Argument140 victors小组 第四次作业

ghost33UID: 2267869

TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - 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."


In this argument, the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University urges to raise Professor Thomas’s salary by 20 percent and promote her to Department Chairperson to avoid her leaving. To support his recommendation, the arguer cites the size of Professor Thomas’s class and the money brought to the university by her which exceeded her annual $50,000 salary in each of the last two years to demonstrate Thomas’s teaching and research abilities. At the first glance, the argument seems quite reasonable. However, further consideration reveals the evidences appearing in the argument don’t lend much support to the recommendation which make it not as convincing as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer simply equates the popularity among students with the size of one professor's class, and the teaching ability with the popularity. In some case, especially given that students are given the right to choose all of their classes based on their interests, the bigger size one professor's class is, the more popular he is. However, common sense tells us that there do be some subjects we students cannot avoid choosing even the teacher conducts it in an uncomfortable way, the compulsory subjects in one major are such classes that we need not only choose but also pass their final exams to get our diplomas. That is, given that professor Thomas's classes are all for the compulsory subjects and that she is the only professor who charges these subjects, it is not surprising that her classes’ size is one of the biggest in the university while most of her students take her classes as the last ones they’d like to join in. Thus, without ruling out this possibility, the big size of Thomas’s classes cannot convince me that she is a popular teacher. In addition, generally speaking, popularity is one thing, not the same as nice teaching ability. Of course, popularity substantiates a professor’s ability to catch the students’ attention. While it is possible that the innovative way the classes are given in attracts more attendees, it is equally possible that other factors, such as that the professor do not demand attendance strictly, or that he is likely to give high scores, make students register his classes. Given the latter possibility, Thomas’s teaching ability would better remain dubious.

A similar flaw is that the arguer also simply defines research abilities as the money brought to the university in research grants. It is true extraordinary research abilities can bring one professor big or important projects, which are well financed to some extant, but the reverse is not always true. There are some profitable topics but not important which do not need special research abilities. A topic which can bring great profits to a company or some commercial bodies is a good example. Most of commercial topics can be treated by well used methods and applying well known knowledge. Given that Thomas’s research topics are such ones, it is quite possible that she has no original idea of her own which is an important criterion to demonstrate research ability. Further, the arguer only tells us that it is in recent two years that Thomas brought money in more than her salary, since she has been in this university for 17 years, the big part of her career would play a more important part in talking about her ability. If she did not perform well in those 15 years, we need more information which can explain her big amount of money in research grants in the past 2 years. Thus, whether promote her to Department Chairperson need debate further.

What’s more, even Thomas’ teaching ability can be clarified, and that we can rely on the money brought in to substantiate her research ability, whether Thomas is qualified to such a salary raise and a promotion still remains a question. Since the arguer did not provide other professors’ information, we are not sure whether $50,000 per year is the solid salary in Elm City University for professors like Thomas. There is a good chance that Thomas’s salary is among the highest at her stage. Still, if Elm City University has plenty of professors in Botany, and that there are many professors who perform better than Thomas, promoting her to Department Chairperson will not be accepted by the staff.

Last but not least, the arguer takes a 20 percent increase in salary and a promotion as the only way to keep Professor Thomas stay in the university without any message about Thomas’s own comment on her position. Given that Thomas enjoys the comfortable work and life circumstance of the university, or that she is satisfied with her salary and position, the arguer’s concern is groundless. Even Thomas is not satisfied, maybe there are some better choices for both the university and professor Thomas.

In conclusion, this argument is not well substantiated. To bolster the arguer’s comment, we need more evidence to show Thomas’s teaching and research abilities. To make his recommendation more reasonable, information about other professors’ salary and research performance should be provided. What’s more, Thomas’s own comment about her situation will give us some useful help to address the problem.

ghost33UID: 2267869

觉得argument都差不多，写得不错吧。语言应该可以再提高吧