I should not get upset by these trivialities. In the end, who give a fuck.

I am trying to understand the logic of these guidelines. The school has decided/practiced that each premium paper warrants one merit (provided satisfactory teaching and service). If multi-year acceleration is discouraged, however, unfair outcome will arise:

(A) Faculty A publishes 3 premiums in two years, but all in year 2. So he can only get one merit, because multi-year acceleration is discouraged.

(B) Faculty B publishes 3 premiums in three years, say year 1, 2, 3 each. Then he can get three merits by three one-year accelerations.

We all agree faculty A outperforms B, yet B gets three times rewards. Is this fair? Is this what we really want?

The purpose of the merit is to reward true excellence, not a tool for gaming the system. So it should be fair, not just in name, but also in essence. If the school truly values excellence, as a policy/consensus, it should encourage multi-year acceleration to ensure fairness.

Hiring: no one is coming

NY told me that Dean did not hire D. The letter is effective.


Dear YZ,

Many of us are confused by the decision.

First, the faculty has chosen YXX, not D
, for the first pick. In fact, YX has been ranked No. 1 in all three rounds of evaluation (5/07, 6/07, 6/22). We expect her to be hired.

Second, as J. and M. pointed out, the school requires the area’s approval for the cluster hiring. But the majority of SC area are strongly against hiring D
, for the eight concerns raised in the open letter.

In fact, we may have university’s academic reputation at stake. We have double checked his seminar paper with leading economists from Stanford, UCLA, NYU, U Michigan, and U Toranto—they all say the same thing. As academics, we cannot treat this issue lightly.

We understand these recommendations are only advisory. Dean may decide otherwise. But given all the time and efforts the committee and the faculty have devoted, there should be a compelling reason.

Can you inform us?