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?