next »

[xeno_cratus]

I have a junior colleague for whom I am writing a chair's supervisory letter who came in with three years' credit toward tenure.  This means that s/he has a reappointment review in the first year, and a tenure review in the spring of the third year.  My question is: How common is it for someone to be given this kind of short time-line to tenure?  And how typical is it for this short time-line to create problems?  Is there any grounds to suppose a high failure rate in such situations?

In my view, the candidate is doing quite well on all counts, but the colleagues in this person's specialty are attacking quite viciously on the grounds that it is unlikely that the candidate will have time to bring teaching or service up to standard, that there is not enough time to establish a "track record," etc.  This person is unassailable in terms of research and publication, which is why she was brought on with so much credit.

Thanks in advance!

[sibyl]

It's common enough that I'm not surprised to hear that a person has three years' credit, although usually not just on the basis of publications.  If you said, Guess the credentials of a person coming in with three years' credit toward tenure, I would say someone who has either three years as a VAP or five or more years as a full-time adjunct with minimal publications, or two years as a VAP with strong pubs. 

I'm more concerned that this person's colleagues are attacking the case for tenure.  I would think that if you didn't want to bring in a person halfway to tenure and didn't think the person was tenurable in that shorter time frame, you wouldn't go to bat for the person in the first place.  If I found this out I would immediately go back on the market.

[mellonia]

At my institution, we only do this for folks who were already on the TT somewhere else (ie not for folks with just a great track record of scholarship, but also a track record for teaching and service, even if the norms at their previous dept were somewhat different).  And then we evaluate based on the entire career;  we want to see progress here but look at the whole trajectory.  In my experience, this shorter timeline was only given appropriately, ie tenure worked out fine.

To answer the unasked--it does sound like there will be trouble down the line if the individual in question can't convince hu's colleagues that of their contributions when it comes to teaching and service.  It depends on what the vicious colleagues mean by 'up to standard', and if you are in a position to advise the candidate, it might be good to let them know that they might need to fight a perception that they are a research star but thin in other areas.  Someone in my dept was hired under a similar cloud but it disappeared in a year because, in addition to being a research star with a short tenure clock, hu quickly became a valued, contributing member of several committees, and the first course taught got great reviews from students.  Maybe the track record is shorter, but sometimes the trajectory is clearly on the upswing.

[fannie]

We look at the whole six years for the 'overall' of tenure. But when it comes down to it, we can only take into account the numericals of the last three years.  This makes it possible for us to hire with three years accrued.  Perhaps this is true at your school?

The person in the chair's role is important if the colleagues are acting like this.  You have to keep going to bat for the person throughout the first year.  And yes, it doesn't allow much time for a fire before the tenure review has to occur, so more documentation is necessary up to tenure review...you may actually want to deny tenure as you would have done elsewise at the third year mark.  Better document everything. 

[larryc]

I might know someone who is negotiating this kind of thing right now. And if I do, then the dean told this person that it is important to put the promotion guidelines right in the initial agreement when the person comes on board. "LarryB will be up for associate in X years, and will be expected to have done Y and Z by that time."

As for your colleague, do his publications and service at his former position count towards tenure at your institution? If not, were there any agreements or promises made at the time of hire that can be documented?

[xeno_cratus]

We look at the whole six years for the 'overall' of tenure. But when it comes down to it, we can only take into account the numericals of the last three years.  This makes it possible for us to hire with three years accrued.  Perhaps this is true at your school?

There is no written policy on this at my institution (though perhaps there should be).  I would say that colleagues and the rank and tenure committee would be willing to take into account the individual's publications/conference presentations from the years previous to arriving here, as part of the candidate's general scholarly reputation.  But they would want to see, by the tenure review, sufficient evidence of teaching excellence and integration into our culture of service during the time the individual has actually been here.

The person in the chair's role is important if the colleagues are acting like this.  You have to keep going to bat for the person throughout the first year.

Yes, I have spent a good deal of time crafting a strong supervisory letter for this person's first review (at our institution hu will have a review every spring for three years, with the tenure review being the third) and had a strategy session with our dean, etc.  I am also acting politically to break up the small cabal of disgruntled naysayers, etc.

you may actually want to deny tenure as you would have done elsewise at the third year mark.

I'm not sure I understand this.  The candidate would have an option to "give back" a year of credit toward tenure, and thus postpone the tenure decision. I might advise that.  But I would not want to deny tenure; this person is a great asset.

Many thanks!

[xeno_cratus]

I might know someone who is negotiating this kind of thing right now. And if I do, then the dean told this person that it is important to put the promotion guidelines right in the initial agreement when the person comes on board. "LarryB will be up for associate in X years, and will be expected to have done Y and Z by that time."

As for your colleague, do his publications and service at his former position count towards tenure at your institution? If not, were there any agreements or promises made at the time of hire that can be documented?

This is interesting.  In our case, the dean made no such deal regarding special guidelines for tenure to compliment the three years credit.  I guess part of what you're saying is that it would have been possible, and indeed desirable, for the dean to have added a specification in the offer letter to the effect that the publications (and possibly service) at the former institution would count toward tenure here. 

Maybe next time . . . .

[neniaf]

It is very common to bring someone in with credit based on past experience.  I came in that way myself.  What is more worrisome, though is the reaction of those in the candidate's specialty, who would presumably be voting on her/his tenure.  This may be completely due to jealousy over an advantage they were not given themselves, but if this individual starts off with colleagues negatively predisposed toward the idea of granting tenure early, and then does not have time to turn them around, it could lead to trouble. 

I have to say that although I am not a fan of secrecy, the fact that at my intitution such matters are a private matter between the Dean, the Chair, and the candidate, with the rest of the department left in the dark about the details of colleagues' contracts, is probably a good thing.