Et Conurrere... 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2018, at 4:40 PM, Northwestern Division Director <nwdvd@comcast.net> wrote:
satis dictum
73 and good Hamming Jim, K7CEX
To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it...Confucius
On Aug 21, 2018 2:14 PM, "Niswander, Rick" <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> wrote: Let me again address the academic components of your note.
You are correct that it is important to understand Howard’s achievement relative to his peers. However, your comparators are not peer institutions. In an academic setting – frankly any setting – it is critically important that the comparisons be with institutions which are similar. There are at least two ways in which the institutions are not peers.
One is the classification of each institution. Penn State, NYU, and Case Western are Research I (research intensive) schools. That means they have many doctoral programs and are highly research oriented. UM Dartmouth is one or two categories lower than Research I (depending on the year of evaluation). In the academic world, these universities are not in the same category.
The second way your comparators are not peers has to do with the revenue streams. Revenue drives all enterprises and universities are no different. Higher relative revenue attracts more faculty, facilitates creation of more-comprehensive research facilities, allows for more support structures (research assistants, teaching assistants, grant writing offices, better technology, etc.). A common metric is revenue per student.
· UMass Dartmouth (a public university) has revenue of $258 million and 8,406 students. That is almost $30,700 per student.
· Penn State (public) has $6.1 billion of revenue for just under 99,000 students which is about $61,800 per student.
· NYU (a private university) has $9.9 billion of revenue and just over 59,000 students, which is about $167,400 per student
· Case Western (private) has $1.1 billion of revenue and 10,820 students, or $101,800 per student.
Penn State, NYU, and Case Western are not peer institutions to UMass Dartmouth. Not even close. They all have much higher overall revenue and much higher revenue per student. Any comparisons are nonsense.
As to the Rate My Professor issue, the short answer is that you cannot draw any inferences whatsoever from a non-random sample. It is just basic statistics 101.
Statistics is handy because it can be used to estimate characteristics about a population without having to measure each observation in the population. In order to do so, there are a number of factors that must be determined, the most important of which are (a) having an appropriate sample size and (b) obtaining a random sample. In this instance, both factors are not met.
As to sample size, using parameters that are generous (i.e., will give a low number), we would need a sample size of about 30. In reality, to be able to make a supportable inference that most statisticians would accept, the number could easily be three times as large. We have 8.
As to obtaining a random sample, Rate My Professor is not random. It is totally self-selected. A self-selected sample is not random.
Bottom line, using Rate My Professor data is absolutely and unequivocally useless to make any inferences or statements about the teaching of any professor. Good or bad. Statements to the contrary are statistical nonsense and are not honest.
K7GM
Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA
Professor of Accounting
Bate 3110
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858
From: Kristen McIntyre [mailto:kristen@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 10:07 PM To: Niswander, Rick <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> Cc: arrl-odv (arrl-odv@arrl.org) <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27495] Concerning the selection of a CEO
Thank you for your substantive analysis and comments Rick. Given the short amount of time between introduction of Howard Michel and the Board vote, it was difficult for each of us to investigate the role and responsibilities of the President of the IEEE. It required a deep dive into the IEEE bylaws. As we have previously stated, an IEEE President is quite different from a CEO, or in IEEE bylaws terminology, Executive Director. Since the Candidate is being considered to be ARRL CEO, it is important to understand and emphasize the significant difference between the role of IEEE President and IEEE Executive Director as the skill set and experience of one is not equivalent to the other. The arguable result of that understanding is that the Candidate’s experience in the capacity for which we seek an employee and the related, necessary skill set, are both less that presumed at first glance.
Regarding academic experience, we are aware that the Candidate comes from a school with a relatively small program. However, quality and achievement are not size dependent.
The reason for bringing this to the Board's attention is to try to understand the Candidate’s level of achievement relative to his peers, his general enthusiasm, and leadership qualities. It is important to set high standards so that our leadership is a reflection of those high standards. Looking around for a few other ham radio operators who are also professors, some differences are apparent. Granted the examples here are at larger and more well known institutions, nevertheless there are some valid comparisons that can be made. While the Candidate’s Rate My Professors sample size is small, the uniformity of the responses remains troubling. Still it is possible to see some good ratings, as the examples below show. Even if such ratings are set aside, we believe it remains important to note both the quality and extent of the achievements of these other individuals and their deep involvement with ham radio.
Ted Rappaport N9NB, Professor, NYU
https://engineering.nyu.edu/faculty/theodore-rappaport http://www.arrl.org/news/ted-rappaport-n9nb-named-recipient-of-ieee-educatio... http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1718031
Jim Breakall WA3FET, Professor, Penn State University
http://www.ee.psu.edu/directory/FacultyInfo/Breakall/BreakallProfilePage.asp... http://www.arrl.org/news/antenna-designer-wa3fet-says-ham-radio-led-to-his-e... http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1916905
David Kazdan AD8Y, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Case Western
https://engineering.case.edu/news/david-kazdan-honored-wittke-award-excellen... https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-kazdan-ba92968/ http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2110102
The academic issue, however, is not the main point. What is most important to the success of this selection and the resulting consequences to the League is Howard Michel’s executive experience and ability to represent the best of ham radio. The research argues at a minimum, that both, whether examined alone or by comparison to similar individuals, lacks the depth and extent needed by the ARRL at this juncture.
The membership will likely be looking most to those points when they evaluate the result of the Board’s actions.
Tom Abernethy, W3TOM
Tom Frenaye, K1KI
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT
Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF
Kristen McIntyre, K6WX
John Robert Stratton, N5AUS
On Aug 17, 2018, at 4:03 AM, Niswander, Rick <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> wrote:
This email is nothing more than a thinly-veiled character assassination.
I want to address a few items with which I have direct knowledge and/or experience.
Nature of CEO experience. The authors are entirely correct that the role of IEEE President/CEO (as IEEE calls it) is akin to the role of the ARRL President. It has never been represented that his IEEE role was anything other than being the volunteer leader of a 400,000-member organization. That fact is clear from his resume and from the discussion in the Board room. For someone to suggest that this is a big surprise means they have not been paying attention to begin with.
The authors comments about Howard’s academic record clearly indicate that they have no meaningful understanding of academics. The emphasis on PhD students and patents is misplaced given the school at which Howard was employed and his specialty. The only PhD program in Engineering at UMass-Dartmouth is in EE. In the last 10 years, the Dartmouth EE PhD has graduated an average of 2.6 students per year so it is a very small program to begin with. More important, while Howard’s department was the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, it is obvious from his degree, interests, and research that his area is Computer Engineering, not Electrical Engineering. Dartmouth does not have a PhD in Computer Engineering, the highest degree is a MS. So it is not surprising that he did not participate in the work of many PhD students. In fact, for him to have participated in the work of ANY is unusual. Finally, his research and patent record is very reasonable for someone who is at a masters-level school in his discipline.
Students. I am appalled that the authors would even consider using Rate My Professor as a guide to whether someone is a good teacher or not and what that may infer to other characteristics. The self-selection bias on these sites is astounding. Further, bad reviews are more prevalent as the discipline becomes harder. He taught at UM-Dartmouth for 16 or 17 years and likely taught thousands of students. Putting credence in the self-selected views of eight students is absurd. Information from such sites is never considered in annual evaluations or tenure decisions, in large part because the “data” is unreliable and meaningless.
Finally, the January motion creating the search committee stated that one candidate would be presented. The time to have requested a different approach was last January.
K7GM
Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA
Professor of Accounting
Bate 3110
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Mike Raisbeck Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:42 PM To: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:27489] Concerning the selection of a CEO
Fellow Board Members,
Since the selection of Howard Michel as CEO candidate we have been searching for additional information on the candidate. What has come to light is concerning. It isn’t completely damning, but neither is it stellar. Here are some key points. More detailed commentary with numerous links is attached as a separate document.
· Nature of the candidate’s prior CEO experience
o On taking a closer look at the IEEE articles pertaining to the position of IEEE president and CEO, it would appear that Michel’s experience is more akin to that of our own president rather than to the duties and responsibilities of a CEO
· The candidate’s views on governance and Board structure
o Much as the League did 2 years ago, in 2015 the IEEE went through a period where they considered changes to their governance structure. The plan, subsequently withdrawn after considerable member society opposition, would have allowed the Directors’ positions to be somewhat more separated from the membership at large. Michel was a strong supporter of the proposed changes. We should be cautious here, lest members perceive him as supporting a less transparent governance model
· His current CTO activities
o While on first glance, the notion of robots in STEM education is quite compelling, a look at some of the material done by Michel reveals a lackluster explanation of how the robots would contribute to STEM education
· His performance as an academic
o His academic career seems unremarkable as measured by several metrics, including PhD students graduated, and number of publications authored
· His dealings with his students
o There seem to be some problems with the way he relates with his students; his reviews were surprisingly negative. These could reflect on his capabilities as a mentor, model, and leader of people
· Extremely thin amateur radio experience
o Searches for his name and callsign have produced nothing that would indicate a commitment to the hobby, any recent Amateur Radio experience, or that it is one of his passions
This information is important to us for what it tells us about the candidate, but it is equally important as an indicator that our selection process may have been less than ideal. With only 24 hours to consider the candidate before a vote was called, there was little time for anyone on the Board to do any crosschecking, all the more so because it was the 24 hours before the Board meeting, a hectic period that offers little free time. Furthermore, the presentation of only a single candidate deprived the Board, the ultimate deciding authority, of the opportunity to compare, contrast, and converge on the best candidate.
There is also the matter of fairness to the candidate. In gauging fairness, several questions arise:
· - Has Mr. Michel been made aware that the vote for him at the Board Meeting was far from unanimous?
· - Is he aware that there is continued concern on the part of a substantial number of Board Members?
· - Where is he in the process of disengaging from his current employer?
Please consider this material carefully. We need to take a step back before we make any commitments or execute any contracts.
Regards,
Tom Abernethy, W3TOM
Tom Frenaye, K1KI
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT
Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF
Kristen McIntyre, K6WX
John Robert Stratton, N5AUS
Although not playing a part in the drafting of this memo, Southwestern Division Director Norton, N6AA, endorses its contents
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-Kristen (K6WX)
"Your eyes ... it's a day's work just looking into them" Laurie Anderson
(--... ...-- -.. . -.- -.... .-- -..-)
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv