Much as I almost always agree with Beth Benoit, I can't agree here:
> Professor Evolution was out of line. It wasn't up to him
> to decide what makes a good graduate student in
> Psychology.
I think that we all are faced with exactly that every time we are faced
with the decision whether or not to write a letter of recommendation. A big
part of the reason is that such a letter puts our own names on the line, and
also contributes to (or detracts from) the value of our future letters. In
many contexts other than the letter of recommendation, I'd agree with Beth,
but in this context, I do not.
> If he felt it absolutely necessary, he could
> have stated his philosophical disagreement with the
> student in the body of the letter and then brought the
> body of the letter to the subject at hand: the student's
> academic ability.
I think that would have REALLY been asking for trouble, wouldn't it? I
mean that in the legal sense - aren't we already faced with legal threats
when we say anything remotely negative in a letter of recommendation?
> informational decision-making. Getting a fundamentalist
> to say that he believes in evolution so he can get a
> letter is hardly conducive to academic progress.
I believe that Dr. Dini is trying to avoid "getting a fundamentalist to
say that he believes in evolution", isn't he? He explicitly asks the student
to be honest about his/her belief in answering that question. It seems to me
that he's modeling honesty, and making it an explicit part of the criteria
for getting a letter. The fact that there is so much dishonesty among
creationists is a serious problem, but it's not caused by Dr. Dini's
criteria.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
