tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26325744.post3089352175909136635..comments2023-11-05T03:23:39.028-08:00Comments on Angry Physics: MediaAngryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15464835370517136806noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26325744.post-28666715279138621462007-12-19T19:43:00.000-08:002007-12-19T19:43:00.000-08:00Interesting point. Certainly he wouldn't get tenur...Interesting point. Certainly he wouldn't get tenure just doing excellent lectures. But, in a world without tenure, would MIT feel any compulsion to get rid of him? I have my doubts.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that in a world without tenure, departments would in fact be a bit more appreciative of a wider range of activities. I could be wrong of course, and perhaps one shouldn't discount agism. But certainly the prospect of giving tenure would give pause to any department because it's such a commitment. Without tenure, a department could much more easily see the benefits of any given faculty member without the tremendous pressure of having to extrapolate literally a half-century out in some cases.Angryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464835370517136806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26325744.post-38316510112991212172007-12-19T15:15:00.000-08:002007-12-19T15:15:00.000-08:00My first thought on reading the Lewin article was ...My first thought on reading the Lewin article was that such excellent teaching at an elite institution like MIT is only made possible by the existence of the tenure system. Lewin spends so much time preparing his lectures and demonstrations that he must not be doing any research let alone bringing in outside funding. It's hard to believe that MIT would tolerate someone like Lewin in the absence of the tenure system, let look at all the great publicity he's bringing the Institute. The related question in physics departments is whether physics education research is "real research" or no. As an industrial researcher, I don't have strong views on these topics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com