is Rs 100. While candidates who fall under one of the reserved categories—women, members of scheduled castes and tribes, PwDs (persons with disabilities), and veterans—are excused from paying the application cost.

Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations.

A racket of 12 individuals including seven physicians has leaked medical college admission test question papers 10 times in the last 16 years, pocketing hundreds of crores of taka, said the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Police.

"Providing test questions and using illegal channels in exchange for money, the racket helped thousands of students to get admissions into several medical colleges from 2001 and 2017," said Additional Inspector General of Police and CID chief Mohammad Ali Miah at a media briefing in CID office on Sunday, following the arrests of 12 people, allegedly involved in the leakages.

They were arrested in separate drives conducted in Dhaka, Tangail, Kishoreganj and Barishal between 30 July and 9 August, said the CID chief.
The arrestees are Dr Moiz Uddin Ahmed Pradhan, 50, Dr Soheli Zaman, 40, Dr Mohammad Abu Raihan, Dr ZM Saleheen Shovon, 48, Dr Md Zobaidur Rahman Johnny, 38, Dr Zillur Hasan Roni, 37, Dr Imrul Kayes Himel, 32, and Zahirul Islam Bhuiyan Muktar, 68, Roshan Ali Himu, 45, Akhtaruzzaman Tushar, 43, Zahir Uddin Ahmed Bappi, 45 and Abdul Quddus Sarkar, 63.

Eight of the arrested persons made confessional statements before the court while Moiz Uddin and Zobaidur are on four-day remand each in CID custody and Moiz's wife Soheli is on two-day remand. 

Among those arrested, five were associated with the politics of BNP and one with the Jamaat-e-Islami, Mohammad Ali said, adding that the question papers were leaked from the press of the Directorate General of Medical Education.

CID Additional Police Superintendent Jewel Chakma said medical admission test question papers were leaked massively in 2006 and 2015. About 10 coaching centres, mostly in Dhaka, had been involved in these leakages.

Medical coaching centres, including Medico, Omeca, Primate, Fame, 3 Doctors, E Haque and Universal Coaching, were found to be involved with this racket, the CID official said.
He said raids were conducted while investigating a case filed with Mirpur Police Station under the Digital Security Act in July 2020, over medical question paper leaks.

CID has so far arrested 23 suspects in the case and 14 of them made confessional statements before the court, CID official Jewel said.

Directorate General of Medical Education's press staff Abdus Salam and his cousin Jasim Uddin had formed the question leak racket, involving several doctors and medical admission coaching centre officials, said CID chief Mohammad Ali.

Jashim and Salam were arrested in July and October 2020, respectively. After interrogating them, CID identified the recently arrested racket members, he said.

CID investigators accumulated evidence that showed that medical and dental admission question papers were leaked from a press on the ground floor of the DGHS building at Mohakhali, he said.

After the arrest of Jashim, savings certificates worth Tk21.27 crore in 38 accounts of Jasim and his wife's bank savings worth around Tk 4 crore were found, according to the CID investigation.

CID has found evidence of transaction data of crores of taka from their bank accounts, and the matter is currently under investigation for potential money laundering, the CID chief added.