tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post6475137724262150099..comments2024-03-14T04:53:49.513-05:00Comments on FemaleScienceProfessor: Check Your Cynical LevelFemale Science Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-69149658645556571212010-07-10T19:55:09.413-05:002010-07-10T19:55:09.413-05:00It is rare (although not negligible) at the univer...<em>It is rare (although not negligible) at the university level that a science/engineering prof would need tenure protection to shelter him/her from criticism due to teaching a controversial class.</em><br /><br />I'm an engineering prof. I need tenure protection. Some of my research is in areas that are highly politically sensitive. Because of the political controversy surrounding these subjects, research has appeared in major newspapers quite a few times. Tenure lets me feel free to speak frankly to the press, the public, and policymakers, without fear that I'll make the administration unhappy by working on controversial subjects.<br /><br />I don't need tenure protection in the classroom; I need it for the rest of my job. My research has had a major impact on society. I don't believe I would have been able to do the research without tenure.<br /><br />Something I've noticed is that there is almost no one in industry (e.g., in the industry labs) who works in the particular research area where I am active -- because no major company wants to have its name associated with this politically sensitive area. I can name approximately one person at an industry research lab working in this area (which is extremely unusual for my field), and that person is under special orders from his employer about his research in that area. Almost everyone who does research in this area is an academic -- because they have the protection of tenure and do not fear for their job, and because they know their employer supports even politically sensitive research.AnonEngineeringProfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-49348105402362858002010-07-09T22:48:46.989-05:002010-07-09T22:48:46.989-05:00Universities profit from academic departments in t...Universities profit from academic departments in two principal ways: student tuition and overhead on research grants.<br /><br />If a given department brings in most income from research grants, tenure is weighted towards research effort, and students who don't like it should have chosen a university where most income comes from teaching.<br /><br />There is no philosophical debate to be had. Universities are highly focused on the bottom line. Students should be aware of this bottom line calculation. And nearly all tenure track faculty are already. <br /><br />And p.s. note that teaching has become largely commoditized. Depts can get great teaching from adjuncts at a fraction of the salary of a research professor. Unhappy adjuncts are let go. Many remain to take their place. Students that want good teaching have to fix this financial incentive structure first, or they will always be howling at the wind.R1 Postdocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-18460427640265342092010-07-08T19:04:49.826-05:002010-07-08T19:04:49.826-05:00Anonymous at 1:00pm
"the question is,why do w...Anonymous at 1:00pm<br /><i>"the question is,why do we have research oriented "university" then"</i><br /><br />Simple, the R1 universities provide both research and teaching of higher quality and lower cost than the pure research institutes or the pure undergrad institutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-32021770009825406712010-07-08T14:20:29.414-05:002010-07-08T14:20:29.414-05:00Anonymous at 10:38pm:
If grant money is being use...Anonymous at 10:38pm:<br /><br />If grant money is being used to cover educational expenses, then a fraud investigation is in order. (I'm excluding educational grants, of course.) The granting agencies intend their money to support research and research administration only.quasihumanistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-52612031298018902992010-07-08T13:00:07.586-05:002010-07-08T13:00:07.586-05:00Well now the question is,why do we have research o...Well now the question is,why do we have research oriented "university" then. Why don't people just join research institute that focus solely on research and evaluated and tenured by research performance only.<br /><br />I think it is so misleading and inefficient to have this "academic" environment. I see no point why this research activities should take place at a university. So many undergraduates join research university with illusion that they will get decent education, but what they are getting is the "by-product" of research acitivities.<br /><br />I really think there needs to be some refining done on educational experiences at research institute. What I see in research institute is unprofessional teaching compared to liberal arts and unprofessional management and research activities compared to institutes that are devoted to research only. Jack of all trades, master of none.<br /><br />OK that's my level of cynicism here. I am completely unsatisfied with the system. I apologize if any expression was offensive to anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-43825334960371264002010-07-07T22:38:10.396-05:002010-07-07T22:38:10.396-05:00Quasihumanist, the state pays only ~30% of the ope...Quasihumanist, the state pays only ~30% of the operating expenses of a large public university; some like U Michigan have an even smaller percentage of state funding. <br /><br />The rest is tuition and research money and donations. <br /><br />Everyone wants high-quality teaching (it appears this implies a lot of hand holding of undergrads and throwing dog-and-pony shows to keep their interest despite them having the attention span of a firefly) and not to pay for it; tuition at public universities is very low and so is the state support. So where, pray tell, is the operating cost supposed to be covered from? And all the superfluous staff salaries? Yes, it's the bad guys, research active faculty who are the problem. Without them tuitions at public unis would not be $4-8 K, would be $20-40 K per year. Welcome to fuckin' Harvards everywhere. <br /><br />Oh yeah, anyone complaining about the quality of teaching at Harvard or MIT or Stanford? Everyone is just peeing their pants with happiness they were ever admitted. And faculty at large public unis are supposed to wipe undergrads' overpriviledged spoilt butts and not be paid (no raises in years) and get flack for doing research to pay our own summer fuckin' salary? All you teaching Gods/research haters go to private SLACs and leave us "mediocre" teachers/active researchers to do our jobs unsupported by state and underpaid with snotnosed underpaying undergrads. <br /><br />Fuckin' whiners. No one who does not do a great job at research should not get tenured at R1. Less than stellar teaching is fine. <br /><br />And whoever said faculty are overpaid does not have a fuckin' clue; I need to collect 25% of my "ginormous" salary from grants. My PhD grads fresh out of grad school make as much as I do after tenure (provided I have 3 months of research summer support from grants).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-64296700997661983792010-07-07T18:56:21.838-05:002010-07-07T18:56:21.838-05:00OK I just have to address Stephanie's comment....OK I just have to address Stephanie's comment. Undergraduates definitely pay a lot for their education - but if they're at large state schools, they're not paying nearly as much as it costs to provide. At my undergraduate institution - a large state school, R2 - I paid $2000/year in tuition and with room and board (I was a cheapskate) my expenses came to about $10,000/year. However, the actual cost to the university per undergraduate was about $20,000/student/year (no room & board). My school was actually pretty cheap. Even at public schools it can cost up to $40,000/student/year. So... yes, it's expensive to go to school. But it's also a bargain.<br /><br />Research is one of the ways schools keep that cost down. In the sciences, research grants pay a significant fraction of faculty salaries. An outstanding research professor will cost the department less because (s)he will be able to pay more of his/her own salary over the years. This is a large part of the reason teaching universities are more expensive. (That and smaller classes, meaning more faculty.) If a department is trying to plan long-term, the department may have to pay all of #1's salary in the (near?) future - but #2 is probably at least free and perhaps brings in money.<br /><br />While I am a staunch defender of students and I value teaching a lot, I also strongly disagree with the view of students as customers - both because it's a bad attitude for learning and because students (at public universities) don't actually pay enough to cover the cost of teaching them. Yes, faculty should be adequate teachers and we should value teaching more - but teaching alone isn't enough.Madscientistgirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11211394943035339771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-89934536529149892592010-07-07T18:07:14.978-05:002010-07-07T18:07:14.978-05:001) When someone pays tuition to a university, or w...1) When someone pays tuition to a university, or when citizens vote (usually indirectly through their representatives) for funding for universities, it is usually mostly on the basis of the education they provide, not the research they do. It is not ethical for universities to sell themselves to the public primarily as educational institutions but behave as if education was a secondary priority. I can assure you that a private research university that clearly and explicitly told the truth about its priorities (rather than hiding it in code phrases) would have fewer students, and a public research university that told the truth would have a lot less public support.<br /><br />2) A lot of the methods that universities use to assess teaching are terrible. However, I don't think that is because assessing teaching is hard. (Frankly, assessing research is a lot harder, especially in fields where everyone occupies their own narrow niche subsubfield.) I think it is because many universities simply don't care enough about teaching to think seriously about how to evaluate it well and put time and effort into good methods of evaluation.<br /><br />3) If you think that someone can improve teaching from a C to a B just with some teaching classes and extra effort, then your grading scale for teaching is a bit inflated. I would say that might get someone from a D to a C.quasihumanistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-47737888545298299492010-07-07T17:04:04.557-05:002010-07-07T17:04:04.557-05:00probably the department votes yes for AP#2 and no ...probably the department votes yes for AP#2 and no for AP#1, reasoning that its national ranking, which needs to be be high to attract those crucial excellent graduate students, rises or falls with its research reputation. Then the university tenure committee denies the promotion of AP#2, because it is supposed to uphold teaching standards across the university. Hopefully AP#2 then gets some remedial teaching instruction and gets tenure the following year.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518980340179305767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-80367098070206053732010-07-07T14:55:52.622-05:002010-07-07T14:55:52.622-05:00Speaking as someone who has achieved the level of ...Speaking as someone who has achieved the level of full Professor with tenure and has sat on promotions committees . . .<br />Institutions differ significantly in the percentages of faculty who are granted tenure. In my current institution, probably neither would be tenured, but only AP#2 has a chance. It is likely that both would be promoted. There has been movement toward more reward for teaching, but still research is valued more highly and, as pointed out by others, teaching quality is difficult to measure. In my view, teaching is the major mission of the university and more effort should be made to identify and reward teaching excellence. Teaching may be viewed by the institution as a money losing activity. However, speaking as a alumnus of what would be classified as a small research university, I have over several decades donated significant money and time to my alma mater in large part because of the excellent teaching I received. At some point, attention to the education of the undergraduates does reap a benefit to the university. <br />On a side note - perhaps a subject for a later post - I am quite disappointed to learn of instances at a prestigious SLAC where tenure was denied to what appeared to be excellent teachers due to their lack of research accomplishment. I understand that having a faculty involved in research enriches the scholarly environment for the faculty and the students, but aren't SLAC's supposed to emphasize teaching above all else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-83095307556521707742010-07-07T14:47:46.559-05:002010-07-07T14:47:46.559-05:00to engineering girl:
the situation you describe is...to engineering girl:<br />the situation you describe is easy, that person needs to be denied tenure and re-hired as a lecturer or other appropriate teaching-only position. If that person is that good, the position can be permanent, no problem. It does not make a lot of sense to grant tenure to somebody based on the teaching needs of a department.<br />I think many excellent teachers would prefer not to have any research responsibilities if a position with a reasonable reputation and stability existed. Many cling to their tenure track positions doing minimal research because there are no better options for them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-91420469794028597982010-07-07T12:54:49.739-05:002010-07-07T12:54:49.739-05:00Most of the discussion here seems to focus on who ...Most of the discussion here seems to focus on who "deserves" tenure more - the good researcher/teaching failure, or the research failure/good teacher. But what about outside factors like what the departments needs at the time? Maybe the department desperately needs an introductory teacher at the time, and is publishing so many C/N/S papers one more superstar wouldn't make a difference. Or, maybe there are already 4 professors who get super-high ratings, but the research record is really lagging. <br /><br />I just got a masters so I'm nowhere near tenure, so I'm posing this as a question to the more experienced. I'm hoping to work at the intersection of intersection and academia in the future, so I'm trying to understand both worlds.engineering girlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-33791713062633702642010-07-07T12:36:07.949-05:002010-07-07T12:36:07.949-05:00I am on the TT at a MRU. They say that of teaching...I am on the TT at a MRU. They say that of teaching, research, and service, we need to be outstanding on 2 and average or better on the third, but research has to be one of the outstanding ones. There have been tenure denials over really bad teaching, but that is normally caught by the department well before tenure time and addressed.<br /><br />Teaching is mostly evaluated via teaching evaluations, which makes said evaluations suspect at best. I've spoken with several students who have "hated" a prof in the moment, only to come to realize that the prof was a good teacher years later when drawing on the knowledge learned in the class. <br /><br />I think that research is so heavily weighted because it is easier to quantify in some ways--we can count papers, citations, funded proposals, invitations, etc. There is no equivalent for teaching. <br /><br />I would grant AP#2 tenure for sure. For AP#1, it would depend on whether there was really strong evidence that they were an excellent teacher (i.e. not just student evals) and how they fell short (was it lack of funding in a time of scarcity? problems graduating students? lack of publications?). I suspect they would be denied tenure at my University. There is a small chance that if their service was also outstanding and the research issue looked fixable, they might squeak by.prodigal academichttp://theprodigalacademic.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-68314707946480324142010-07-07T12:24:16.827-05:002010-07-07T12:24:16.827-05:00You are all still using the professor lens. I kno...You are all still using the professor lens. I know, it is hard for many of you to look out of any other lenses, but try for a minute to imagine what it feels like for the AVERAGE undergraduate to pay >=$10k, possibly without many other options for state schools with better teaching emphasis, as mentioned by Anonymous 7/7 1:53AM. Sure, some of us were happy to go to public MRU's with good research because we are interested in research and took advantage of the research opportunities. But, considering that the majority of a student's time and $ for Uni are paid to take classes, is it too much to expect that the university consider teaching a priority as much as they consider research?<br /><br />Next time you go teach a "mediocre" class or see one of your colleagues do it, think about the fact that, for each ~1hr lecture they are EACH paying the MRU somewhere between $25-$100, and that's just tuition and fees. I lucked out in my Undergrad education by going to an MRU with a dept that had mostly excellent teachers (of undergrad at least), but when I took classes from the bad or mediocre ones, I got pissed off. If the prof isn't going to be helpful, I just teach myself from the book, which I can do for FREE!Stephanienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-73990663815088896432010-07-07T12:02:48.277-05:002010-07-07T12:02:48.277-05:00Whoever says that being an excellent researcher an...Whoever says that being an excellent researcher and an excellent teacher are equally hard is deluded. A teacher who is a C can go to a B with extra hours in the day devoted to teaching/pret and some teaching classes. <br />A researcher who is a C cannot go to B with an extra few hours in the day devoted to research. You either have novel, transformational ideas or you don't. <br /><br />Undergrads who need their hands held should go to PUI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-48899233132008718362010-07-07T12:02:48.276-05:002010-07-07T12:02:48.276-05:00Pardon me while I write in the margins.
I agree ...Pardon me while I write in the margins. <br /><br />I agree that AP#2 should and would be given tenure because I have seen one deservedly get tenure who (apart from not kicking puppies) met the more extreme criteria as well. He was, however, self aware enough to share his student's opinion that he should never teach that level course (freshman physics) again. He was barely capable of teaching graduate students at that time. <br /><br />However, that bit about being self aware was key. Gradually, over a decade or so, he learned to communicate with non-experts and eventually with undergrads and is now a fine teacher. Shockingly good, to anyone who saw version 1.0 at work. <br /><br />The trickier question is whether AP#1 might break through and make a great contribution to the field (just as AP#2 could wither on the vine), or whether the university can afford to invest in a great teacher. For example, if they have a system where the assignment of duties can vary in its division between research and teaching (as I think it should so senior profs that no longer do research would have to teach a heavier load), it would pay to have a great teacher who could free up great researchers to generate funds for the university. <br /><br />It also depends significantly on what is meant by mediocre research, as it did for the question of mediocre teaching. If "mediocre" means the same in both cases, then both should get tenure. But, in most cases, research and teaching-plus-service are not weighted as equally as assignments imply and only the researcher would get tenure. <br /><br />Finally, IME, what Clarissa says is not true at universities that want to increase or maintain their national research ranking. (Is this why those rankings are still in limbo?)Doctor Pionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12513786840852469648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-87771581946353684732010-07-07T11:56:02.218-05:002010-07-07T11:56:02.218-05:00Harumph.
I'm still waiting for someone to e...Harumph. <br /><br />I'm still waiting for someone to explain how an excellent teacher is identified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-91067398325999978282010-07-07T11:50:07.814-05:002010-07-07T11:50:07.814-05:00Teaching God/Research Failure
That seems to be mo...<i>Teaching God/Research Failure</i><br /><br />That seems to be more of a dichotomy than I was getting at. I was thinking more of a person who is hardly a failure at research (as measured by quality) but is a bit short on quantity. "Failure" seems to be a bit strong of a word for this person. As to AP #2, I was thinking more of a person whose teaching is at the minimally competent level: There are many negative points, but few of them are really serious ones, but there are also very few positive points. Maybe a person who has earned a C- for teaching, shall we say?<br /><br />Also, it seems that in other aspects of the tenure process we would all recognize trade-offs and sliding scales. The person who publishes lots of Least Publishable Units and a few significant papers, vs. the person who publishes more significant papers but fewer papers overall. The person who produces great new insights but doesn't always get at all the details vs. the person who isn't always the first to tackle a question but tackles all of the subtleties. And so forth. In these examples, a deficit in one area can be made up for by strength in another area. We may all have our own view on exactly where the line should be drawn on those issues, but we all recognize that there are balances to be struck.<br /><br />However, with teaching and research, it seems that teaching involves a low threshold while research has a higher threshold. It also seems to be rare that strong performance on teaching will compensate for research that is right on the edge of the requirements, while it seems to be more common that strong performance on research will compensate for teaching that is right on the edge of the requirements.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-16398706215395472692010-07-07T11:48:17.829-05:002010-07-07T11:48:17.829-05:00For AP#1, I wouldn't focus on the words "...For AP#1, I wouldn't focus on the words "pretty good" but rather on the further descriptions: "If AP#1 really did fall short of research expectations" and "did not meet the criteria for tenure". To me, this hypothetical situation could involve someone who published a few papers but didn't get grants, or someone who got a grant but didn't publish. The term "pretty good" implies some level of research activity but is not the same as equivalent to "very good", which might be OK in this case.Female Science Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-7504034160095580242010-07-07T11:38:47.950-05:002010-07-07T11:38:47.950-05:00@PhysioProf This from someone on the record (in t...@PhysioProf This from someone on the record (in the comment threads of the last post) as suggesting that students should gratefully accept whatever meager scraps of knowledge their professors deign to give them. I suspect your teaching may be significantly worse than the second professor under discussion; how did your tenure case work out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-83721110151216393352010-07-07T11:36:28.226-05:002010-07-07T11:36:28.226-05:00Speaking as a mere graduate of two MRUs (someone w...Speaking as a mere graduate of two MRUs (someone who, obviously, should just keep his goddman mouth shut because he isn't a tenured professor at an MRU, err... someone who is "making a slightly more remote guess as to what you think the results would be"), I'd guess that the first professor won't get tenure while the second professor will. This is the reverse of what I would wish things to be, but given that the overwhelming majority of science professors with whom I interacted in nine years of undergrad and grad school fit the second cateogry, I'm not operating under any delusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-90823102859644000662010-07-07T11:34:54.879-05:002010-07-07T11:34:54.879-05:00However, in real life the person who will win in t...<i>However, in real life the person who will win in the end and will get tenure is the one who sucked up the best to senior faculty and/or administration. Even if they did no research worth mentioning and are hated by their students.<br /></i><br />This is not only cynical; it is flat-out fucking incorrect.Comrade PhysioProfhttp://physioprof.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-78412305226063110632010-07-07T11:14:15.234-05:002010-07-07T11:14:15.234-05:00I am in a tenure-track position at a MRU and know ...I am in a tenure-track position at a MRU and know that here, AP #1 would not get tenure. AP #2 probably would. The rhetoric here is that for research, service, and teaching you must be excellent in two areas and at least good in one, but research must be one of the areas in which you show excellence. It doesn't matter how outstanding you are as a teacher if the research is not up to snuff.<br /><br />We have had a rash of tenure denials in the past couple of years and they've never been for teaching reasons. I've seen some pretty lousy teachers get tenure.<br /><br />I'm not in a position to say whether either person should get tenure in your scenario. I feel like I don't understand enough about the process yet to talk about it. I have no objectivity, as I'm getting very close to going up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-12697966715971346862010-07-07T11:03:01.520-05:002010-07-07T11:03:01.520-05:00I think both should be denied tenure but only the ...I think both should be denied tenure but only the person #1 will actually be denied tenure.<br /><br />I think that, as most MRUs run themselves, they commit low-level fraud (not any worse than what any run-of-the-mill corporation does) by admitting undergraduate students.quasihumanistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-65984005941737761252010-07-07T11:03:01.519-05:002010-07-07T11:03:01.519-05:00So being a B in research (which I would define as ...So being a B in research (which I would define as a pretty good but not outstanding grade) and an A in teaching doesn't get tenure but an A in research with a C in teaching gets tenure? At a major RESEARCH university, especially a top one, I can understand that. A major part of the education mission of the institution is the research. What percentage of C teachers though should a department carry?<br /><br />What of those that are D quality teachers but As in research? D is still "passing". Seen those get tenure one whose research was probably more on the B+/A- level at a top place.PonderingFoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10767758746935185528noreply@blogger.com