I read the recent slate of articles ‘NTU’s ranking worries students’, ‘There is no cause for alarm,’ Dr Su assures NTU’ and ‘Unfogging the ranking debate’ with great interest.
However, my interest stems from the conspicuous absence of valid replies addressing the allegations originally raised by Dr Michael Heng more than a year ago and recently again regarding the tenure-awarding practices of NTU.
Simply put, all three articles published on The Enquirer have so far been talking past each other.
The real journalism story lies in what the group of 10 whistle-blowing professors felt was wrong with NTU’s policy in the first place.
And did their allegations of bias in the way NTU awards tenures ultimately have an effect on NTU’s dramatic drop in rankings as measured by the new and supposedly more rigorous measure introduced by Times Higher Education this year?
Or was the fall in rankings a true reflection of the lack of integrity in the tenure-awarding process?
If so, Dr Heng’s vindication could be a story.
If not, then the matter can be put to rest once and for all, yes?
PY
says:October 11th, 2010 at 12.18pm
There is no case. Michael Heng is simply just sore that he was not awarded the tenure, and is still sore up till now.
Those EEE students who had taken HRM by him before he “retired” from NTU will definitely know exactly why he didn’t get tenured: his teaching methods are draconian, unrealistic, akin to getting students to forsake their FYPs just to do his 3 AU course.
exEEEDude
says:January 12th, 2011 at 9.44am
Some people appreciate Michael’s style of teaching, but most would agree that the unrealistic project requirements of the HRM module was way way heavier than the suggested “3 Academic Units” for the module. Learning a non-engineering, cross-faculty module was supposed to be a fun learning experience, but the unrealistic workload of the COMPULSORY module made it one of the greatest nightmares of a EEE student during my time.
exstudent
says:May 2nd, 2011 at 12.14am
PY’s view is so typical of some ntu professors: never interested in what students can really learn from them. All they care is to get the tenure and continue to stay on campus. PLEASE, do not use your own narrow and selfish mind to defame people who really care about the professors’ quality in the university. For the choice of “forsake” their FYP for the hrm project, university students are supposed to be old enough to make their own decision?
exstudent
says:May 2nd, 2011 at 12.20am
I wrote not to support any unrealistic workload or homework. Just that after graduation and started to work, you would realised how LITTLE you actually learnt from university professors, even thou your family had paid so much money and you spent 4 best of your youth time there!