On Jul 21, 11:28 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
(Derek Lyons) wrote:
He didn't say "nothing can be told" he said "nothing can be told about
your ability to teach".

This is all so pointlessly confrontational and typical Usenet arguing
wherein rigor is applied when it serves a personal end and tossed aside
when it doesn't. You know that rigorous logic says that nothing can be
foretold about the sun rising tomorrow from the fact that the sun rose this
morning. But so what? Humans have been applying heuristic rules for ages to
try to predict the future - and still are.

So somebody who gets great grades is a reasonable heuristic for predicting
their success at teaching. Of course it's not perfect - but it sure beats
hiring dopes to teach who flunked all their courses.

As it stands, you and Morgans are fundamentally claiming that the following
three numbers are identical:

A) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with very high grade point averages.

B) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with average grade point averages.

C) The grade point average of students taught by instructors who passed
their own courses with zero grade point averages.

Anyone care to put real money behind their silly Usenet bravado and
needless confrontational style of "debate"? If so I'm willing to bet money
the above three numbers will be very different.

Thank you, I agree. This arguing about grade point averages and
ability to teach is simply thread divergence from the topic on hand.
Does my documentation support my allegations of NASA management
misconduct?

Danny Deger
www.dannydeger.net