Dennis,
I share those concerns too, and much of your
summary resonates well with my own views. There
is a substantial subjective element in academic
evaluation that cannot be ignored or eliminated.
Rigid reliance on any indicator is a mistake, and
opportunity for discrimination and political
machination exists at all levels.
Note that the MIT committes that reallocated
resources in Biology contained 3 female biologists.
They made a number of subjective judgments,
using an as yet unknown methodology, then
congratulated themselves on the fairness
of the process.
All the best,
Jim Steiger
--------------------
James H. Steiger, Professor
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4
----------------------
Note: I urge all members of this list to read
the following and inform themselves carefully
of the truth about the MIT Report on the Status
of Women Faculty.
Original MIT Report on the Status of Women Faculty:
http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://web.mit.edu/fnl/
Judith Kleinfeld's Article Critiquing the MIT Report:
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/#note9back
Patricia Hausman and James Steiger Article,
"Confession Without Guilt?" on the MIT Report:
http://www.iwf.org/news/mitfinal.pdf
On 16 Feb 2001 15:10:02 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>we all know that the setting of salary ... either initially or
>incremenetally over the years ... is a highly subjective business ... there
>is very little that is OBjective to it
>
>from an array of data ... that a dean might see prior to hire ... or, after
>onboard ... that a local p and t committee might see ... or a department
>head on an annual basis ... the department head usually forwards to a dean
>... some recommendation as to increments
>
>fundamentally, regardless of ANY of the data sources, it boils down to how
>much value ... the department head ... conveyed to the dean ... PLACES in
>your service
>
>it is not just (but this plays some role) how much they like or dislike you
>... but, how much they think you provide value to their unit
>
>it could be teaching ... it could be service ... it could be research ...
>it could be grants ... it could be visibility on the internet ... it could
>be all kinds of things ... no faculty member i know ... it they are to be
>called a faculty member ... is a unidimensional being ... nor has a
>UNIdimensional role in a unit
>
>i would hope that any program chair or department head ... worth his/her
>salt ... would consider a variety of factors ... in some weighted
>combination ... which could be different from faculty member to faculty
>member depending on their role in the unit ... and then make what he/she
>thinks is the best decision (unfortunately, in any given year ... the
>discretion he/she has in this area is rather puny ... though a dean does
>have rather large discretion on hire, which is where so many of these huge
>salary discrepancies start from)
>
>what really worries me ... which this MIT case discussion highlights
>(possibly) ... is our reliance on what appears to be "objective" measures
>of performance ... citation rate is just one of them ... and then start
>thinking in an interval measurement scale way ... that, 2 units more on X
>... means, we should be awarding faculty member Y ... Z more units of $$$
>in salary
>
>this is a hugely bad way to operate ...
>
>it reminds me of some attempts to overly micromanage and define "workload" ...
>
>sure, we need some measures so that unjustifiable salaries (in the first
>place) or salary increments don't occur ... but, our adherence to these
>seemingly "exact" data sources on which to make these rather subjective
>decisions ... is rather scary
>
>if someone wants to use citation rates ... well, go ahead and do it (even
>though i hate this indicator) BUT, keep in mind that it is but ONE of
>dozens of factors that can and should enter into the mix ... and, one
>should keep some proper perspective on the WEIGHT given to ANY of the
>myriad factors or measures one can use
>==============================================================
>dennis roberts, penn state university
>educational psychology, 8148632401
>http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
>
>
>=================================================================
>Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
>the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
>=================================================================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
