next »

[betterslac]

I'm not sure what to make of this First Person article:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/07/2009071001c.htm

On the one hand there is some valuable advice about doing the work required for tenure, not looking for excuses, and thinking about what kind of institution one inhabits. Also the snarky middle about "dream" positions is amusing if a bit condescending.

But then there are also maddening generalizations that ignore the previous advice about the differences among institutions, such as:

Typically, research earns promotion and tenure. Teaching is secondary, and often for good reason: You took a job as an educator. You're expected to be competent in the classroom.

Given that most institutions are not research driven, this is just not right even given the "typically" qualifier. Teaching is primary at many places. Second the logic appears screwy. You were hired as an educator and therefore for good reason teaching is secondary and therefore only competence is required?

Also:

Finally, you'll note that I failed to focus on the importance of committee service in promotion and tenure decisions. A good department chair or governance document should shield you from too much service.

Again at many institutions tenure decisions are based importantly on service, as  part of the three legged teaching/research/service criteria. To counsel everyone to try to have their chair shield them for service would be disastrous for many people.

Then there is this:

Before signing a contract, request departmental and college governance documents detailing promotion and tenure criteria.

Good luck getting something tangible, clear and in writing after signing the contract, much less before.

This article could have been a contender; I think it is stuck on the waterfront.

[espagnole]

I agree with betterslacs take on the article. I for one found the article condescending and maddeningly broad, as if it were possible to boil down tenure decisions to a simple template. And the lack of regard for the importance of teaching was insulting to many faculty members at schools (like my own) that really value teaching and consider it an important, if not the most important, aspect of the tenure dossier.
 And, as someone who spent two years teaching in a rural area, issues like quality of life and weather can and do play a role in whether candidates accept jobs and stay at them. Bad weather is not only an issue in Iowa, of course, but there are many people who are willing to commute long distances in order to have access to culture, good restaurants, etc. People are entitled to take jobs that are best for them and schools in less desirable areas should not be insulted or surprised that candidates may choose to go elsewhere.

[watermarkup]

I found this line laugh-out-loud funny, but not in a good way:

Perhaps more important for those still on the job market, or about to be once again because of a negative decision, acknowledging those factors will help you choose the right position at the best university for your abilities.

Right, the big problem we on the job market are facing these days is choosing the job that matches our abilities, rather than the one in the funky beachside town. Uh-huh.

[blackbart]

Yeah, I don't get it either. It's titled "Understanding How Tenure Decisions Are Made," but starts out with a sarcastic catalog of what all those dewy-eyed, newly-minted Ph.D.s are naively hoping for. This allows the author to pontificate about Ames's perceived geographic inferiority. (It's untrue; I've spent enough time in Ames to know that it's a great town to live in, whatever your marital or familial status.) Next, the reader is made to feel guilty for desiring a position in a town with good schools or a decent cultural profile instead of, what, a supportive administrator?

Then, some warnings about how uneducated arts 'n' science professors are about the different academic profiles of their colleagues in "professional" fields (warnings with merit, to be sure, but more than a little overgeneralized). A snarky comment about Carnegie's web site, then a gradual turn to the importance of research in dossier evaluation--which, as noted above, is overstated, to say the least. Next, a bizarre assertion that universities' reputations are made or broken by external grant acquisition. This would strike my colleagues in humanities fields where external grants barely register in their research as odd, to say nothing of the general public's insatiable interest in football scores and in US News's insipid rankings. (If a "reputation" isn't forged in the public square, then what DO we mean by "reputation?") Finally, a salute to administrators who shield(!) faculty from participating in faculty governance and fulfilling what is at a great many schools one of the three main responsibilities of its professoriate.

Well, I'm enlightened. At least this author found a way to vent all his pet peeves and frustrations.

[scampster]

Finally, a salute to administrators who shield(!) faculty from participating in faculty governance and fulfilling what is at a great many schools one of the three main responsibilities of its professoriate.

Two people have commented on this and I think there is some misinterpretation. My advisor (at an R1) just got tenure. He was indeed shielded from onerous committee placements by the department head. He still served on committees, but they were less contentious and less work than some of the other ones out there. That was my interpretation of what he meant by shielding new faculty.

[t_r_b]

Finally, you'll note that I failed to focus on the importance of committee service in promotion and tenure decisions. A good department chair or governance document should shield you from too much service.

Again at many institutions tenure decisions are based importantly on service, as  part of the three legged teaching/research/service criteria. To counsel everyone to try to have their chair shield them for service would be disastrous for many people.

Tell me about it. I am on pretty good terms with my department's senior faculty. They seem to like me and like my work, and their expectations for research productivity (and eval scores) are modest. Unless I royally screw up somehow, I'm pretty sure they will support me for tenure. The #1 thing I could do that would cost me their support would be trying to dodge service responsibilities. They've seen enough of that from other colleagues, and it's exactly what they do not want in new ones.

[normative_]

I would have expected someone directing journalism and communication to write a more coherent column. It reads like he's internally processing the interviews he's had as an SC member, in which the tenure question is only one component alongside office, library, IT, airport, culture and dating opportunities. He only forgot to include questions about whether manscaping is common.

It's a shame really, because it's a good question and someone should write a good piece about it. There is obviously some tension, for example, about the research, teaching, funding and outreach expectations of colleagues in the natural sciences and the humanities that he notes that presumably play a role in the hiring process as well. He then goes on to suggest that there is a single standard for tenure (research), but one that doesn't fit well, by his own admission to his own discipline. I smell disappointment on tenure applications...not necessarily his own (but you never know; sometimes tenured people leave for somewhere else and are denied tenure due to office politics)...but disappointment nevertheless.

The author could have taken this point, which he repeated, and made it the golden thread to his column. He could have said...office or university politics makes a difference when it comes to tenure, particularly the battle of the disciplines, and then elaborated on that. He might also have gone into how our current financial troubles have exacerbated that problem or not.

[renji]

The author has spent his entire career at R1 and R2 institutions. His observations do not make much sense outside of this circle of schools.

The truth is that the job of an R1 (or even R2) faculty member has almost nothing in common with job of faculty at teaching schools.

As a result, the writer's observations on tenure at R1 and R2 schools have little to do with the requirements for earning tenure at teaching schools.

My experiences and understanding of the tenure process at my school closely mirror those in the article. But, I know for reading postings on these fora, that the tenure requirements at teaching schools can be very different.

Perhaps it would be helpful for this article to be followed by a similar article written from a small school perspective.

[untenured]

An article that originates from a particular perspective and focuses on a certain kind of institution in not necessarily bad.  Rather it just does not apply to everyone.  Just as we wouldn't criticize articles written about CC's because we don't work at one, the reverse applies here.

If the author were shooting for accurate and meaningful for all, it would have been either too broad to be meaningful, too long to be interesting, or too filled with caveats to be readable.

Untenured

[henry_adams]

I agree with renji.  Faculty at R1 institutions have duties so different from those of profs at liberal arts and community colleges that the two groups might as well be in separate professions.  Anyone at my institution who followed the advice given in the article would be shown the door years before tenure-decision time.

R1 grad students are trained for jobs at R1 places, even though the majority of them will work elsewhere, if they find jobs at all. 

[espagnole]

It would be great if someone would write an article from the perspective of smaller, teaching-oriented schools as renji suggests. At uni's like mine, it is not only teaching, research and service that determines tenure decisions, but also the candidate's ability to "play well with others" (many people overlook the importance of long term fit in tenure decisions).

When I sit on the department's tenure committee, one of the first things I ask myself is whether or not I want to work with this person for the next three decades. If the answer is no, I usually don't recommend them for tenure, no matter how great their research record may be. Fortunately, our department is generally very careful during the hiring phase so that most people hired do eventually get tenure-there are exceptions, but that's the general rule. But we all know brilliant researchers whom we would never want to have as colleagues in the same department.

[dr_evil]

Perhaps it would be helpful for this article to be followed by a similar article written from a small school perspective.

An excellent idea.

While many of us might dream of working at an R1 or R2, we have to face the reality that we all can't.  Personally, I had hoped to work at an institution where I could do some research, but unfortunately, ended up at a place with no facilities and a very high teaching load (which is not to say I hate my job, but it wasn't my "dream job" and there are times I think "what if...?").  There was absolutely no research component to my tenure; teaching was the primary focus.

[dr_crankypants]

Perhaps it would be helpful for this article to be followed by a similar article written from a small school perspective.

An excellent idea.

It would also be helpful for this article to be followed by an article written by someone from a research university perspective, since this didn't do a good job even from that perspective. It's ironic that he spends so much time about talking about good institutional fit, and he doesn't understand the discipline-specific and institution-specific nature of his advice.  Clearly he's talking only about certain fields within a research university if he genuinely believes that grants count for more than books.  That would be the best way to get denied tenure in my history department at a research university. 

And really, the only thread running through the entire article is his angst that other people don't think that Iowa State is as awesome as he thinks it is.  And instead of writing a good article about the perils of institutional snobbery, he tried to pretend that he was really writing about tenure. 

[kedves]

Perhaps it would be helpful for this article to be followed by a similar article written from a small school perspective.

An excellent idea.

It would also be helpful for this article to be followed by an article written by someone from a research university perspective, since this didn't do a good job even from that perspective. It's ironic that he spends so much time about talking about good institutional fit, and he doesn't understand the discipline-specific and institution-specific nature of his advice.  Clearly he's talking only about certain fields within a research university if he genuinely believes that grants count for more than books.  That would be the best way to get denied tenure in my history department at a research university. 

And really, the only thread running through the entire article is his angst that other people don't think that Iowa State is as awesome as he thinks it is.  And instead of writing a good article about the perils of institutional snobbery, he tried to pretend that he was really writing about tenure. 

I agree (and he has a bit of a chip on that shoulder, doesn't he?).  Like many CHE articles, this one is a good idea that doesn't fully materialize.  The division is too sharp between the CHE's news articles, which rely mostly on easily obtainable information, and analysis articles, which are almost always first-person accounts.  What's missing are articles that give a broader view of an issue initiated and edited by a CHE journalist, for example an interview round-up or a series of interviews with several people representing a range of perspectives on the topics.  The reliance on seemingly unedited first-person articles for important topics creates missed opportunities and sometimes weird, excessively autobiographical, meandering, or otherwise less than useful results.

[dr_evil]

What's missing are articles that give a broader view of an issue initiated and edited by a CHE journalist, for example an interview round-up or a series of interviews with several people representing a range of perspectives on the topics.  The reliance on seemingly unedited first-person articles for important topics creates missed opportunities and sometimes weird, excessively autobiographical, meandering, or otherwise less than useful results.

Too true.  And another wonderful idea about the interviews with many people.  It would work well, IMO, to have a series of shorter articles, each focusing on a specific aspect (or in this case, institution type).  Have a few experts give their view and give some comparisons between those views.  I could see those evolving into some lengthy discussions here on the forum, especially if the interviewees would be willing to participate.