It is a very nice ring, I am sure.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 15, 2010, at 4:24 PM, "Bagley, Connie" <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:

> 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