We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
That's what I have been talking about lately - students evaluating teachers, dumbing down to please students, etc. A quote from the piece:
According to a lawsuit filed Oct. 14 in U.S. District Court, Maranville’s lawyers allege UVU administrators justified the dismissal based on student complaints that his “capstone” course in business strategies was too rigorous and his Socratic style intimidated them.
“A number of students liked him a lot and said so. The brass came in and liked what he was doing. [Maranville] wanted students to get together in small groups and chew over the topics they were studying,” said his attorney, Robert Sykes. “They get him up here and toss him under the bus because some of the students wanted high school.”
Boo hoo. Tough Socratic teaching and interrogation is typical in elite colleges, laws school, medical school, and business school. If they think a prof is too rigorous, they oughta see real life.
Sadly TB, real life is getting that way too. It's all about being "fair" now - and by fair I'm not talking about the way you or I might define fair, but "fair" as in "I'm being picked on, its not fair and its your fault - I deserve better so gimme".
I think it became really obvious when people started demanding that something change because they were "offended." They were wimps but they weren't the real wimps, it was the rest of us because we sat still for that nonsense. Nobody had the guts to stand up and say, "I'm offended by what you want to do so just be offended."
On top of it all, the article tells us, the professor is blind, and yet despite his handicap he manages to teach a class that a number of his students rate pretty highly? C'mon, this guy must have something on the ball to get as far as he has.
There's no mention of how he was rated by other members of his department. In every university I know of, tenure decisions start not at the administrative level but at the departmental level with a detailed review of a candidate's dossier by a faculty committee. The committee forwards its recommendation to the school's administration, which typically rubber stamps whatever the departmental review committee recommends, unless the committee was closely divided on the question or the chairman of the department forwards an independent opinion that conflicts with the majority decision of the committee. If the faculty committee and the department chair agree in reaching a favorable decision on the candidate at the lower level, it would be highly unusual for a dean, provost, or president to overturn the department's recommendation. The granting of tenure should then be a slam dunk.