next »

[postdoc40]

1) If someone moves from non-tenure track Assistant Prof. to same dept. but tenure-track Assistant Prof. - does that mean they have tenure?

2) If someone is Associate Prof with tenure - does that mean they have tenure? 

3) But then they still have to make it to Full Professor with Tenure? 

4) So is the Associate Prof with tenure a stable position 99% likely to develop into Full Prof (assuming no bizarre events) - or not?

Thanks for explaining.
pd40

[history_anon]

1. Tenure-track simply means that an assistant professor will be evaluated for tenure after a pre-defined period (usually 6 years).  A non-tenure track assistant professor may be a temporary visiting appointment, or a renewable, more or less permanent position not eligible for tenure.  Moving from non-tenure track to tenure-track means gaining the opportunity to earn tenure, not tenure itself.
2. Associate professors with tenure do indeed have tenure (pardon the obvious).  Normally, tenure is conferred along with promotion to associate, though this can vary.
3 and 4. Associate professor with tenure is a stable (in fact almost immovable) position, but conveys no presumption of future promotion to full professor.  Promotion to full generally requires significant scholarly accomplishment beyond what it took to earn tenure, and involves a similar review process (though with fewer potential negative consequences).  In my field, at most places, one book gets you tenure and promotion to associate, a second book gets you promotion to full.  At the most prestigious departments, two books are expected for tenure, and full professorships are reserved for the academic demigods.
Hope this helps.

[namazu]

1) No.  It means they've moved from a position with no possibility of being considered for tenure to a position where there is a possibility of being considered for tenure.  Some schools are notorious for rarely granting tenure to junior "tenure-track" faculty (preferring to "poach" higher level faculty from other institutions, because they can).  In contrast, at other institutions, the search committee only hires people they expect (with reasonable effort and no unforeseen budget shortfalls) to earn tenure.

2) Yes, "with tenure" = tenured.  At some institutions, there is only one class of Associate Professor, and tenure is tied to promotion to that level (i.e. there's no such thing as Associate Professor without tenure).  Others have teh two-tier system you mentioned, with various meanings and degrees of upward mobility/potential.

3) Yes.

4) It depends on the school and the person.  At some schools, assuming a person continues to fulfill expectations (publications, teaching, service) there is a relatively straightforward progression.  At others, it is a non-trivial task to be promoted from Associate Prof. to Full Prof., and depends on maintaining a stellar publication record, bringing in extramural funding, or other major achievements.

Usually there is a faculty handbook that outlines the de jure (if not de facto) requirements for tenure and promotion, as well as the processes involved.   

[ennui]

Are you serious?

1) If someone moves from non-tenure track Assistant Prof. to same dept. but tenure-track Assistant Prof. - does that mean they have tenure?

No. Hence the phrase "tenure-track", as in "on a track that will lead to tenure", rather than the word "tenured". ???

2) If someone is Associate Prof with tenure - does that mean they have tenure? 

Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

3) But then they still have to make it to Full Professor with Tenure? 

Do not confuse tenure with promotion.

4) So is the Associate Prof with tenure a stable position 99% likely to develop into Full Prof (assuming no bizarre events) - or not?

Impossible to say. Different schools have different promotion expectations.

You need to sit down with your adviser(s) and have some basic, basic discussions about the nature of working in academe. You will ruin your chances of getting a job if you walk into interviews without the slightest clue about the job structure of academia.

[postdoc40]

Thanks.

Just been watching people move around and trying to understand exactly what it means.

Also, sometimes I get asked to write reference letters (as someone who studied under the prof in question).

I recently saw someone move from Associate Prof without tenure to Associate Prof tenure stream without a search being involved, and was surprised they could do this.  Is this typical?

Also, I don't quite understand why Assoc. with tenure would not then more-or-less automatically move to Full Prof. with tenure.  If they forever held you back at Assoc. prof would this not be bad?  But they can't fire or replace you either?

[namazu]

I recently saw someone move from Associate Prof without tenure to Associate Prof tenure stream without a search being involved, and was surprised they could do this.  Is this typical?

It really depends on the institution, and what's typical for it.  (Also, note that "tenure-stream" is equivalent to "tenure-track", and does not mean tenured, so terminology is important here.)  In some places, it may be that the progression goes (tenure-stream) Assistant Prof. ---> (tenure-stream) Associate Prof. ---> (tenured) Associate Prof.  ---> (still tenured) Full Prof.  Other times, it may mean that the person has does something special that has caused the school to rethink (favorably) whether the person may be a good candidate for tenure, and the department may convert them to a track with the possibility of consideration for tenure.  Still other times, it may mean that the university has changed its appointment structure, and the Associate Professor without tenure/non-tenure stream position has been abolished across the board; I saw this happen recently at a university, and it forced departments to decide whether or not to convert the people currently in the non-tenured/non-tenure-track Associate Prof. positions to tenure track, to non-tenure track (e.g. lecturers/instructors), or to let them go altogether.

Also, I don't quite understand why Assoc. with tenure would not then more-or-less automatically move to Full Prof. with tenure.  If they forever held you back at Assoc. prof would this not be bad?  But they can't fire or replace you either?

Why should the institution promote someone who has done nothing of merit beyond meeting the original requirements for tenure?  With promotion to Full Professor, there is usually a pay raise involved, and universities and departments are loath to grant these to people who - after receiving tenure, with the relative job security it entails - fail to produce further scholarly work in sufficient quantity or of sufficient quality, shirk service requirements, refuse to play nicely with others, etc.  (This is not to say it doesn't occasionally happen!)  Most of these, if not in flagrant violation of the contract or of social norms, are not cause for termination, but they also don't get people promoted.  There are people out there who, due to their own lack of continued progress, departmental budget constraints, or a whole host of other reasons (both valid and shady) languish in Associate Professor with tenure positions for many years without being promoted to Full Professor.  It's bad for the person, in the sense that they do not receive the pay raise and professional recognition, and for the department if it suggests the department has granted tenure to someone who was not as great as advertised, but it may be acceptable to the person who wanted the job security but isn't sufficiently motivated to do what it takes to achieve the next promotion, and it saves the university money.  For people who are trying their hardest to get promoted but are blocked in some way, it's pretty rotten.  (But at least they still have the job security if they want it.)     

[dr_stones]

Tenure entitles one to due process.

That's really about it.  You do have to do the job, and if your academic unit disappears, so too can your job.

It is not a guarantee of lifetime emplyment.

[fiona]

Check the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Web site. That's where the official rules are, that are supposed to apply to all U. S. universities.

The Fiona

[dept_geek]

Check the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Web site. That's where the official rules are, that are supposed to apply to all U. S. universities.

The Fiona

The Fiona -

Do these rules apply to all U.S. Universities or all U.S. Universities that are represented by AAUP? I ask because, while we are represented, we are not represented by AAUP.

Thanks.

[fiona]

The AAUP policies are supposed to apply to all U. S. universities. The AAUP has confused everyone by being both a setter of rules and a union. There was an article about that in the Chronicle last week (I'm not sure the article's available online).

Anyhow, the AAUP rules are supposed to govern all U. S. universities. Universities violating AAUP policies can be censured.

The Fiona

[clean]

I once worked for a "Censured" university.

It had no effect. 

I am not sure what was supposed to happen, but the reality was the faculty was nuts, the board of regents disbanded the faculty senate, the trouble makers cried foul.  AAUP censured. 

Result?

I didnt see any resulting from the censure.  I really doubt that they had any job candidates in English or any other 'over supplied' discipline say, "you have been censured, I wont accept the offer".  (I never heard of a failed job search attributed to the censure).

For what it is worth.

clean


Oh, to the OP,

The progression to Full is not automatic.  Neither is it necessarily a 'good thing'.  It can drastically hurt your mobility.  It may not come with anything more than a few thousand dollar raise, either.  At my former employer, the raise to full is $3000.   Not that anyone would turn that down, but if you are promoted and then no longer mobile, it may not be a good trade. 

IF you look, you will probably find several Associates with 20+ years of service at your university. 

A note on mobility and promotions:

IMHO, there are a few 'stamps' that you must acquire.  1.  You need to be tenured someplace within 10 years of your degree.  Otherwise, you are either a job hopper or a nut (or both).

2.  You need to be promoted to Associate sometime within 10 years of graduating too.  This is even more critical than 1.  There are a number of reasons to not get around to being tenured, but even a job hopper could negotiate a hop with a promotion.  It is another 'stamp of approval'. 

IF you dont get these stamps, then you get the dreaded stamp....

REJECT

I have not seen any that I recall, but when I have served on search committees, I would wonder about the suitability of interviewing someone who has been out a decade who has never been tenured, promoted, or with a poor publication record (4  papers in 10 years would be bad, 3 in 10, and I probably would vote not to interview them at all).

For what it is worth at 2 am.

clean

[fiona]

Agreeing with clean: AAUP censure is supposed to discourage people from applying to the censured universities. Given the humanities job market, I doubt if it makes any difference whatever.

However--anyone who knows that a university is censured is at least forewarned about possible problems. Also, the censured universities are more apt to be small, marginal religious schools where they want to follow their own rules rather than, say, federal anti-discrimination laws.

It's worth checking out the AAUP rules and censures just to get info about how academia works.

The Fiona