As a recent graduate, I am still very aware and interested in the activities that take place at WPI. I have just recently heard about the decisions regarding tenure appointments, particularly with regard to Mechanical and Materials Engineering professors. I would like to express my outrage at the decisions made by the Committee on Tenure. They have denied tenure positions to some of the best professors at the school, supposedly based on the small amount of revenue they bring to the school, and have accepted professors who are not at all well-liked by students but happen to bring in large revenues for the departments and school. I do not believe that this kind of action should be tolerated.
I can understand that WPI needs professors that can bring in large corporate revenues for research facilities and to sponsor graduate assistantships. However, the school boasts that it is a leader in undergraduate education. Therefore, I view that statement to mean that good teaching should be very important to the school. By denying tenure to truly great professors, the level of undergraduate education decreases substantially. Good teaching should be the primary focus for excellence in undergraduate education, and good research facilities should be the primary focus for excellence in graduate education. WPI is, or at least was, a leader in undergraduate education, but by only rewarding professors that can bring in money to fund research laboratories, it seems that the school is putting too much focus on advancing their graduate education system. I wonder if the next step would be to fire all the humanities and social science professors since they probably do not bring in as much revenue as most engineering and science professors. A good professor should be a good teacher, and not just a salesman to companies whose primary job is to get money for the school.
I would be very interested to hear the Committee's reasoning for sending out questionnaires to former students of professors considered for tenure. It is obvious that those questionnaires are not carefully reviewed, based on their decisions of who to accept and deny for tenure. I have known of many professors who are not well-liked by students, and are accepted for tenure. Also, I know of professors who get wonderful reviews from students and it seems that the Committee does not care what opinions students have about professors. I would think that this would be very important, as it is the students who either gain or lose from having classes with various professors.
I have asked the Alumni Office to remove my name from the list of possible donators to WPI. I can not justify donating money to an educational institution whose primary focus is not undergraduate education. Until last week, I was so confident with the education I received at WPI, and I have strongly recommended the school to anyone I spoke with. Now, I can honestly say that I can no longer recommend WPI to incoming students. In fact, I would discourage them from entering into an educational institution that has no reward to excellent professors. It is obvious that the school no longer strives to be the leader in undergraduate education, and that should not be tolerated from such a former prestigious school.
I would strongly suggest to the Committee on Tenure to carefully review their guidelines for appointing tenure positions. It will be a severe loss to the WPI community when these great professors are forced to leave their positions, and I believe the overall education will be affected by the Committee's decisions.
Stacey L. Watrous