NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/research/1016

Text File | 1992-08-31 | 3.6 KB | 78 lines

Newsgroups: sci.research
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai
From: [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:15:30 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>>>Your statements about the "goals of the University" are most interesting...
>>>How are the goals of any University furthered by introducing a personality
>>>that is harmful to the work going on there?
>>
>>You chose to omit the first part of my posting, in which I said that
>>what appear to some faculty  as disruptive is actually constructive
>>to teaching+research, and it is often made by innovative individuals,
>>who are disliked by some faculty members. You did not counter my argument.
>
>I'm trying to let this thread die, but I have to comment on this....

Provide concrete cases please, or dispute those I brought. Even
Concordia kept a "disruptive" person such as Fabrikant for 12 years,
and did not bring a less disruptive & productive person.

>Being disruptive is rarely constructive to teaching+research, except to
>the person who is being disruptive....  would you force a department
>to take someone on who will further their own research by disrupting
>the research of those that are already there?  Why is that single individual
>more important than the department as a whole?  Clearly, no single
>individual should be allowed to harm an entire department.

But you have to show that this phenomena really exists in reality,
and that if the department chose a less productive person over
the more productive one, then more work would get done in the
whole department. You have not brought a single case. I showed quite
the contrary - that a single productive individual may raise
the total productivity of a department.

What do you have to say about the U Northern Colorado case ?

Also, you ignored  my remark that your metric will bring more
unproductive people to an already unproductive department. How would you
justify it to students and tax-payers ?

>
>Back to reality and what really happens:  here at Duke (and most other
>places, I imagine), the "department approval" part of the tenure process
>is done by secret, unsigned ballot voting of the tenured faculty in
>the department.  The faculty then could (conceivably) use whatever
>criteria they want to make their decision --- the decision can be appealed
>to the provost, but I believe that the department's decision is almost
>always honored except in odd circumstances.
>

So what ? Why is Duke's method so good ?

>Again, the whole point is that the department should be able to choose
>people that work harmoniously with the department.  The goal is to get
>work (research and teaching) done, and what better way to ensure this?
>

Another load of faith, with no facts.

>--
>Steve Tate [e-mail] | The reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem,
>Dept. of Computer Science  | above all other sciences, is that its laws are
>Duke University     | absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all
>Durham, NC  27706   | other sciences are to some extent debatable. (Einstein)