3 ms·
Statistically insignificantly better. As tested by the chair of one of the top statistics departments in the country. Yet AC is convinced all these people are o
by ytinifx 11y ago
Statistically insignificantly better. As tested by the chair of one of the top statistics departments in the country. Yet AC is convinced all these people are out to destroy his life. He is hired as a lecturer as part of an experiment to see if lecturers can teach calculus more effectively than permanent faculty. Statistics shows he isn't significantly better. Add to that the fact that he's disliked by the math department for personality issues, and there's really no reason to keep him.
- argonaut 11y agoSure. But you do realize that means he teaches at least as well as anyone else in the department, if not better. And he's beloved by his students (as evidenced by the evaluations). So would you rather have a professor that teaches on par with the department and has strong rapport with his students, or a professor that teaches on par with the department and does not have strong rapport with his students?
- ytinifx 11y agoAgain, the hiring decision isn't based just on teaching prowess. His emails to department members show a sense of entitlement and disrespect toward people who are directly involved with his hiring decision. Why would they want to keep someone like that? Don't forget, he didn't get fired. He simply didn't get his contract extended. He was never guaranteed a permanent position. The math department had no wrongdoing here. They didn't want to keep someone that was widely disliked by the department. And does it matter that a lot of students like him? The most important thing is that the students learn, not that they make a friend. It's certainly not a negative to be a friendly instructor, but it really isn't a key factor here.