home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16 / NN_1992_16.iso / spool / bit / listserv / edtech / 1496 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-07-28  |  1.1 KB  |  29 lines

  1. Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!!UNIV/CIS,
  3. Approved-By:  "EDTECH Moderator" <21765EDT@MSU.BITNET>
  4. Message-ID: <EDTECH%92072900172954@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
  5. Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edtech
  6. Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
  7. Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:14:48 EDT
  8. Sender:       "EDTECH - Educational Technology" <EDTECH@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
  9. From:         "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS,
  10.               401-863-7312" <ALLEN@BROWNVM.BITNET>
  11. Subject:      Re: convincing faculty
  12. Lines: 15
  13.  
  14. Or is writing academic software like *binding* a textbook?  And we
  15. wouldn't get credit for that would we?   (Or suppose my hobby is
  16. bricklaying and I help build the new chemistry classrooms...&c. &c.)
  17.  
  18. Absurd comparisons I'm sure.  But does anyone know of any really good
  19. good analyses of these things?
  20.  
  21. I do, however, think that the burden of proof is squarely on the
  22. shoulders of those who believe that "writing academic software"
  23. *should* count towards p&t.  I suspect that, to some extent
  24. anyway, it probably should.  But why does everyone seem to
  25. take it for granted?
  26.  
  27. Allen Renear
  28. ALLEN@BROWNVM
  29.