Sunday, October 22, 2006
Science Center Event tomorrow-
I’m going to a great event tomorrow at the Science Center here in Philadelphia.
While preparing to meet the speakers, I have come across a lot of information about the atmosphere of research in Scotland and I’m very impressed. For starters, they have something called the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority which governs in vitro fertilization clinics, and grants licenses to researchers to perform certain types of embryonic experiments or cloning. It seems that instead of passing prohibitve laws, Scotland has decided to tap into the possibility of stem cells cautiously. A thoughtful solution to a complicated problem.
I also hear a lot about educating the public, which is, of course, crucial for the study of stem cells. I’ve been wondering a lot lately whether accurrate press about stem cell research makes a difference. It seems to me that different countries have adopted policies that are in synch with the general mores of the country. In other words, the US is extremely conservative, hence the federal government is not supporting the work. However, many european countries with more liberal governments (Sweden, Scotland, etc)- are permissive-
So would better press and better education of the public really make a difference?
While preparing to meet the speakers, I have come across a lot of information about the atmosphere of research in Scotland and I’m very impressed. For starters, they have something called the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority which governs in vitro fertilization clinics, and grants licenses to researchers to perform certain types of embryonic experiments or cloning. It seems that instead of passing prohibitve laws, Scotland has decided to tap into the possibility of stem cells cautiously. A thoughtful solution to a complicated problem.
I also hear a lot about educating the public, which is, of course, crucial for the study of stem cells. I’ve been wondering a lot lately whether accurrate press about stem cell research makes a difference. It seems to me that different countries have adopted policies that are in synch with the general mores of the country. In other words, the US is extremely conservative, hence the federal government is not supporting the work. However, many european countries with more liberal governments (Sweden, Scotland, etc)- are permissive-
So would better press and better education of the public really make a difference?
Friday, October 13, 2006
A response to my DP readers:
Although it does not seem likely that my DP readers will find their way to the Iron Ring, I nonetheless feel it is my only outlet to respond to the myriad of comments my last column received. I am not permitted to post on the DP website. So perhaps an Iron Ring reader will post a link to this on my column online wouldn't that be nice???
For starters, one major criticism of tenure (at least from these Penn students) is that it does nothing to increase the quality of teaching. In nearly every school, tenure is based loosely on three main criteria: research, service and teaching. Each school, and possibly each department within schools, ranks the three different. I asked Dean Bushnell directly in what order she, or Penn, would rank the importance of the three and she assured me that they don’t give tenure to poor lecturers. A strange response considering I did not ask if someone with poor teaching skills could still obtain tenure. Clearly this criticism hits close to home.
Frankly, I believe Penn ranks teaching last on that list. The fact is, we are a large, research-based University and I don’t believe it is a priority of the administration to find the best lecturers. That being said, I don’t think the answer is to abolish tenure. I think the answer is to ask different responsibilities of different faculty. What if we hired faculty either for teaching or research but not both? As any graduate student can tell you, some people are more inclined to explaining and interacting and others are better off in the lab thinking and testing.
Personally, I think it ties in with a discussion on grade inflation. In a column last spring, Gabe Oppenheim declared it was professor’s personal fault that grades were inflating at Penn. He wondered just how much they care about student rankings and why. Well I believe those student rankings are used when considering who gets tenure. And as Oppenheim noted, more difficult professors (those who give lower grades) get lower rankings from students. Hence, if a professor wants tenure, they may have to lower their grade standards.
A second major criticism of the column was that in the “real world” there is no such thing as job security, and that professors are crazy left-wing “wackos” (yes, someone used the word “wacko”) who should not be teaching at all.
To this, I stand by my assertion that tenure is sacrosanct. Frankly, a truly wacko professor would never receive tenure. Suppose a history professor was a holocaust denier. Wouldn’t you be appalled if they taught your child? Sure. But when it was time for that holocaust denier to be considered for tenure, they would be hard-pressed to find others in their field who would consider their work in any way scholarly or valid. Stringent evaluation by peers is a cornerstone of the tenure process and ensures that such wackos do not teach crazy ideas to students.
And if you think you heard something crazy in class, I offer this bit of trite advice: Columbus thought the world was round. Our entire history of humankind is defined by people who thought about the world differently and many were scorned.
Finally, I am most disappointed that no one brought forth one of the greatest criticisms of tenure— one that hits particularly close to home at Penn. The fact that tenured professors seem to get away with things that would get any other sane person fired. Remember Tracy McIntosh and L Scott Ward? True, both left Penn eventually, but McIntosh did not leave until roughly 18 months after the incident and as we all know, Ward remained on at Penn after several incidents. Its certainly tenure abuse and university administrations are quite sensitive to it.
For starters, one major criticism of tenure (at least from these Penn students) is that it does nothing to increase the quality of teaching. In nearly every school, tenure is based loosely on three main criteria: research, service and teaching. Each school, and possibly each department within schools, ranks the three different. I asked Dean Bushnell directly in what order she, or Penn, would rank the importance of the three and she assured me that they don’t give tenure to poor lecturers. A strange response considering I did not ask if someone with poor teaching skills could still obtain tenure. Clearly this criticism hits close to home.
Frankly, I believe Penn ranks teaching last on that list. The fact is, we are a large, research-based University and I don’t believe it is a priority of the administration to find the best lecturers. That being said, I don’t think the answer is to abolish tenure. I think the answer is to ask different responsibilities of different faculty. What if we hired faculty either for teaching or research but not both? As any graduate student can tell you, some people are more inclined to explaining and interacting and others are better off in the lab thinking and testing.
Personally, I think it ties in with a discussion on grade inflation. In a column last spring, Gabe Oppenheim declared it was professor’s personal fault that grades were inflating at Penn. He wondered just how much they care about student rankings and why. Well I believe those student rankings are used when considering who gets tenure. And as Oppenheim noted, more difficult professors (those who give lower grades) get lower rankings from students. Hence, if a professor wants tenure, they may have to lower their grade standards.
A second major criticism of the column was that in the “real world” there is no such thing as job security, and that professors are crazy left-wing “wackos” (yes, someone used the word “wacko”) who should not be teaching at all.
To this, I stand by my assertion that tenure is sacrosanct. Frankly, a truly wacko professor would never receive tenure. Suppose a history professor was a holocaust denier. Wouldn’t you be appalled if they taught your child? Sure. But when it was time for that holocaust denier to be considered for tenure, they would be hard-pressed to find others in their field who would consider their work in any way scholarly or valid. Stringent evaluation by peers is a cornerstone of the tenure process and ensures that such wackos do not teach crazy ideas to students.
And if you think you heard something crazy in class, I offer this bit of trite advice: Columbus thought the world was round. Our entire history of humankind is defined by people who thought about the world differently and many were scorned.
Finally, I am most disappointed that no one brought forth one of the greatest criticisms of tenure— one that hits particularly close to home at Penn. The fact that tenured professors seem to get away with things that would get any other sane person fired. Remember Tracy McIntosh and L Scott Ward? True, both left Penn eventually, but McIntosh did not leave until roughly 18 months after the incident and as we all know, Ward remained on at Penn after several incidents. Its certainly tenure abuse and university administrations are quite sensitive to it.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
What I have been up to (since I have not been posting!)
It has been a while since I have written a post!
It’s definitely because I am now kept quite busy writing columns for the Daily Pennsylvanian. My column is called ‘The Sounds of Science’ and they can all be viewed here . I’ve been trying to alternate pieces about science with pieces about Penn-related items. It’s hard for me because as a graduate student I feel I need to engage undergrads in the many newsworthy goings-on outside of the campus, and yet, they are mostly only interested in Penn. Guess that’s true of lots of undergraduates, not just here. My column on tenure got about nine comments online, which is pretty high. I was disappointed that so many respondents were so vehemently anti-tenure. Undergraduates get angry that professors are not chosen based on teaching, and yet, Penn would not be the school that it is without the first-rate research. I wanted undergraduates to see that professors have many obligations outside just teaching them, but I don’t think I got my point across at all. Read it here and let me know what you think.
I just finished a really interesting interview here for a column I’m writing this week on obesity. I find it really fascinating that we have this societal ideal of thin women and muscled men, and yet we are facing an obesity epidemic. And I still cannot get my head around the obesity problem; the science tells us it is at least somewhat genetic, and yet how could we face a genetic epidemic? So many factors are contributing to the obesity problem that it does seem beyond true repair. And the whole paradigm returns to the concept of healthcare as reactionary instead of preventative. Wouldn’t it be nicer if insurance covered nutrition classes, gym memberships and healthy foods? Wouldn’t that be better than having it pay for the complications of diabetes, heart disease and stroke?
