So this is where the 350% comes from. They take his ENTIRE history of academic output, which was at its highest before ISU, and then compare it to the standard required during a candidate's time while AT ISU. Dishonest.
Note they cite 21 publications while at ISU, while I have 20 if I dishonestly include 2007 to his benefit. That's far closer than your claim of 33 for his time there, so you and DI better discuss your numbers. And both of you are giving co-authorship the same weight as first-authorship, which is a big deal for the tenure review. Being a co-author can be as simple as a colleague asked you to look over his work, and for that you get your name on it. That's how you get papers with 700+ co-authors.
It is worth pointing out again that 91% of ISU faculty considered for tenure this year received it.
Yet in his department, the one that matters, they only have a 66% tenure rate over the last ten years. Dishonest. I can't believe you threw this out again after I already caught you on it.
Earlier in 2007, Dr. Gonzalez was awarded a 5-year research grant for his work in observational astronomy from Discovery Institute (worth $50,000).
I'll leave aside the fact that this was the Discovery Institute itself, possbily trying to pump up the numbers, and note that they cite a grant from AFTER his probationary period considered for tenure. Dishonest.
That's the DI for you, always dishonest, always distorting the facts. I have a hard time believing anything from this bunch of proven hucksters.
Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals...
IDers/creationists using "..." always scares me since their primary debate tactic is the misplacement and ommission of key information (see above).
There's no doubt he's a capable scientist. From all I've read I'd love to take one of his classes (aside from the religious card whiner aspect). The problem is that he let his work at ISU slide at a time when he should have been keeping it up. No matter how good you are, if you don't do the work, you don't get the job.
RE: The problem is that he let his work at ISU slide at a time when he should have been keeping it up. No matter how good you are, if you don’t do the work, you don’t get the job.
Again, it isn’t that he has done a poor job. All evidence points to the fact that he supports and believes in Intelligent Design.
And how do you know that the co-authorship was not based on his PRIMARY work ? Why do you assume that he just looked over his colleague’s shoulders.
As for his work while at ISU, I refer you to the ISU’s criteria for tenure itself:
According to the Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedure put out by the ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, (page 4):
‘Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals … . 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.’
Now, let’s see how many papers did refereed papers did Gonzalez author ( and no, I don’t accept your He-was-just-looking-over-the-shouler-of-his-colleague excuse. I will only accept it if you KNOW that he did just that for a fact).
As for entire history of academic output.... why NOT? Where in the tenure criteria did it say that you would only consider output WHILE AT ISU ? ( I read and re-read the page 4 criteria and I missed the ‘WHILE AT ISU’ phrase).
So, Dr Gonzalez’s international reputation is surely established by his post-doctoral and his 68 peer-reviewed journal articles (of which 21 have been while he was at ISU) exceed the 15 required by ISU by 350 per cent! (and YES, it should be his entire body of work because the tenure criteria did not tell us that it has to be while at ISU ). So, to repeat what you said : “So this is where the 350% comes from”. YES. SO ?
According to Chronicle of Higher Education reporter Richard Monastersky:
‘Data from a prestigious Smithsonian/NASA astrophysics database show that Gonzalez has the highest rating for citations to his work of anyone in his department: “Mr. Gonzalez has a normalized h-index of 13, the highest of the 10 astronomers in his department. The next closest was Lee Anne Willson, a university professor who had a normalized h-index of 9.”
The fact that Gonzalez—an Assistant Professor—is ranked higher than any other member of his department, including full professors like Willson, is incredible.
‘Even the originator of the h-index rating (physicist Jorge Hirsch) concedes the point: “Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez’s publication record would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to Mr. Hirsch.”
The Iowa State U. Astronomy department … big star is Lee Anne Willson, University Professor. A University Professor is a rank more prestigious than a full Professor. She is their star. Her top two papers are cited 99 and 86 times. And she has been at this for 33 years !!
Even Dr Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University comments:
‘I went to the Web of Science citation index which is the authority on citations. Only journal papers, not conference papers, are indexed. There are lots of Prof. Gonzalez’s papers listed. My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure. The number of citations varies with discipline and autocitations are included in the tally, but this is a LOT of citations for an Assistant Professor. A lot.’
You can continue belittling Gonzalez’s work or his inability to produce while at ISU, the facts show otherwise and people OUTSIDE the University who are not biased towards his personal beliefs ( like the scientists and scholars mentioned above ) attest tot he fact that he DESERVED tenure.
So why was he NOT granted tenure ?
One clear answer based on the evidence emerges : HIS SYMPATHY TOWARDS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
If ISU were only honest enough to openly admit it ( when they first presented those concerns and then flip-flopped later ), I’d have no problems with it.
Just say this in your tenure policy (or to the same effect ) : “Anyone who is sympathetic to the Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationist point of view as evidenced by his work, papers and publications CANNOT BE GRANTED TENURE.”
Now that would be honest.