On 2/19/2013 11:35 AM, Nancy Gish wrote:
> I also have no idea where "lower standards" comes from. At least in my 
> university--and others where I have taught--there is a pretty 
> consistent correlation between publication and good teaching. 
> Obviously that is not always true, but nothing is. This is not some 
> absolute standard either way. And if getting past serious editing and 
> reviewing is "lowering," I would have a difficult time knowing what 
> would raise standards.

     Again, making publication one of but not the only path to 
advancement would very possibly raise standards. It would do that by 
making publication more proportionate to the cause of the subject under 
examination than to the need of the writer to get something into print.

> It is simplistic--and mistaken--to denigrate publishing as if it were 
> not of value.

     Of course no one has done this. It's the overemphasis on 
publishing, not publishing itself, that's been questioned.

> What should one teach? Should one reiterate forever, from 
> yellowed notes, the ideas of one's own professors?

    Should one pursue the minutiae that the proliferation of 
publications engendered by the publish or perish ethic has produced?

> The expectation of publication is one of several serious ways to offer 
> students the kind of knowledge and experience they want and should 
> have. What we ask of them is to write well, to think critically, and 
> to develop distinctive theses. And to deal with our editing and 
> evaluations. That is what is required of us also. Nor is it only to 
> improve teaching. Universities are centers of discovery and knowledge 
> in every field.

     Noble stuff and no disagreement here. I'd only suggest that the 
quality of editing and evaluations that you have to undergo might also 
rise with fewer publications and less compulsion to get into print. 
Seems a simple enough concept.
>  What is the logic or evidence for this judgment?

     The one I mentioned or the one you wrote about?

     Ken A