Ouch. Connie Bagley

----- Original Message -----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu Apr 15 14:04:20 2010
Subject: Re: Quick question

Actually, there is a special ring for textbook authors.


Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:45 PM, "Rollie Cole" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I humbly offer an Adjunct perspective, which admittedly may be  
> different from and even "inferior to" the full-time perspective.
>
> I would suggest, in both the case of the student paper and the  
> professor paper, we have a question of expectations. Is the paper  
> offered as a demonstration of what the student or the professor  
> knows, or is it a demonstration of NEW value added? If a professor  
> is writing a chapter for a textbook, it may well be that he or she  
> is NOT expected to provide completely new research findings; if for  
> a journal of new discoveries, he or she is to present something new.
>
> Similarly, certain courses, especially required core courses are  
> often perceived by the students and often the outside world, if not  
> those teaching them, as a core of common knowledge needed before  
> going on to make new discoveries. Thus demonstrating that you know  
> the material -- either from the course or otherwise -- should be, in  
> my opinion, perfectly legitimate (assuming whatever required  
> disclosures are in fact made -- citing the student's own work,  
> getting advanced permission, which in this case should be granted).  
> Other courses, such as "advanced seminars" in a given topic, or  
> Ph.D. dissertations, are, like research discovery journals,  
> explicitly designed for the student to make a NEW contribution, and  
> in that case of course only NEW contributions should be acceptable.
>
> In the actual practice of both business and law, knowing when and  
> how to recycle old material is often more useful than knowing how to  
> produce something new, so I suggest that in a "core" and/or  
> "introductory" course such recycling should be welcome (consistent  
> with appropriate disclosure), especially when, as in the given  
> example, it is substantially (30 %) revised to fit the requirements  
> of the new course.
>
> Of course, I am in favor of allowing "challenge credit" for all  
> required courses, except those explicitly designed to produce new  
> material, such as advanced seminars and research dissertations.
>
>
> -- 
> Rollie Cole
> 5315 Washington Blvd
> Indianapolis, IN 46220-3062
> 317-727-8940