<p>Normally, Kelly would have helped a grad student find a good post-doc or faculty position. He's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and certainly has relationships with researchers all over the world. He would have made some phone calls for a talented student. If one of his students landed in a position created for an URM, without the usual facilities, I can only assume that Sherley was not good enough, and Kelly could not recommend him.</p>
<p>So the mystery is why MIT appointed him in the first place?</p>
<p>My information is merely anecdotal, but this case (added to some others I know about) make me wonder if higher ed shouldn't look harder at the efficacy of using special money set aside from the central administration for targeted hires. </p>
<p>I understand the intent, which is to back up insitutional priorities with hard dollars, and to enable departments to pursue institutional goals without pulling resources away from other important department priorities. But I wonder if there aren't some unintended consequences. I wonder if getting to use provost money ( instead of your own money) in certain salary offers, doesn't alter the process in problematic ways. Does it reduce the departments' "ownership" in the position and in careful hiring? Does it prevent departments from making changes that would (hopefully, eventually) reduce the need for such set-asides? I dunno. This isn't the first such kind of provost-funded hiring or salary effort I've seen go awry, so it makes me wonder.</p>
<p>I would point out that, in all these discussions and articles about a tenure decision, "undergrad teaching" never appears.</p>
<p>idad, do you have information about the assessment of professor's undergraduate teaching?</p>
<p>No. But, it's never mentioned in any of these articles. Not once. Must not be very important in the tenure decision.</p>
<p>One answer: there are a significant number of other meaty issues that make his pedagogy very much a secondary issue for MIT, for Sherley, and for the news media in sorting out his tenure decision. Great teacher or poor teacher, I think the issues would remain.</p>
<p>It's true that undergraduate teaching may be undervalued in the tenure process at research universities. It may account for why it isn't being discussed. But from what I've seen, the heart of the debate is not whether Sherley's teaching played a role--or should have played a bigger role--in his evaluation. Bringing up a wide-eyed incredulity that no one has mentioned it seems disingenuous. Should teaching matter? Sure. Sounds like that could be a lively thread. However, I am not sure it will get the attention it deserves in a thread where people are trying to hammer out the role of AA, alleged racism, and a scholar's support of controversial scientific views.</p>
<p>My spidey senses are tingling--could it be that you want to use James Sherley's tenure process as an opportunity to champion Swarthmore?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My spidey senses are tingling--could it be that you want to use James Sherley's tenure process as an opportunity to champion Swarthmore?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not particularly. This is, however, a forum largely dedicated to undergraduate education. So, it seems "on point" to ask what role Sherley's undergraduate teaching (if he ever did any) may or may not have played in his tenure consideration. Frankly, it seems more relevant to this forum than Sherley's hunger strike.</p>
<p>Well, Sherley is in the Biological Engineering department, which didn't have an undergraduate major until last year. I believe there are currently about as many or more professors in the BE department than undergraduate majors.</p>
<p>At any rate, the course catalogue shows Sherley teaching one seminar, "Adult Stem Cell Biological Engineering". It's a graduate-level course, but of course undergraduates at MIT are welcome to take any graduate-level course which piques their interest. And as I mentioned on the first page of this thread, I heard him speak as an undergraduate when he came to guest-lecture for an anthropology course I was taking.</p>
<p>Teaching definitely figures in tenure decisions, but not specifically undergrad teaching. The thing is, in graduate degree-granting departments faculty usually teach both undergrad and grad courses. For math it may be calculus this semester, graduate level seminar next semester.</p>
<p>Gotta love how Chomsky leaped into the middle of this. He's the white Jesse Jackson...always manages to surface wherever there's a TV camera. Also fascinating that this is taking place in Cambridge, MA rather than, say, Oxford, Mississippi.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also fascinating that this is taking place in Cambridge, MA rather than, say, Oxford, Mississippi.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? I would say cries of racism are more likely to be heard around Cambridge, MA than Oxford, Mississipi, considering that Chomsky lives in the former and not the latter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They were both at Hopkins, and I assume that Kelly, who has many, many publications, all with many citations, was his professor. It looks like Sherley was not able to make the transition to independent research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt it. Sherley’s two papers in J. Biol. Chem with Kelly are in 1988. Since 1998 after he joint MIT, he has sole-authored at least one paper in Science and two in Nature. Click the link at Pubmed one could find them.</p>
<p>“2006 NIH Director's Pioneer Award , Pew Scholar , Ellison Scholar, MIT's Trailblazer and MLK Leadership Awards, NIH Center for Excellence in Genome Science co-Principal Investigator, 62 publications (28 pubmed), 119 invited seminars, 18 patents pending (1 licensed). See also Laboratory page, Stem cell research accomplishments example. “</p>
<p>Also the link to Stem cell research accomplishments states “This work is supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the MIT Charles E. Reed Faculty Support Fund, the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center and the MIT-duPont Alliance.”</p>
<p>Perhaps I have a low standard, but I believe that Professor Sherley has made a successful transition to independent research.</p>
<p>I first heard of him a few years back through a student who after attending BE retreat was inspired by his talk. He gave a good lecture with funny cartoons representing stem cells.I was also told that BE student there like him. I am quite puzzled by all the negativity about him.</p>
<p><a href="http://pgen.us/Sherley.html%5B/url%5D">http://pgen.us/Sherley.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Since 1998 after he joint MIT, he has sole-authored at least one paper in Science and two in Nature.
[/quote]
Those are Letters to the Editor, not research articles.</p>
<p>By my count, since 2000 Dr. Sherley has 5 senior-author research papers, all in mid-tier journals. This a pretty modest record of productivity, funny cartoons notwithstanding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am quite puzzled by all the negativity about him.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He claimed racism as a reason for not being granted tenure and chose to ignore his lack of productivity (*).</p>
<p>(*)</p>
<p>In context. Dr. Sherley is in the BME department at MIT. Five senior-author research papers in seven years? Come now. That wouldn't cut it at any top level university, much less MIT!</p>
<p>This victim mentality must end.</p>