prof

The prof and I went back and forth for a few minutes and then I took over the class and taught it. Blah, blah, blah, I haven't really made the case against mach.

I'm sure that prof. Yoshiki Sasai had to deal with much, much more than just two retracted articles.

I found it very unprofessional. Stanford records a video of every lecture, and enrolled students can then watch them whenever.

On the first day of the first course as a CS major, the prof said something like "in this course you'll learn how computers work from the bottom up", turned to the blackboard, and wrote Maxwell's equations. We laughed, and he said, "You're laughing because I got it wrong, no?

There is a huge difference between low-quality video/audio recording of a prof mumbling for an hour and post-processed, perfected snippets of videos presented in a coherent fashion, and most importantly with supplementary materials that encourage people to actually apply their knowledge and get feedback. In addition, the fact that many people take the class at the same time also enhances the experience for everyone, and we've seen study groups form everywhere around internet.

There is just too much incentives for profs to ignore biases in their research. I've seen it happen many times. For them, it is the difference between becoming a prof or a lab tech and it is literally worth millions. You can not trust any research done where the career of the researcher depends on them finding results. Universities, by hiring based on research credentials that currently translate roughly in the amount of positive results a person has generated, completely render worthless the research going on in their departments. Aggravating the situation is the fact that the peer review system is too incestuous to be relied on especially when the peers are probably also 'bias ignorers' with incentives to keep the flaws in the system. I strongly believe that for hiring purposes, the research skills of profs should be evaluated on criterion that are incidental to research.

Tossing one tenured professor out is a simple thing. After all like you said, it's not written down in the constitution. The problem with removing tenure is that it destroys trust in the tenure system. If one professor is stripped of tenure for being controversial, then no one is safe. For this reason the only way to lose tenure is to do something illegal, since that's really the only line you can draw that doesn't move very much. Tenure is an all or nothing deal. The entire effect of protecting your faculty is completely nullified as soon as you violate your principle for one guy. The floodgates open and suddenly every prof that's doing something controversial becomes a target.