issue140

蔓草菊UID: 2195399

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 report, the committee at Elm City University recommends that the university should improve the salary of Professor Thomas (T) to $10,000 and promote her to Department Chairperson to keep professor T working in the university. To support this recommendation the committed points out professor T is polular among students because her classes are among the largest. In addition, the grant money of research professor T brought to the university has exceeded her current salary in each of the last two years implying that professor T is good at researching and teaching. A careful examination of this report can reveal that how groundless it is as it stands.

One problem with this report is the assumption the committee relies on that professor T is very good at teaching due to her large classes. However, the committee provides no evidence to support that. It is possible that the classes professor T teaches are the requirements of all the students so her classes will be among the largest. Even if professor T is popular indeed, it does not necessary indicate that she has effective teaching methods. Perhaps her tests are easy to pass, which arouses students' concern more. Therefore, the committee cannot convince us that professor T has high teaching abilities from the fact that her classes are among the largest.

The mere fact that the grant money professor T brought to her school exceeded her current salary in each of the last two years cannot indicate that she is good at reaching. Perhaps the last two years was an aberration and in other years Professor T did not acquire grant money of research. Or maybe other professors got more grant money than Professor T did and have made some breakthroughs. If this is the case, compared with other professors, professor T cannot be considered an excellent researcher.

Finally, the committee offers no evidence that professor T will leave the university for other ones without the raised salary and promotion. It is likely that professor is very content to the current position and she may have been familiar with the working environment due to her 17 yeas working in the university. So the committee cannot substantiate that professor T will leave the university without the higher salary and promotion.

All in all, the report is not credible and the evidence cited in it lends little support to what the committed want to maintain. To strengthen the recommendation the committed would have to provide clear evidence that professor has good teaching and researching abilities. To evaluate the report more fairly, we need more information about the degree to which professor T is content to her current job and whether other universities have the plan to employ professor T to work in their universities.