HA article about English/Polk - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 11, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: HA article about Engli

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
Maybe the history in the past was okay

It was more than "okay" in the past. It was impeccably proper. Jim Sims was VPAA at the time some of it was established. The selection committees were carefully constituted and they allowed no room for "good ole boysmanship." or for political nonsense. Things did seem to go downhill after Dr. Sims left that office.

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" Well, one person who won was clearly selected because he was a Thames flunkie. Without naming names, the publication that made him "internationally renowned" was reviewed in exactly one obscure place. It was not reviewed by any of the standard sources in the discipline, not even in the journal that _specializes_ in reviews. It was owned by about 50 libraries. The flunkie beat out someone who is a major scholar in his field, whose book is owned by 500 libraries--and the encyclopedia he edited is a standard reference work owned by over 1300 libraries, and is the first of its kind--i.e., truly "innovative." When the "looser" was invited to reapply the next year he did not, for obvious reasons. For the record, this person is not me, but someone I deeply respect, and I was appalled. So . . . either the selection committee is made up of people who don't know anything about what consitutes academic success (and from your post, I don't think you're one of them), or it is corrupt. Maybe the history in the past was okay, but like everything else under Thames, it isn't anymore."

Not an accurate conclusion. No one in the years I served selected anyone because of their relationship with the Dome. In fact, when I chaired the committee, I couldn't tell you if Joe Blow was or was not a bud of admin or not. Nor did I care. Here is a generalization, however (and like all generalizations, there are exceptions). There is great variability in the ability of scholars to out together a successful dossier that presents the merit of their work. I saw some resumes that were so padded that they were embarassing, but look impressive on first pass. Others may have come from people doing great work, but objective data to make such a judgment were not included in the dossier. For example, number of libraries holding one's work may or may not be indicative of good scholarship cross disciplines. Thus, the better argument would be that in MY field, my work is more widely cited and more influential compared to another in my field. Thus, many applicants put insufficient thought into constructing a good dossier, and the breadth and potential importance of scholarship is often not adequately communicated. Most applicants simply take a bean counter approach, and the committee is left with the very difficult task of comparing apples and oranges.

In sum, making such judgments either within or across disciplines is extremely difficult (hence the move to external reviewers). However, in my tenure, we tried to find the best scholarship at USM, and I wouldn't be surprised if another interdisciplinary committee at USM would have provided somewhat different rankings. Having sat on editorial boards and grant review committees, agreement among those in the same field is often a pleasant surprise. I'm even more surprised when some consensus is reached among raters from different fields. It was a tough task each year, and I'm sure glad to be out of the loop. As indicated by your post, hard feelings and inaccurate perceptions arise quickly because every oustanding scholar who is nominated can't win, and the process will always be imperfect. My personal experience? I was nominated for another award category, and LOST (SOB!)!!! In fact, in my humble opinion, the winner beat out SEVERAL better qualified applicants, and the winner was buds with faculty on the selection committee (hmmm). However, if asked again, I'd probably resubmit.

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: FS corrector
" I couldn't tell you if Joe Blow was or was not a bud of admin or not. "

Judging from his comments on the Thames petition, Joe IS a bud of administration but is probably NOT eligible for the award given his graduate student status!!!

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: TIC
"Judging from his comments on the Thames petition, Joe IS a bud of administration but is probably NOT eligible for the award given his graduate student status!!!"

Another incorrect assumption. There is now a category for graduate students ($500 award last year). Get Joe Blow to apply, if he is your student.

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: TIC corrector
"Another incorrect assumption. There is now a category for graduate students ($500 award last year). Get Joe Blow to apply, if he is your student. "

Wow TC, thanks for pointing that out! Does he have to submit anything other than hsi comments on the petition or will those be enough?

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: TIC
"Wow TC, thanks for pointing that out! Does he have to submit anything other than hsi comments on the petition or will those be enough?"

A letter of support from you, indicating how his efforts have bolstered the economic development of your department. A monetary love contribution to the committee members always helps (only kidding, before I get flamed)

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: FS corrector
"
Not an accurate conclusion. No one in the years I served selected anyone because of their relationship with the Dome. In fact, when I chaired the committee, I couldn't tell you if Joe Blow was or was not a bud of admin or not. Nor did I care. Here is a generalization, however (and like all generalizations, there are exceptions). There is great variability in the ability of scholars to out together a successful dossier that presents the merit of their work. I saw some resumes that were so padded that they were embarassing, but look impressive on first pass. Others may have come from people doing great work, but objective data to make such a judgment were not included in the dossier. For example, number of libraries holding one's work may or may not be indicative of good scholarship cross disciplines. Thus, the better argument would be that in MY field, my work is more widely cited and more influential compared to another in my field. Thus, many applicants put insufficient thought into constructing a good dossier, and the breadth and potential importance of scholarship is often not adequately communicated. Most applicants simply take a bean counter approach, and the committee is left with the very difficult task of comparing apples and oranges.
In sum, making such judgments either within or across disciplines is extremely difficult (hence the move to external reviewers). However, in my tenure, we tried to find the best scholarship at USM, and I wouldn't be surprised if another interdisciplinary committee at USM would have provided somewhat different rankings. Having sat on editorial boards and grant review committees, agreement among those in the same field is often a pleasant surprise. I'm even more surprised when some consensus is reached among raters from different fields. It was a tough task each year, and I'm sure glad to be out of the loop. As indicated by your post, hard feelings and inaccurate perceptions arise quickly because every oustanding scholar who is nominated can't win, and the process will always be imperfect. "

Sorry, I am not going to be "corrected" on this one. In this particular instance, there WAS a flaw in the process. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming it was dome intervention. But there was something wrong--poor choice of external reviewers, padded resume (of the person who won), or something. I AM qualified to judge the difference of the work of the two individuals in question, as I am in the discipline. One is a scholar with an international reputation, a resume that it takes a wheel barrow to lift, a huge history of publications in peer-reviewed journals, and participation in a landmark reference work. The other published _one_ book that wasn't even original work, received almost no attention by the scholarly community, and WON. The person who won has been quoted in the papers supporting Thames. This isn't just "sour grapes" on behalf of my colleague, it was a travesty, and it would have been a travesty without or without the winner's support of Thames.

So, I regret to say, that if the process IS fair, which I still doubt, then I can only doubt the competence of the people on the committee. My experience with USM faculty has not suggested that any of them (yourself included) are that dumb.

With all due respect, I think we should agree to disagree on this issue, and let this thread continue on its regularly scheduled topic . . . .

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" Sorry, I am not going to be "corrected" on this one. In this particular instance, there WAS a flaw in the process. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming it was dome intervention. But there was something wrong--poor choice of external reviewers, padded resume (of the person who won), or something. I AM qualified to judge the difference of the work of the two individuals in question, as I am in the discipline. One is a scholar with an international reputation, a resume that it takes a wheel barrow to lift, a huge history of publications in peer-reviewed journals, and participation in a landmark reference work. The other published _one_ book that wasn't even original work, received almost no attention by the scholarly community, and WON. The person who won has been quoted in the papers supporting Thames. This isn't just "sour grapes" on behalf of my colleague, it was a travesty, and it would have been a travesty without or without the winner's support of Thames. So, I regret to say, that if the process IS fair, which I still doubt, then I can only doubt the competence of the people on the committee. My experience with USM faculty has not suggested that any of them (yourself included) are that dumb. With all due respect, I think we should agree to disagree on this issue, and let this thread continue on its regularly scheduled topic . . . . "

Sounds like a winner to me. But now I am REALLY curious about this (if we screwed up, the best approach is to gather data to minimize the potential of future screw ups). I sure don't recall giving a thumbs up to someone who published virtually nothing, I am no longer involved, but if you could communicate this descrepany with Ed Jackson (who is now chair of the URC), this might be useful information. And, if the person is still here, encourage them to re-apply.

Date: Sep 11, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: a flaw in the soup
"Sounds like a winner to me. But now I am REALLY curious about this (if we screwed up, the best approach is to gather data to minimize the potential of future screw ups). I sure don't recall giving a thumbs up to someone who published virtually nothing, I am no longer involved, but if you could communicate this descrepany with Ed Jackson (who is now chair of the URC), this might be useful information. And, if the person is still here, encourage them to re-apply. "

The odds of that person still being here: < 1:3