michael,
I think you are overstating it here. I doubt that
it is an actual negative in most places, although there
are certainly many places where it simply does not
count at all, either negative or positive. There are
ways to check on the standards used, e.g. by looking
at grades given or by asking students on an evaluation
form what the "level of challenge" was in the class.
I suspect what you saw was a case where they did
not want the person for other reasons, politics, research,
personality issues, whatever, and had to dismiss his/her
apparent ability as a teacher. That happens a lot, but it
is hardly the same thing as saying that the good teaching
was actually a negative. Was this person actually fired
because they were a good teacher? The only way I can
imagine that happening is out of jealousy by colleagues.
But that would only happen if good teaching mattered. If
it doesn't, then why bother?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:42 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8709] Re: farewell to academe
>Actually, good teaching is a negative in hiring. It can always be
>explained away. He/she had low standards. I saw that pulled on the best
>teacher in my department in Berkeley.
>
>On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 10:26:04PM -0500, Nathan Newman wrote:
>> What is sad is that teaching is so little respected in hiring decisions.
I
>> have to say that I was incredibly spoiled getting to go to the small
liberal
>> arts college thing. At Amherst, students sat on hiring committees and
>> student letters would kill a prof coming up for tenure if he or she
stunk,
>> so the faculty either were good teachers or learned how to do it at an
>> acceptable level. It amazes me that at both Berkeley and Yale, really
>> terrible teaching is allowed to exist and it makes almost no difference
in
>> hiring and tenure decisions.
>>
>> My basic attitude is that a good teacher, even with conservative
politics,
>> is a far more radical thing than a radical prof who sucks at teaching. A
>> good teacher awakens excitement and engagement and I think that is
>> ultimately more likely to lead to radical reevaluation of the world and
>> possibilities.
>>
>> It is the deadening of imagination that most breeds apathy and acceptance
of
>> the status quo.
>>
>> It's not that I denigrate radical scholarship, since I'm a good consumer
of
>> it, but there is no question in my mind that my radicalism was more fed
by
>> the good teachers I had early in life, and not necessarily just the
radical
>> ones, far more than any particular book I may have read.
>>
>> -- Nathan Newman
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Yates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 8:39 PM
>> Subject: [PEN-L:8698] Re: Re: farewell to academe
>>
>>
>> Nathan,
>>
>> Your comments are very well taken. Two comments: Most teachers are not
>> very good at it and do not take the time to learn how to teach
>> effectively. Second, new teachers, including progressives, say that
>> they cannot make waves til they get tenure. But passivity becomes a
>> habit, and it is rare inded that a professor who kept quiet for 7 years
>> suddenly becomes a troublemaker. I have supported for tenure some
>> persons with whom I had sharp political disagreements just because they
>> were troublemakers from the start.
>>
>> Michael Yates
>>
>> Nathan Newman wrote:
>> >
>> > I have to say that I have great sympathy for Michael's commentary on
left
>> > academia. I never really intended to be an academic, although there
were
>> > short periods when I considered it while working on my Ph.D., but the
>> > biggest deterrent was that I didn't want "to be" any of the folks I saw
in
>> > the professoriat-- talking the talk but doing almost nothing to engage
>> snip
>>
>>
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
