From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:15:30 GMT

In article <715291799@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.170648.17228@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>In article <715275094@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (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 srt@cs.duke.edu | 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)



Newsgroups: sci.research