RUN: 1.6MILES, 9.5MPH, 10MIN;
LEARN: APLIPRANTIS, 1HR;
TEACHING: STUDENT PROJECT QUESTIONS, 1HR;
B125: FINAL PRESENTATION, 3PM-6PM;
HIRING: THEY WANT TO REVOTE;
The chair’s duty is to ensure the fair procedure, not to secure certain outcome.
That means, when the law is violated, the chair should call it out, not to remain silent. When the outcome of the fair procedure is tested, the chair should defend it, not to ditch it.
In all fairness, we all had our say. We all voted. The outcome is to recommend HC only. Whether we like it or not, we shall all respect that outcome. Otherwise, the committee has no credibility.
In this committee, we have seen enough farces. I have no appetite/time for more.
The army of diversity bureaucrats in US higher education is a strong signal of its decline. I am all for social justice and compassion. But that should be kept within proper limit. When it blows out of proportion, it discourages hardworking, undermines fairness, worse, it erodes the very foundation of American dream—meritocracy.
Here is a recent example that gets my nerve:
ME: If we really value excellence, we would not dilute it. We single it out.
When a candidate cannot stand on merit alone, and has to be justified on the diversity ground, well, that is quite telling of his/her true caliber.
R: “For the stage of her career (early associate) she has a solid record of publication. Her seminar presentation was very good although I had several questions about the assumptions she made in the model. Still, the analysis seems to have been done carefully and competently. Her teaching evaluations are very good and she will contribute to our gender diversity at the school. She does not quite fit the bill of being an established scholar(although in the ad we say we will consider tenured associate. Still, I see her contribution to our school as the highest among the 3 candidates and I rank her first.”
Hiring is always a nasty game, especially when you have a huge committee, such as our 12 members one. For whatever reason, the outside members wanted to impose new candidates on the shortlist our group proposed. Here is the response drafted from M.E.
It is our SC group decision that M should not receive further consideration.
There is no question that M is a serious researcher. The question is where he fits in. M’s record reveals that his focus is the methodology of optimization, not much the substance of SC. So his best fit is ORIE, in business school.
Since M applied for the business school position, we must evaluate him as such. A commonly used measure for business school research is UTD list. On that account, he does not make the cut.
The bottom line is, if M. were applying for Economics/Engineering, we’d vote YES. But for business school? NO.
We respect other committee members opinions, and we expect the same from others.
[SLICED SKY, RED ROCK CANYON, LAS VEGAS, NV, SUMMER, 2014]
MHS: CHAT WITH JS, 7PM-8PM;
TQ2: TELL K THE DELAY;
ATTEND THE SEMINAR: “Optimal Energy Taxation in Cities”, BY Jan Brueckner, 3:30PM-5PM;
HIRING: MEAIL TO SUPPORT HQZ, ASK M.E. TO DO THE SAME (UNWILING TO);
CHAT WITH PARENTS, 20MIN;
EG is playing a dangerous game with the group. She wants to push her agenda on hiring, only selecting people that fits her interest. This Wed we had the group meeting discussing the candidates, but she missed it, because it was inconvenient for her. She commutes an hour to school and she goes only on her two teaching days. Everything has to fit her schedule: Wed. is unfit.
Despite missing the group meeting, she sent out email, asked for comments on the list she selects, acting as if she is the boss. And this came after her first attempt to bypass the group: she passed her list directly to the committee chair, only found that the chair won’t consider her list unless it is backed up the group. So she has to go back to our group. But she overreached and acted as the area coordinator, M.E.’s role.
M.E. is fed up with her aggressiveness. He did not answer her email directly. If he did, then we are all playing her game, and she will report to the chair as if she is the coordinator and takes all the credit. Instead, M.E. asks for a meeting, deliberately chosen on her non-teaching days. This is a dilemma for her: although she hates to go on non-teaching days, but since she initiated, she has to agree.
Let’s see what happens on next week’s meeting. One thing is for sure: no candidate of her specialty will be backed by the group.
[GLACIER, CANADA, 10/2015]