Letters

Diversity of skills important to tenure
process

When considering the tenure decision, there are certain criteria
used (“Students rally behind
popular professor,” Daily Bruin, News, Feb. 21).
Evaluation of superior intellectual attainment in both teaching and
research is required. Evaluation of teaching skills can be helped
considerably through a careful review of student evaluations.
Research skills are generally evaluated by a review of the
publication record of the professor. Problems arise for the Review
Committee when the professor under review is well above average in
one area and below average in the other. Many faculty members do
not have superior ratings in both areas because there is the factor
of time limitations. Developing and improving the quality of
teaching materials can be very time-consuming. The same is true of
spending time in office meetings with students. Research and
publications also require an unlimited amount of time. These
conflicting time demands are often resolved by which activity the
professor enjoys the most. Some get more satisfaction from their
teaching efforts, others from research. Of course, research can be,
but is not always, helpful to teaching. And teaching can stimulate
intellectual activity that contributes to research. The review
process outlined in the Daily Bruin sets forth the seven stages of
faculty review. At each stage there will be some reviewers who
value research more highly and others who value teaching skills and
performance more highly. In the eyes of the academic world,
research is generally valued more highly. In the eyes of the
students, teaching is assigned greater value. For example, if a
faculty member were to be awarded the Nobel Prize, the University
would receive considerable, favorable publicity. Outstanding
teaching, however, would not receive such attention. This of course
gives the university special incentive to value research more
highly than teaching. On the other hand, the presence of the
students on the campus can develop some incentive for the Review
Committee to assign high value to teaching performance. A case can
be made for encouraging diversity of skills within a given
department. Some professors could rate very high on research and
low on teaching and still be valuable members of the faculty. For
others, they may rank very high in teaching and low on research.
They, too, could qualify as valuable members of the department.
Overall, the department would not consist solely of just one type.
Acceptance of the principle of diversity would require the various
Review Committees to consider the composite skills of a given
department. It would allow for varying strengths among the
individual faculty members who compose the department. This of
course would place an additional burden on the Review Committees.
In my opinion, however, it would improve the tenure process and
make for an improved campus-wide faculty.

Theodore Andersen Professor of finance
(emeritus)

Muldavin deserves tenure This is in response to
the recent article about the decision to not grant tenure to Joshua
Muldavin (“Students rally
behind popular professor,” Daily Bruin, News, Feb. 21).
UCLA has a need for excellence in teaching both inside and outside
the classroom; there are great professors here who teach well and
complete important research. When the opportunity arises to keep
such a resource as Joshua Muldavin, and the university passes it
by, it is easy to question the university’s priorities. The
university is in the business of providing a quality education to
students, but it seems obvious that the decision not to grant
tenure to Joshua Muldavin was made with other priorities in mind.
Muldavin is an incredible resource for the entire university; he is
an incredible professor, always available for students. It is in
the interest of the university ““ its students especially
““ for Muldavin to be granted tenure. Tenure should be granted
because of what Muldavin inspires in his students: the ability to
think critically about important global issues and maybe to make a
difference. We should also not ignore his commitment to education,
his qualifications and what he has done for the university,
international development studies, and all students with whom he
has come into contact.

Heather R. Putnam Third-year International
development studies