- 最后登录
- 2007-3-30
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 67
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2006-2-8
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 57
- UID
- 2184177
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 67
- 注册时间
- 2006-2-8
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
140The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college."
提纲: 1 上课人数多不代表课受欢迎,不能证明教学能力
2. 能拉到钱不代表有科研能力
3. 有教学能力和科研能力不一定适合系主任位置.
In this argument, the speaker recommended that they should give Professor Thomas a salary raise of $10,000 per year and a promotion to Department Chairperson, due to her "demonstrated” teaching and research abilities. To support his recommendation, the arguer pointed that her class was among the largest at University and that during the last two years, she brought money which was more than her salary to the university each year. At first glance, the recommendation seems to be somehow convincing. However, close scrutiny reveals that there are several critical flaws which are addressed below.
In the first place, the speaker cites the fact that her class is among the largest at university to prove her teaching ability. However, that the larger number of students in her class does not mean that her class is popular. It is entirely possible that the large number of students is due to the more students of this major, not associated with the popularity of her class. Thus, this fact is not convincing enough to demonstrate her perfect teaching ability.
In the second place, the arguer considers that her ability to bring money to the university, which is more than her salary in each of the last two years, demonstrate her research ability. However, the speaker failed to point out the source of the money and its usage. It is possible that the money is with no relationship with her research. Hence, this evidence is neither incredible.
In the third place, the author considers that a professor, who is perfect on teaching and researching is fit for the position of department chairperson. Common sense informs that having good abilities of teaching and researching is not enough; she should be with some other abilities, such as the ability of management. Without any evidences on her other ability, the recommendation of promotion to the department chairperson is not persuasive.
In summary, as this argument bears these flaws that no convincing enough evidences were given to prove her perfect abilities of teaching and researching, and that no evidence revealed she is fit for department chairperson, the recommendation is incredible. To make the suggestion more persuasive, the speaker would have to provide more convincing evidences, for example, the survey of her class and her recent research results, which can demonstrate her perfect abilities of teaching and researching. |
|