送交者: tool2004 于 2006-5-01, 10:17:34:
First of all, I support 方舟子 and others to fight corruption in chinese
academic field. That being said, I have the following comments.
I believe that statements by 方舟子and JJJ are also not accurate and sometimes
too demanding on other's words/behavior. Specificly, I have trouble with
the following paragraphs (attached below).
First of All, there are many non-tenure track assistant professors, even
in schools like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. I believe Befan is more accurate
on his description on the difference.
Indeed, "tenure track" is an importnat word in academic field. You will
be asked, in one time or another, whether your position is tenure track
or not, by other professors or colleagues. It should not be taken so lightly.
It is not an automatic position, but a hard thought one. typically, Less
than 5% to 10% of graduates with Ph.D. from B, T, U and others to have the
honour to get one. Check how your classmates are doing before throwning
bricks.
Tenure track does mean significant things and it is quite an honor to those
who are one. And It is not so hard to get tenure in public school systems,
or non-first tier or second-tier private schools. For public school, tenure
rate is above 70-80% usually. For chinese professor, it is even higher.
This means that the probability to get tenure is quite high, not as others
suggested, who have no first hand experience at all. It is much HARD to
get a "tenure track" assistant professor position than getting tenure, as
opposed to 方舟子 or other people who never hold such a position, but make
a big implication out of it. For first tier private school, it is a different
story. For example, Harvard rarely promote its assistant professor/associate
professor (both are tenure track, only professor rank is tenured, in Harvard
and other first tier school). There is a joke told by faculty interviewees
who were interviewed by Yale president. The president reportedly told the
faculty candidates the following :
"Welcome to Yale, the only downside is that 90% of the time you will not
stay here for tenure, but look at the bright side, it is a long way to slide
down".
So there is nothing wrong with Yang Jie insisting that he is "tenure track"
assistant professor. Considering so many assistant professors going back
to China to "get stuff". Most of them are not tenure track at all. Even
those from Harvard/Stanford. For them, it is just a title for convience,
i.e. for applying for grants, or recoginizing certain achievements", but
they are much cheaper than a "tenure track" assisant professor at a public
school.
方舟子 and many people at XYS have the tendency to look down upon others
while thinking highly of themselves. For example, 方舟子 said that he left
academia because he does not feel like to continue. And if he stay, it should
not be a problem for him to become one. That is an over statemet to say
the least. That is highly doubtable "double standards". From his publication
records, he has about 1% chance to get a "tenure track" position. It may
be problematic for him to find a good inductry position, to be frank. So
we should be more tolerant to others, as long as they are not cheating.
Self exaggerating is not a problem, it is a problem to apply for a job, grant,
etc. I do not have problem with Yang jie using "tenure track" assisant
professor to apply for a job. It is not to mislead, but to differentiate.
How do you stand out from so many not tenure track (adjunct, consulting,
research assisant, clinical, etc professors?). "TENURE TRACK" stands out
dramatically.
Again, I am not anti 方舟子, but to let him know that he should be more
careful on his words or his comments on others and himself. Postdos is
打工 to him and he looks down on this title and experience. To us, it is
a way to get better and a well appreciated position, title and experience,
not to be look down upon.
Thanks.
“
方舟子认为，美国高校中3个名词需要理解透彻： assistant
professor,associate professor和professor，前两个分别相当于我们的讲师
(助理教授)和副教授。另一个关键名词是Tenure,意为终身职位，associate
professor和professor都是tenure。但美国的Tenure非常难拿。用
“Tenure-Track”一词，杨教授有有意误导之嫌。【方舟子按：这段是在电子邮
件采访完之后，用电话做的补充采访，所以记载得不太准确。下面是我就这个问
题回答另一家报纸的采访，供参考：杨杰称，“将"Tenure-track"误译成"终身
教授"，但其实应该是"终身制助理教授"，这是记者搞错所致，于是被方舟子抓
住了把柄。我在应聘材料上已注明自己"Tenure－track助理教授"的职务。"终身
制"比"终身"低一些，但可以转成"终身"。”这是非常可笑的一种解释。Tenure
track的意思是“固定编制”，并非什么“终身制”，国内所说的职务“终身制”
是指一辈子都担任该职务，但是tenure track的助理教授绝非如此，如果干得好，
固定编制的助理教授五年左右以后可以升为副教授（一般也就是所谓终身教授），
但是干不好升不了，而不得不离职的也非常多。杨杰就是属于这种情况，在担任
助理教授期间，杨杰的论文发表情况极差，在去同济大学之前，他已不是什么助
理教授，而是在科罗拉多大学医学中心的一家实验室打工做博士后研究。】
”
“
但是，这里的关键问题是，在美国大学里，属于non-tenure-track
professor身份的“全职代课教师”（本人认为这个称呼比教授更为恰当）凤毛
麟角，比例极低，且属非主流，根本不能和正规的tenure和tenure-track的人数
相提并论。他们没有各种教授理事会(committee)的选举权和被选举权。所以，
一个正规大学的Assistant Professor,只要光明正大的申明自己是“助理教授”
就得了，根本没有必要想象杨杰那样“画蛇添足”，中英文并用，混淆视听，欺
负国内不熟悉美国学术体制的人。这就好比，一个中国大学的教授非得在自己的
名片上著明“教授（专职），”内行人不需要，外行人看不懂。堂堂正正一个助
理教授，你非要显示自己跟那些只占10%不到的non-tenure-track非比同类，有
劲吗？不信，各位可以看一下你们手头能找到的美国大学Assistant Professor
的名片和CV，有多少非得注明自己是tenure-track的？！不叫人笑话才怪。