[SCHOOL] THEY FUCK WITH ME, VOTED 11 YES, 9 NO, ON MY MERIT CASE, DESPITE MY RECORD OF THREE AS. FUCK THEM. IT’S WAR. TREAT IT AS SUCH.
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.
NY told me that Dean did not hire D. The letter is effective.
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?
He made the offer to D., the worst outcome for us. We could have stopped it if we had sent out the open letter. In fact I was to send, till J. suggested otherwise.
Should I stick to my fun? If I did, what are the consequences.
First, he may not hire D. Though no guarantee, he needs more courage, which reduces the likelihood of the hiring.
Second, he and vpap will hate me more. But even without the second letter, they will hate you anyway. Then the marginal cost of the second letter is not high.
On balance, I should have stick to my gun and sent the second letter. Lesson learned.
M talked to B, but could not change his mind.
Here is my take.
1. He does not have a PHD in MIS, so he is unqualified.
2. The school has been plugging him everywhere for the last two years. He was all over the place teaching Finance, MIS, Accounting. Can you imagine anyone commending such intellect capacity to do a decent job in each area? It is a joke.
3. I also checked with several students from my simulation class. These are serious students in our MBA program. All of them have problems with his teaching. They complain that he does not know Finance, only read PPT, and does not teach much. Some were his TAs. He told them he knows how to play the game. He gives easy midterm to secure good evaluations then makes the final harder to fix the grades.
To be sure, you may also want to check with your students.
4. We start late in March. The pool has only 8 candidates. Even among them, there are at least two better ones. Why do we have to consider an insider who has so many problems? Of course, in our school, merit is not the only thing that matters. The school is notorious for letting politics dominate merit. I still cannot believe that the school could let a faculty who cannot speak to ruin students for years.
If we keep operating this way, the school will rotten to the core. And I will not waste my time on these matters.
If we believe in merit, we should not hire him.
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.