next »

[bibliothecula]

As I understand it, in most disciplines, for folks on the TT, pre-tenure scholars are considered junior, and post-tenure scholars are senior.

What about those not on the TT? At what point do you consider yourself senior? In my field, we are frequently asked to sort ourselves into one of these categories, and as someone who has been an independent scholar for most of my career, I'm not sure where to draw the line.

Your thoughts?

[pepper]

Maybe sort yourself according to your publishing record? So if you have produced an amount of work considered typical for a tenured faculty member in your field, then you are a senior scholar for the disciplinary purposes because you have made a substantial contribution to the field.

[puffin]

On request, I was once given the following definition (loosely collected from my memory):

'For the senior position, we are looking for someone with an established track record and reputation in this discipline, who can provide guidance and leadership to the more junior members of staff. S/he should have a vision of what (research) projects ought to have priority.'

[zookers]

Not sure about your situation, but I guarantee it's governed by the same nonsensical politics of the tenure world.

The differentiation between "junior" and "senior" faculty is largely one imposed by "senior" (old) faculty to intimidate the "junior" (young) faculty.  Generally, you can use tenure as the boundary between the two.  But, you'll find that many older (and usually deadwood) faculty will cling to a vague difference to exert whatever little influence they have left in the university.

For example, if a faculty member has been teaching for 35 years, anyone who has been teaching for only 25 years is "junior".

[sciencephd]

Well if you get to pick which category to label yourself with, why not simply choose the one that benefits you more ?