The Chronicle says of Gonzalez “a clear case of discrimination”

_{May 22, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a balanced article on Iowa State’s refusal to tenure Guillermo Gonzalez.

Advocate of Intelligent Design Who Was Denied Tenure Has Strong Publications Record
By RICHARD MONASTERSKY

At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination. As an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez has a better publication record than any other member of the astronomy faculty. He also happens to publicly support the concept of intelligent design. Last month he was denied tenure.

Comments

Hi Atom You have raised an excellent excerpt and issue. Let's take it on, step by step: 1] Probabilities before and after the fact. After something has happened, it has happened,though of course we may make the error of perceiving an event incorrectly -- this is an adjustment made for say measuring Shannon information. 2] Your sequence A is, on a before the fact basis, a target, with odds of ~ 1 in 10^150, i.e it is almost impossible to hit by chance relative to the available opportunities in the observed universe. To specify any such single given sequence then toss the tray of coins and hit it "just so" is sufficiently improbable that if I were to see such a claim, I would reject the claim that this happened simply by chance. 3] Why is that? Because we know, independently, that agents are capable of setting up and hitting targets, using intelligence. (BTW, smuggled into the above setting up of a target lurks the point that we have in fact given functionality to a given sequence that does not hold for the others.) 4] Here we see a functional target that is highly improbable among the configurational space available, i.e it is in principle highly informational. So, we are at functionally specified, complex information. 5] We also see that we have defined thereby, two macrostates: [(a) the target/hit -- one single outcome fits it, and (b) the miss -- all the other ~ 10^150 outcomes fit it.]. 6] Now, this means that we are vastly more likely by chance to end up in the miss macro-state than the hit one. Indeed, so much so, that if the whole human population were to be employed to toss trays of 500 coins for their lifetimes [let's say 70 years by 7 bn people for 10,000 tosses per day ~ 1.8*10^18 tosses], it would make no material difference to the lack of probabilistic resources to access the state. 8] So, it is very unlikely for an individual to achieve the relevant outcome by chance, while we do know that since there is a known target, it could be achieved by simply arranging the coins, which could of course be suitably disguised. [Dawkins-type programs that have the target written in then do a sequential trial and error rewarding relative success is a case in point.) 9] That of course brings up the other side of the underlying issue, what if nature just so happens to be in a state that in some still warm pond or the equivalent, there is a much more probable sequence that is sufficiently functional to replicate itself, and then a family of such sequences occurs, and "complexifies" itself until presto life results, and evolves. The problem here is of course that the relevant molecules are so complex and have to form in such a specific configuration that this simply compounds the improbability. Such a still warm pond will on average break down such complex molecules, not assemble them, for excellent, probabilistically linked and energy-driven thermodynamic reasons. [And, lurking beneath, if such a thing were possible is this one: how is it that we just happen to be in a cosmos where such chains to "spontaneous life" exist. In short the design issue at cosmological level emerges.] 10] So we see that while such a spontaneous event is logically and physically possible in the abstract, the balance of probabilities is such that it is so maximally unlikely that of the competing explanations, chance or agency, agency is infinitely better. Unless, of course you are in a position to rule out such agency in advance. But doing so by begging metaphysical questions is bad philosophy, not good science. Trust this helps GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 4, 2007
June
06
Jun
4
04
2007
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

Ok, since it looks like we're the only two fish left on this thread, I guess it will be safe... Here is an email I wrote that sums up my question: ======Begin Email========= Quote from an article:
The second premise is sometimes refuted by statements such as the following: Ã¢â‚¬Å“This very situation in this very moment is extremely improbable, since trillions of other possibilities could have been actualized; nevertheless it is happening right nowÃ¢â‚¬Â. Such statements expose a deep misunderstanding of how statistic works. What you need beforehand are categories. Take e.g. a lottery. To determine the mathematical probability of a certain combination of numbers, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s say 6 out of 49, you find approximately 14 million possibilities of combinations. Every combination is equally (im-)probable: one out of 14 million. But is your lottery ticket worth something only because your personal combination is so special that it may not occur again in the other 14 million (minus one) cases? Of course not. Another thing has to take place: Your combination must be in the winning category! The drawing of lots separates the winners (first category) from the losers (second category). And the probability of being in the first category is what counts, because the second category is a kind of Ã¢â‚¬Å“black boxÃ¢â‚¬Â containing all the losers. Therefore the probability that your special number is in the category of the losers is very high. Probability is always connected with categories. And this is also how our common life-decisions work. You would decide not to walk across the street when the trafficlight is red, because you (at least unconsciously) know that when doing otherwise the mathematical probability to fit the Ã¢â‚¬Å“category of dead peopleÃ¢â‚¬Â is very high. You would not consider the walking across the street when the light is red as equivalent to the green light, just because both events are surely unique in the universe and therefore equally Ã¢â‚¬Å“improbableÃ¢â‚¬Â. Then there are people who say that even if an event is most improbable, it nevertheless can happen. It can even occur in the next second, since mathematical improbability doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say anything about when it happens. Look at the lottery above: Even if the chances to win are one out of 14 million (approx. 1:107), almost every week people do win. So the improbable does happen! But in terms of science this is not really a very improbable event. First of all, there are usually more than 14 million people who participate in the lottery; therefore it is highly probable that one person should win. And secondly, physicists agree that Ã¢â‚¬Å“really improbableÃ¢â‚¬Â are events beyond a probability of one out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (this is 1:1040). Although mathematically possible, it is absurd to believe that such an event could really happen in our universe (given the lifespan and the size of our universe).
(from http://www.professorenforum.de/volumes/v07n03/Artikel1/zoeller.pdf) Ok, so he touches on some valid points, and even brings probabilistic resources into the mix ("...there are usually more than 14 million people who participate in the lottery..."). Good for him. I like his line of reasoning, which is similar to what you and I were discussing in terms of prepecifying categories. Q:If you have your 500 bit string and you get a random sequence. (Call this sequence A). Immediately we have two category sets: "Is sequence A" and "Not Is sequence A". One set ("Not Is sequence A") is much more probable to have been chosen by chance: There is only one member in "Is sequence A" but there are roughly 10^150 members in the set "Not Is sequence A". How therefore can I be justified in believing you got a member of "Is sequence A" by chance, when it was so much more probable that you didn't? If low probabilities can rule out us having to worry about certain outcomes, then this low probability event shouldn't have happened in our lifetime. =====End of Email========= It may be a confused (confusing?) question, but it is something I've been wrestling with.Atom_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Atom Thanks. Okay, I see the problem of the distractions and distortions. But maybe, now this is off the main page, we can look at it without such interference? Would the Laplacian principle of indifference be of help: that unless we have reason to prefer particular outcomes among a set of outcomes, a priori, we expect each possible specific outcome to be equiprobable -- here in effect saying we have no rational basis for expecting otherwise so this is the default. E.g. tha tis why we say h?T is 50-50, or that any one face of a faitr die is 1/6. THis extends into the province pf thermodyamics and is a key component of statistical mechanics, which has had a significant measur eof success. In my paper I have a link to Collins who discusses probability in ways that may be helpful to you too. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 1, 2007
June
06
Jun
1
01
2007
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

So, why not raise the point if it is at all relevant to the topic
I don't know how germane it is to the topic at hand, but I've raised a form of it before here without success. I've been thinking about it more and how I can phrase my question more clearly, so that people don't focus on irrelevant details. Maybe I can contact Dr Sewell. It is just something to think about. Good luck with the deportation case.Atom_{May 29, 2007
May
05
May
29
29
2007
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Hi Atom Thanks for the kind words. I have been busy elsewhere overnight, on the el Faisal deportation case in Jamaica. (Cf my blog today, accessible through my site.) I suspect that Dr Dembski is the real expert on probability in this forum [and doubtless Dr Sewell too! Both being PhDs in Mathematics . . .], but I am very willing to respond best as I can on what you are thinking about. So, why not raise the point if it is at all relevant to the topic -- after all the root of Dr Sewell's point is a probabilistic one. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 29, 2007
May
05
May
29
29
2007
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

Blaming the victim is an old, and vicious tactic that makes it easier to close out eyes willfully to blatant wrongdoing.
Agreed. As for your always linked, I've actually been spending my free-time this weekend reading through your treatise. Very good reading, I am thoroughly enjoying it. I had been thinking of contacting you in regards to a question I had on probability theory, but figured I'd be respectful and see if you had already answered the issue in your writings. We'll see. AtomAtom_{May 28, 2007
May
05
May
28
28
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Hi Atom: Interesting! (I'd love to communicate more; follow up my always linked to see how to contact me directly.) Now, from one of the later threads, the following from ASA's Tim Davis, is highly interesting as further evidence that this one is a blatant case of academic discrimination:
I've done some research about Guillermo Gonzalez' publication and citation record, in order to draw my own conclusions about it. He isn't a Nobel laureate (who is?), but his record is far better than many of his critics are maintaining. I'm getting tired of hearing that the data have been manipulated to inflate his ability. Thus I offer the following objective analysis and factual information. Dr. Gonzalez has an outstanding publication record for a junior scientist. He is co-author of an astronomy text for Cambridge University Press, the top scientific publisher in the world, and an author of dozens of articles in scientific journals, including several recent articles in the top journals in his field (Astronomical Journal, Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society). According to the ISI Web of Knowledge (the standard source for information about citations in science), Dr. Gonzalez has more than 1200 citations with an h-index of 20. This means that he has contributed to 20 papers that have been cited at least 20 times each. At least four of these were written at ISU, among them a paper in Reviews of Modern Physics of which he is the sole author and a paper in Astronomical Journal, of which he is second author, that has already been cited 49 times in four years. He was sole author or first author of all three of his most frequently cited papers. Furthermore, contrary to some things that have been said, interest in his work has not slackened in recent years; indeed, the five highest years for citing his work are 2002 through 2006, with 2006 having the second highest total number of citations. For comparison, his colleague Dr. Steven Kawaler, an excellent astronomer and full professor at ISU, has been cited about half as much (681 time! s, as of this week); his h-index is 16, and none of his papers has been cited as often as any of Dr. GonzalezÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ top four papers. Harvard astronomer Alyssa Goodman, director of The Initiative in Innovative Computing, has an h-index identical to that of Dr. Gonzalez: as interesting and important as her work is, the data reveal that Dr. GonzalezÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ work is no less interesting, at least in terms of citations in professional journals . . . . . So, whatever the reasons for his tenure denial, it can't fairly be laid on his publication record. He's more than met objective criteria for being a full professor of astronomy at either ISU or Harvard. If anyone wants to continue to claim that this is not an accurate assessment, they will need to be very specific about what is wrong with the ISI data given above, or the other facts. It's always possible that the search brought up papers by other people with the same surname and initials (a few such known instances were removed from the data), or failed to bring up papers by Gonzalez or the others mentioned above. But I doubt that the data I do have is badly wrong. Failing such a failure, then it's time to shut down arguments about him not having done enough high quality research.
Blaming the victim is an old, and vicious tactic that makes it easier to close out eyes willfully to blatant wrongdoing. I think we have some serious reasons to ask whether that is at work here. Time to wake up, wise up, and rise up folks! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 28, 2007
May
05
May
28
28
2007
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

I just happen to be of Afro-Caribbean descent, and can see what you are saying. (You can appreciate too, that I am sympathetic to my fellow Caribbean person Ã¢â‚¬â€ GG is a refugee from CastroÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s dictatorship; and of course, fellow Christian.)
Me too. I'm Puerto Rican, African descended from my father's side, which is one of the reasons I am interested in the African-American situation in the US. (But by far, not my only reason for interest.) I'm a fellow Messianic believer as well.Atom_{May 27, 2007
May
05
May
27
27
2007
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Thanks Atom: I just happen to be of Afro-Caribbean descent, and can see what you are saying. (You can appreciate too, that I am sympathetic to my fellow Caribbean person -- GG is a refugee from Castro's dictatorship; and of course, fellow Christian.) Of course, further to all of this, I am a confirmed contrarian thinker, given the force of Plato's parable of the cave. [Also, cf Eph 4:17 - 24!] I think on the substantive issue, John West has aptly summed up over at ENV:
Key Developments in Gonzalez Tenure Denial Case, May 21-26 John West Action Item: Help Guillermo Gonzalez in his fight for academic freedom. Contact ISU President Gregory L. Geoffroy at (515) 294-2042 or email him at president@iastate.edu and let him know that you support academic freedom for Dr. Gonzalez to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Here is a recap of the major developments this week in the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure case: 1. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Gonzalez ranks first among his astronomer colleagues at ISU according to the "h-index" statistic, which seeks to measure how widely a scientist's articles are cited by other scientists. According to the Chronicle, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Mr. Gonzalez has a normalized h-index of 13, the highest of the 10 astronomers in his department. The next closest was Lee Anne Willson, a university professor who had a normalized h-index of 9.Ã¢â‚¬Â 2. It was revealed that at same time ISU denied tenure to Gonzalez this past spring, the university promoted to full professor his chief academic persecutor, atheist professor Hector Avalos, who believes that the Bible is worse than Hitler's Mein Kampf. 3. The world's preeminent science journal, Nature, featured the Gonzalez case in an article in its news section. In the article, Gonzalez's former post-doctoral advisor at the University of Texas, Austin, is quoted as saying: "He is one of the best postdocs I have hadÃ¢â‚¬Â and "I would have said he was a serious tenure candidate." 4. U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Sam Brownback issued a statement defending Gonzalez's right to academic freedom, while Darwinist academics vociferously advocated blacklisting pro-intelligent design scientists from academia. 5. ISU spokesman John McCarroll continued to invent facts in his effort to defend the tenure denial, this week claiming that a professor's publications prior to being hired by ISU aren't considered during the tenure process. Asked to provide documentation for this latest claim, McCarroll declined to respond. If you have just heard about this story, you should check out the key developments from last week, which included the admission by two members of Gonzalez's department that intelligent design played a role in his tenure denial, and the release of tenure statistics showing that ISU approved 91% of its tenure applications this year. In addition, tenure standards for ISU's Department of Physics and Astronomy revealed that outside research funding was not a stated criterion for tenure decisions in the department. Posted by John West at 12:15 AM [I have added italics]
The links are of course at the original site, and are well worth following up. Food for further thought, methinks GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 26, 2007
May
05
May
26
26
2007
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

This reminds me of what people do when a black person claims to have been discriminated against, often with very telling evidence: "Oh, but it wasn't really discrimination, let me try to find some minor points that undermine the very obvious evidence that it was..." People just don't see the discrimination unless they are affected by it. Take note. From an article I once read:
So[...]in 1963--at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation--nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities--almost the same number as say this now, some forty-plus years later[...] [...]in mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16). In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.
(Taken from "The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial", Tim Wise, www.counterpunch.org, April 24, 2006) I see the same pattern with denial of discrimination against IDers and sympathizers.Atom_{May 25, 2007
May
05
May
25
25
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

AARDPIG: Interesting survey. Only problem; you are not accounting for: 1] We are looking at a system that looks at the career to date productivity 2] the number of papers overall is 68, since 1993 or so one infers 3] The record on 2002 to date accepted by the Chronicle etc is 22 peer reviewed papers not 13 [including non peer reviewed ones], so something is wrong with the data sets being cited here. 4] ISU keeps coming up with criteria for rejection that repeatedly do not line up with its declared policy, and 5] several of the key judges in the case -- starting with this department -- show themselves to be biased, in a context where ISU to date has not shown that serious steps were taken to assure that bias did not decide the issue. I am of course not in a position to come up with the overall definitive answer, but the record looks a lot like a man with a very good record and introduction of novel concepts [Galactic Habitable Zones] is being hit because he is not conforming to orthodoxy, esp when we compare the way ISU has treated the man who led the charge against him. [Cf the other thread on this, and elsewhere.] So, let us wait for the playout, but call for justice to be done and be seen to be done; meanwhile the case does not look so good for ISU and Chronicle etc. (Notice, I have pointed out that there is evidence that makes the behaviour of the institution look questionable, and there will have to be a very good explanation of why the decision is a just one, given its context. Cf ongoing discussion at Evo News and Views for more.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 25, 2007
May
05
May
25
25
2007
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

In response to 14 (kairosfocus): I think his publication record, at least since 2002, is not quite as rosy as you make out. I've just spent a little time at NA SA's ADS (Astrophysics Data System), hunting down all the papers done by Gonzalez since he arrived at Iowa in 2002. I weeded out those papers that weren't by this particular Gonzalez (there's someone of the same last name doing work on gravit y waves, and also a couple of folks in South America). I then weeded out those papers that were not refereed, or weren't publi shed in the first- and second-tier journals (these being MNRAS, ApJ, AJ, A&A and PASP). This left a total of 13 papers. Of these, *) Only 4 had Gonzales as the first author *) Of these four, one was published in PASP, which is a second-tier journal. *) Of the remaining 3, which were published in MNRAS (a first-tier journal), *all* of them were short, 4-page letters, rather than substantial pieces of research. While letters do contain significant results, they are not comparable to longer, more in-depth papers. Given that the three le tters were published in 2006, one suspects that Gonzalez was attempting to make up for the fact that prior to last year, he ha d not published a *single* first-author paper since arriving at Iowa. Moreover, if one counts his total paper output over the past 5 years (whether first author or not), it comes in at 2.6 papers a year, which is pretty poor for someone trying to get tenure. Finally, might I ask whether Gonzalez managed to secure any significant research grants during his 5 years as an Assistant Pro fessor? If not, this would weigh heavily against him; Universities invariably want to save tenure posts for those with a prove n track record of bringing in funds. At my own institution, the benchmark for tenure is c. $200,000 per year. Based on this analysis (which I'm happy to have challenged), I think that Iowa was perfectly reasonable in their decision to r eject Gonzalez's application for tenure.aardpig_{May 24, 2007
May
05
May
24
24
2007
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
Jehu - things must be very different in Astronomy. I have 28 since 2002 (not including the Nature correspondence), and I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t consider myself to be stellar.
Astornomey is different which is why Gonzales has the second highest publishing record in his department. Also, you are a research fellow so all you do is research. Nonetheless, for the five years before 2002 you only managed to publish 9 times. From 1997 until 2002 you only managed 1 or 2 papers a year. You have never published a text book or a popular book. You have never published in a journal of general interest such as Science or Nature or been featured on the cover of Scientific American.Jehu_{May 23, 2007
May
05
May
23
23
2007
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

H'mm: Let's do a bit more Math on GG's productivity. He has 68 papers and it seems they date form in effect this post Doc years on. Okay, that is 1993 on. Take out the 21 since 2002, giving us 47 papers in about the span 1993 - 2001, or in ~ 9 years. That's ~5.2 papers per year. From 2002 on, he has done 21 papers in 5 years, or ~ 4.2 papers per year. Meanwhile he has produced one technical book, a semipopular but seriously scientific book [cf. here the sort of audience of Darwin's Origin, or a lot of classic scientific works] and a film. In short, now that he has taken up the usual round of full responsibilities of a junior prof, and has taken up writing, his research productivity measured by peer-reviewed papers -- and remember his citation rate is the best in his department so quality of the papers on average is not the issue [despite the "he had a rejected paper" complaint Chronicle duly reports on . . .] -- has dropped off by one paper per year. (BTW, how does his productivity compare with the other applicants who were accepted? Career to date and in the previous several years prior to applicaiton for tenure while at ISU as junior staff? Why is the evidence on this not being highlighted, if the ISU is concerned and has the facts to show that he has become utterly unproductive relative to his peers in his cohort as well as established faculty?) Now, too, 4.2 papers per year projected across the 9 years from 2002 on would mean GG is in trend expected to produce about 38 peer reviewed papers. The "falloff in productivity of research" claim simply does not wash! BTW also, if the textbook he has co-authored is being used in his dept and by some other significant schools, that suggests strongly that the claim that he is a good teacher is supported by objective evidence. This smells worse and worse and worse . . . of the classic "blame the victim" game. Time to wake up, wise up, rise up folks! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 23, 2007
May
05
May
23
23
2007
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Nobody has really explained to me what ISU found objectionable to giving Gonzalez tenure. Without going into conspiracy theories, can someone tell me Exactly what ISU said they found about Gonzalez's background, work or others that made them deny him tenure ? I'm sure they are not going to say because he is a Christian or an ID proponent. If not, then what is it ? Thanks in advance.SeekAndFind_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Russ, I think the point that eduran was making (and the point I was going to make if no one else did) is that the article does not say what DaveScot's title leads one to believe it says. Dave's title suggests that the Chronicle is decrying Gonzalez's tenure denial as a clear cut case of discrimination when it is doing nothing of the sort. The merits of ISU's denial are beside this point, as enduran's comment deals with what the Chronicle article actually says vs. what DaveScot appears to be saying. The ScubaredneckThe Scubaredneck_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

russ - what? Academic freedom isn't enforced by the tenure system. There's nothing in my contract stipulating what I can or cannot say. BobBob O'H_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

eduran: No offense intended, but you don't seem to have been following the situation at ISU, if you think there are "possible real reasons". There has been an organized campaign among the faculty to oust GG. The leader of that campaign was granted full professorship at the same time GG was denied tenure. Ask former Harvard president Lawrence Summers who runs the show at American univerities. He was basically hounded out by the faculty. I doubt that ISU president Geoffroy is interested in falling on his sword for GG.russ_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Bob: Does that mean you don't have academic freedom?russ_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

The Chronicle never implies Gonzalez tenure denial is "clear case of descrimination". The actual quote goes like this: "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination... But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise" The article then goes on explaining the possible real reasons tenure was denied.eduran_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

russ - Finland doesn't have a tenure system. BobBob O'H_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: Are you concerned that you will be denied tenure given your modest publication record since 2002, or are you already tenured, having somehow slipped through the cracks? Or is the magic tenure cutoff area somewhere between 21 and 28?russ_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Jehu - things must be very different in Astronomy. I have 28 since 2002 (not including the Nature correspondence), and I don't consider myself to be stellar. OK, I'm a statistician, so I guess I don't consider myself to be an outlier either. BobBob O'H_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

I was being sarcastic. 21 publications since 2002 is stellar. I bet no other person in his department published at that rate in the same time frame.Jehu_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

as for the "tailing off" comment, I'm not familiar with his position, but did he have teaching duties? Does he now advise students? Is he involved in service (or extension)? I'm sure as a post-doc, he did not advise students or teach, or have to attend faculty meetings, be on curriculum committees, faculty senate, etc. So, having 21 peer reviewed papers since 2002 is still quite good. Especially when you consider the other activities he must now be involved in as a faculty member. And, when you consider others in his Department, he seems to be blowing them away.ajl_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Best as I recall, Einstein's key productivity periods were circa 1905 and 1916, the former in that golden period where he was mid-late 20's, and the latter period a decade later built on and generalised his initial work. Similarly, Newton's peak was in his mid 20's -- about the period of age when one does a Post-Doc BTW. Indeed, ther eis a general pattern thast the big breakthroughs in Physics come from men at about that stage, and it is felt that this is because they have completed their technical education, but are not sufficiently locked into the existing scheme of things to be blind to new paradigms. This is so far as I know, now a commonplace of history and phil of science. So, Jehu, you are right that Gonzalez was "on fire" in the post doc years. But his record since then has not exactly been stagnant either: 21 papers since 2002 or so is well above the AVERAGE performance expected of a tenure winning physicist at ISU on their declared policy. Note also he has co-authored a technical textbook on Observational Astronomy published by Oxford, and which is in use in his own department, as well as in several others of some note. Add in the near fifty before that and we get to the 68 published peer reviewed papers that his case rests on. So, the Chronicle's story line does not add up, at least in the way they intend. For, when we look, we can see a vital subtext in the comments:
At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination. As an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez has a better publication record than any other member of the astronomy faculty. He also happens to publicly support the concept of intelligent design. Last month he was denied tenure . . . . But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise . . . . Mr. Gonzalez has a normalized h-index of 13, the highest of the 10 astronomers in his department. The next closest was Lee Anne Willson, a university professor who had a normalized h-index of 9. Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez's publication record would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to Mr. Hirsch. But Mr. Gonzalez completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then. "It looks like it slowed down considerably," said Mr. Hirsch, stressing that he has not studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail and is not an expert on his tenure case. "It's not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State" . . . . That pattern may have hurt his case. "Tenure review only deals with his work since he came to Iowa State," said John McCarroll, a spokesman for the university.
H'mm: he didn't start any new thing in the period under question? Oh, I get it, the inference that the Goldilocks zone effect points to ours as a pretty privileged planet is not "science." The rest if hack puffery: for instance, it would be highly unlikely that institutions strongly committed to an old paradigm would fund a researcher operating in a new one, and in any way -- pace Mr McConnell's ISU admin advocacy claims -- grantmaking is NOT a specification on the declared criteria for tenure. As to the "he has only one Doctoral candidate who has got through," again, where did this come from, and what is the context? In short we see the pattern O'Leary pointed out of trying to find novel means/excuses to discredit what is on the face of it and by the declared standards of assessment a highly qualified candidate who would have been well above the average record of those who WERE awarded tenure in his cohort or in recent cohorts. That resort to hidden, covert criteria is a typical sign of discrimination. Chronicle should be ashamed of itself. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Gonzalez's publication record has trailed off? That is why he has 21 publications since 2002? Before 2002 he must have been a man on fire! Notice how the one astronomer who admitted it was discrimination remained anonymous for fear of backlash. That demonstrates exactly how poison the atmosphere is in that field.Jehu_{May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply