A bunch of idiots who don't know how a university department works... Gonzalez was denied tenure due to a very simple fact, that he failed to secure grants that can support his work in the department. With the tight budget universities get these days, no department can afford a faculty that doesn't bring in his own grants. He has only himself to blame. See the article below. http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm The article observed that he "had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation." The ID'ers think too much of themselves.
I have read several of Gonzalez papers and am very surprised he didn't already have tenure. He is a noted astronomer, and regularly cited by other researchers. It is either amazingly tough to get tenure these days, or something is very wrong.
James Bond 3rd wrote: Your're the idiot. Grants are not even listed as a criterion in the tenure standards for ISU's Department of Physics and Astronomy. See article in next post.
ISU Department: âEvaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journalsâ by John West There has been much unfounded speculation this week about the specific standards governing astronomer Guillermo Gonzalezâs application for tenure at Iowa State University. Some have claimed, for example, that outside research grants must be a primary criterion for tenure at ISU. Unfortunately, the specific tenure and promotion standards adopted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy at ISU have not been available online. So we have decided to make them available for download here so that people can read the standards for themselves. Go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/isudeptphysastron.pdf These standards make clear that the key criterion for research excellence in Dr. Gonzalezâs department is the number of refereed papers, not the level of outside funding: Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals.... (p. 4) As for how many published papers are required to demonstrate the âexcellenceâ in research needed for promotion to associate professor with tenure, the standards are clear about the âtypicalâ case: For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals. Dr. Gonzalez, of course, has published 68 refereed articles in peer-reviewed journals, exceeding the normal standard of his department by 350%! Significantly, nowhere do his departmental standards even mention outside research grants as a criterion for promotion or tenure. This would seem to suggest that research funding could not have been a determinative factor in Dr. Gonzalezâs tenure application. If it was, then his department would have been guilty of ignoring its own published standards and substituting a new ad hoc standard in order to deny his application. If Dr. Gonzalezâs department based its decision on a standard not mentioned in its published criteria, then the decision to deny him tenure would raise important due process and fairness questions. It also would raise the question of why: Why would his department go outside of its official standards? Coming up with ad hoc standards to penalize someone when that person has met the regular standards is a classic technique employed to cover up discrimination. I should emphasize that since the details of Dr. Gonzalezâs tenure appeal are currently confidential, I am discussing hypothetical scenarios here. Those who have speculated that research funding may have played a role in the Gonzalez decision do not actually know whether this was the case. What is known is that Dr. Gonzalez clearly exceeded his departmentâs stated criterion for research excellence: He has published far more than his departmentâs usual benchmark for refereed articles, his work has been featured in top-line science journals such as Science and Nature, his articles have been widely cited by other scholars, and he even has co-authored a college astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press. This new revelation that his department had no stated requirement for outside research funding adds to the likelihood that his denial was made on improper grounds--either through the direct violation of his academic freedom and free speech rights, or through the application of ad hoc standards outside the stated criteria in order to find a pretext for removing him.
The King of the relapse speaks. You shouldn't miss so many AA meetings - you seem to get slightly confused when you do.
thats because his record sucks... as duly noted above... besides even if u were a noted astronomer but started making a case and publishing a pseudo-scientific book as to why the earth is so remarkably flat and has stars revolving around it instead of seriously researching all alternatives, i sure wldn't want u anywhere near kids... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1485325#post1485325 vs the pinocchio institute... not a hard decision imo...
i have a suggestion: contact Iowa State University President Gregory L. Geoffroy or president@iastate.edu Subject: Statement of Support Sir, This is simply a line of support in a moment where your office may find itself under attack by ID/Creationist activists. I trust no other words are required here to let you know that you are not alone in the challenging task of providing proper scientific education, free of religiously and politically* motivated interferences. Regards, Name: ................ (Academic quals: .................. ) Location: ........... *: the Wedge document & related âstrategyâ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Have you ever sａt on a committee and voted on someone's tenure? I　ｔｈｏｕｇｈｔ　ｓｏ． Ｉｄｉｏｔ．
Below is Gonzalez's publication record from ISI Web of Knowledge. It's obvious that his level of productivity between 2004 and 2007 is similar to that of a graduate student (see the period between 1992 and 1996). No department wants a faculty with such a poor productivity level. The high citation rates during recent years came entirely on papers he published as a postdoc.