next »

[marta]

HI Mattie - that's interesting that your school does that... and probably others do the same or other workarounds...

Based on this discussion thread, it looks like by law, schools have specific steps to follow after 6 years - either tt or let the person go... no re-hiring allowed...

This is similar to what happens in the corporate universe when you get hired as a contractor. They hire you for 6 months first, then extend the contract to 6 more months, then for 6 more final months, and that's it. After 18 months, they either have to hire you full-time or let you go...  There's a standard time they can re-hire you again as a contractor - I think it's like only after 1 year...

Some companies a while back were getting contractors in and keeping them for 3, 4 or more years -- you know, temps don't count as fixed expense in their balance sheets, or something like that...

What I heard in the corporate community is that it's not so much a legal issue, but it becomes a big IRS (or FCC)  issue... If the company - and in this case - the school - gets caught - hmmm- ai caramba!

m

[Aristotelian]

Anon's post was harsh, but correct.  I sympathize with Rattus's friend's situation, but this forum is a resource for education as well as sympathy.  Like Rattus, I've found this discussion informative.  People need to know that this rule exists and that they are taking a big risk if they buy houses and otherwise revolve their lives around non-TT jobs, especially with no PHD.  Anon wasn't saying that this *should* be the case, but it is, and Rattus's friend should have known better.

[econ anon]

Except, as I noted before, it's perfectly ok to buy a house if you're planning on sticking around for a few (at least 5) years... a shorter time if your level of risk can take it.  Very few jobs outside of academia are permanent and those folks buy houses and arrange their lives around work all the time.  It's all about the level of risk you're willing to assume and your expectations of future employment.

But this story is a lesson to us all to be more cautious.  Build that general human capital so that future mobility is not impaired (that is, get the degree and stay competitive).  After all, even tenured folk never know when they're going to fall in love with someone hundreds of miles away and have to go on the market again.

[Aristotelian]

But folks outside academia usually can get employment even if they get laid off.  That's not always the case with us, and especially the person in Rattus's friend's situation.  So the analogy doesn't hold.  I would also say that in her case she should not have expected to stay in the area for 5 years, she was lucky to have been renewed for as long as she was.

[econ anon]

>>But folks outside academia usually can get employment even if they get laid off.

If you mean can get employment without having to move, that is definitely not always true (especially for those in specialized fields who don't live in a big city with lots of companies in the same industry... and even in one of those cities when times are bad you meet a LOT of long-term unemployed tech workers at parties who don't want to move to the midwest where the job openings were).  If you mean just employment in general... guess what, people inside academia can do that too-- they just have to look outside academia.  Academics are making the same cost-benefit calculation, it's just that they have an extra option of employment within academia that non-academics don't have.

From what I understand, this case was 2 three-year contracts, not 6 one year contracts.  I'm not saying I would have made the same decision about not finishing the phd (after all, I want to stay mobile and have the extra choices a phd brings me), but there's no reason to say the woman is stupid for buying a house.  Plenty of people are flipping real estate for a hobby in less time than that.  And maybe she likes the area more than she likes academia.  It's possible.  

No, she shouldn't have expected the contract to be renewed indefinitely, but 6 years is a reasonably long time to stay at one job, especially for someone just starting out.  I'd never heard of a 6 year rule before this thread and it's something she should have been warned about before-hand.

[stepping off]

What about positions that are a combination of faculty and staff?

I just accepted a position with the title "academic professional" in a large department, at a large urban state university (no union).  This is a non tt position.  I have been told that I have "all the benefits" of tt faculty (except tenure), including a small amount of funding for travel or supplies, but have a contract that is renewed annually and am constrained by some of the policies related to staff (for example, I have a 12 month contract and must use accrued vacation time if I want time off over Christmas break).

"Lecturers," at this university, are now being subjected to a review process similar to tenure review.  After five years, they can be promoted to a "senior" status, which entails some additional job security.  They also participate as faculty members.  There is a fairly large core of lecturers in this department, all with PhDs.

Lecturers and academic professionals are responsible for most of the teaching in this department, which suits me fine.  Research is what distinguishes tt faculty from the others.

How might a position like this be governed by the six year rule (if at all)?

(I am seeing a lot more of these types of positions in my field.   Is this true everywhere?)

[Possum]

All ths story proves is that one has to be foolish to get into such a situation. Why go out on the line and risk getting screwed by some rinky-dink college? I am disgusted to see non-tenured faculty living in crappy apartments for years when if they were menials they would have houses and better job security. Another reason to get out of academe!

[Tanuki]

When people argue that if they're good enough to hire as adjuncts they should be good enough to hire on the tenure track, they are ignoring a major issue: adjunct searches are local; tenure-track searches are national. While it sometimes happens that the best person available for a permanent position turns out to live nearby, statistically it is much less likely. Bigger pool = more choices.

[Mokey Mokey]

My case may shed some light on the six-year rule, and particulary on its sinister effect on the truth.  I'm a PhD who teaches at a major state university.  I've been on annual renewals for eight (yes, eight) years.  Student evaluations have been high, and I'm publishing.  Last year my chair said my contract would not be renewed.  Only then did I find out about my university's version of the six-year rule, which allows for non-renewal of contracts after six years only if performance reviews go bad.  I've been battling for my job ever since.  I think my department accidently let me slip by two extra years.  I've been fighting for my job for seven months now.  What's been most astounding to me about this whole experience is discovering how cyinically this rule is enforced.  The amount of deceit is amazing.  It begins with the house jargon, under which I'm referred to as "part-time," though my teaching load is 50+% more than that of the "full-time" tenured people.  Reason: "part-time" = "fewer rights."  The deceit extends to the reasons given for dismissing me, which are patently absurd, and which contradict each other.  Arm yourselves against these lines:
- "We're sorry, but to keep you here under the terms under which you are employed would constitute exploitation.  So we're letting you go."
- "We need to recycle faculty members so that we can bring in new ideas."
- "We don't need the kind of services you can offer."
Thanks to you all, it's clearer to me now why they won't state the real reason:
"If we kept you, we'd have to judge you only for your performance."
It's also been disturbing to see the tactics used to obstruct my efforts to point out the rules.  Those who wish to see rules ignored merely refuse to discuss them, and claim that everything is "a matter of interpretation," and nothing is a black-and-white fact.  Through this tactic they have succeeded in dragging the matter on for months.  The first victim of the six-year rule is the institution's integrity.