One poster has acknowledged that the termination was probably "not the basis for the major legal claim. ”
That same poster has also suggested he should file a defamation claim because NYU sent Jones a letter explaining why his contract wasn’t renewed, and Jones later chose to make that letter public. (The same poster has made other unfounded defamation accusations in this thread.)
I’ll give the poster the benefit of the doubt and assume their knowledge of employment law is much more sound than their knowledge of defamation law. But there is no sound basis for a defamation claim based on Jones having received the letter from NYU. If Jones sues for defamation because he received a letter from NYU, he would not only lose, his attorney would have been negligent for filing such a spurious claim on his behalf.
I don’t share your characterization of the general sentiment of the article at all.
The article concludes with these statements:
Fixing these kinds of inequities would take a huge shift in the way the country supports families and funds both public K-12 schools and higher education.
Even in the absence of that kind of shift, though, universities can do more to help students succeed in their classes, regardless of the level of privilege they bring with them or the types of majors they pursue. That means investing more in faculty hiring, to allow for smaller class sizes, and in academic advisers and other student support staff members, who are often deeply underpaid.
(Italics mine)
Funding public schools and higher education differently
Investing in more faculty hiring, allowing for smaller class sizes
investing in academic advisors and other student support staff
Literally none of these points have anything to do with making the material in challenging classes easier. They have everything to do with making it easier for students of diverse backgrounds to master that material. I can’t see why that shouldn’t be an important objective.
Dear @mtmind, I have repeatedly stated that the PR statements are the strongest basis for the defamation claim. Perhaps you should re-read my posts? In any event, our legal squabble is not of interest to many here.
Another student oped on the subject is interesting:
Another great article- really appreciate this perspective.
When professors insist on an arcane teaching system, it’s usually in pursuit of what they say is academic rigor. Professors may think that students will have to try harder when grading is harsher, when resources are more spare or when the pace of the course isn’t burdened by the need to review thoroughly in precept or subject to the constraints of a predictable exam. But as we’ve seen, academic rigor is best-served when students have the resources they need to succeed. Schools are supposed to teach students-- and classes should fit that goal.
Can you imagine the outrage? Quantum mechanics as a prerequisite for Organic Chemistry? If there was a weed out class in my engineering undergrad degree, this was it! Interestingly enough, the prof that taught this course for us knew that it was a tough one to pass. He did some investigative work I guess, and chalked it down to the students not having a solid enough math background even though by the time we took it we had differential and partial differential equations under our belt. So he spend the first two or three weeks in a semester course going over the math that we would need, even though theoretically we had seen it before. This was a long time ago and it certainly helped me. There were plenty of students that had to retake the course, however. Most profs that teach a course for a long time do this type of diagnostic work frequently.
And people wonder why tuition keeps increasing and we are on the verge of a massive student loan forgiveness program.
These students chose NYU. It is a large university with many large classes. If they require smaller classes there are numerous schools that provide that type of educational model. Or perhaps they should have used some of the resources that were already being provided and paid for instead of thinking they deserved an A for effort alone.
I don’t wonder about it, I look into it. I see, contrary to what you might, a complex and interrelated series of drivers, not least of which is an increasingly bloated university administration class.
If you are worried that your tuition dollars contribute to the ability of all students to succeed, not just your own, I think we have little common ground on which to discuss.
That’s why I think such a chemistry course, especially one designed for premeds, necessarily has to involve large amounts of memorization, because we can’t expect students to have learned all the underlying principles/foundations. It’s always tricky to design a curriculum when faced with such limitations.
Agree that the mission of every university is to provide the opportunity and resources to allow every student to succeed in the mastery of subjects they choose to pursue. I also whole heartily agree that schools need to recognize that all students start out at different levels of preparedness through social economic and even racial factors over which they have no control. Accommodations should be made for that, whether it is more advising, broader selection of more introductory classes, or perhaps “free” supplemental summer courses, including pre-freshmen year.
However, at some point students need to take responsibility for their academic outcomes. Students do not achieve equal level of mastery. Could be lack of effort, lack of aptitude for that subject, or the teaching methods of a particular professor do not synch with how that student’s mind works (while it synchs with others) or a combination of the above with other factors. There will always be a top, middle and bottom of each class. What concerns me is when schools try to engineer outcomes by lowering standards or making standards more subjective and opaque.
I very much agree with all you say throughout. It’s not clear to me that we’re seeing simple lowering of academic standards in this particular case, but if that ultimately proves to be the case, then shame, shame, shame.
I agree with this as well. Yet whenever colleges do to anything to attain these goals, the inevitable outcry is well summarized in the second half of your post:
You’ve mentioned this a number of times. Perhaps you could provide a reference or a link.
I am unaware that the faculty conducted any sort of formal evaluation or that the faculty “approved reappointment.” I recall that some members of the faculty expressed annoyance that they weren’t consulted, but that is not the same thing at all.
The link I provided previously, the article in Chemical and Engineering news weekly, or something along those lines. The quote is from the Chemistry dept chair at NYU.
It is one thing to attain these goals by providing additional resources to students who came in with a disadvantage, it is another to change the method/standard by which results are measured to fit a predetermined goal.
Agree that it is unclear what the situation is here. When one of NYU’s solutions for the students was a grade adjustment vs offering perhaps a supplemental course with a retest, they were saying that they were willing to apply different standards to students who complained vs students who had accepted their grades.
In what way do you think the change is made to effect a predetermined goal?
My daughter has a perfect SAT score, which is a bit exciting. When I went to college, such a score was a huge deal! But now we recognize it as a measure correlated with privilege. This recognition doesn’t detract from her abilities as much as it suggests such abilities aren’t as accurately measured by the SAT as we used to think. We don’t view the downgrading of SAT importance to be a result of fitting any goal other than fairness.
(She’s not going TO, though. We’re not crazy!)
ETA: No need to comment, as below, with congrats or discussion of the relative frequency of a 1600. My post was meant to comment on my personal experience with the evolving psychometric understanding of such an assessment, and how it might be applied to this thread in involving other such assessments that may have their own long history.
Congrats on your daughter. Her perfect score is far from being just a product of privilege. I am sure talent and hard work were also involved, but sure she had an edge in how she was brought up and the resources available to her. Don’t have any issues with holistic admissions and taking into account family circumstances.
I noted how NYU was willing to change standards as a resolution for complaining students in this case. The discussion on changing standards is itself a huge topic that is probably best left to other posts where allowed.
Mark Tuckerman, the head of NYU’s Chemistry Department, confirms that the decision not to renew Jones’s contract was made against the department’s recommendation. “My specific recommendation to the deans was that Mait should be reappointed,” he says. “Our plan was to assign him to teach only the chemistry major sections of organic chemistry, which is where he shines. He has high standards, and that is something the majors specifically respond very well to.”
Looks like the Dept. recommended that he only be allowed to teach majors. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his ability to teach the pre-meds.
More importantly, according to the Washington Square article, it wasn’t the deans who rejected the proposal, it was Jones. From that article:
[Tuckerman] also said that he advocated for Jones to return for one more year in a reduced role because he felt it would be difficult to hire a new professor on short notice. The deans were open to the idea.
Jones, however, was not satisfied with the way that the administration had handled the situation, and did not wish to continue the conversation. The deans, having heard that Jones did not want to speak, decided to stop considering the alternate teaching position, and instead made a final decision to terminate his contract.
If this is correct, it was Jones who nixed the recommendation, not the deans.
______________________-
@BKSquared what’s wrong with "changing standards when those standards don’t accomplish the educational goals you claim to support?
)