[a习作temp] [clover] Argument140 by taotaole [复制链接]

taotaole
UID：2694983

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 42
寄托币: 1566
注册时间: 2009-9-7
精华: 1
帖子: 117

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-2-16 01:06:04 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

A140
The 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."
The reporter of the Committee proposes the salary raise and promotion for Professor Thomas since her popularity and the research grant money she brings. However, after carefully examining the evidences for demonstrating the teaching and research ability of Professor Thomas, we will see the report can hardly be persuasive and the proposal is improper.
To begin with, the committee fails to show Professor Thomas’s teaching and research ability. Though two pieces of evidences he or she has offered, but both are unrelated concepts to proof the ability. As for the fact of one of the largest classes Professor Thomas teaches, we should notice that the size of the classes could hardly be a good indication of the popularity of a professor among students. It is quite likely that the faculty of botany lacks for professors, so all of the students have to choose Professor Thomas’s course, which then become the largest class in the university. In the same way, the amount of research grants brought by a professor could not indicate the research abilities of that professor. It is probably that the research grant is affluent these two years and most professors can get quite an amount, even his or her research ability is limited.
Even granted that Prof. Thomas has demonstrated excellent teaching and research abilities, the recommendation for the raise and promotion for Prof. Thomas is an abrupt decision. On the one hand, the committee simply assumes that research grants brought by Prof. Thomas will continue to exceed her salary in the future. But if given a 10,000 raise, there is doubt for the Professor to maintain the level of a higher grant.
The committee just falsely takes the situation of past and the future as the same. On the other hand, the committee takes an unwarranted assumption about Professor Thomas’s qualification to be the chairperson. We cannot guarantee that she will also be highly competent as a chairperson as the promotion aims at, even if we believe the ability of her teaching and research.
Being executive is always different from being academic.
Before further information is given, the recommendation can only be recognized to be built upon unwarranted assumption.
Finally, the consequence of denying the recommendation is purely an assumption and even though the assumption may become reality, the solution the committee seeks for is far from enough. The committee fails to demonstrate that Prof. Thomas has other choices currently, and that she is willing to teach at another university and he unfairly assumes that Prof. Thomas will leave for sure if we do not provide such a raise and promotion. What if the situation is the opposite? The Prof. may be determined to devote her life teaching in the university, even for free. While, if there is detective sign for the Prof. leaving, other measures could also be used to keep Prof. Thomas staying at Elm City University except for the raise and promotion. It is not necessary to propose such a request to release the potential risk. What’s more, the committee fails to illustrate that the proposed promotion and salary raise are sufficiently attractive for Prof. Thomas. Maybe the Prof. is leaving for a better faculty environment, which this university lacks for. The committee should find the real reason for the potential leaving of the Prof. and then take reasonable measures to maintain her.
To sum up, the recommendation the committee makes on Prof. Thomas’s salary raise and promotion is recklessly considered.
Literarily shown in the material, the ability of the Prof. is not well proofed and the promotion and salary change is given inappropriate. Besides, the aftermaths as the excuse for the proposal is overestimated and the solution the faculty try to apply for is lack of further investigation. It is always better to err on the side of caution rather than on a mistaken decision.

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册