next »

[systeme_d_]

Wow, Engedprof, I am so happy to say that my experience in no way resembles yours.

[spyzowin]

I've seen three types of older colleague:

1. the long term committed super scholar who has earned his or her place through active and constant publishing, serious service, and excellent teaching. These people are not a problem. They might be abrasive, but they've earned the right.

2. the increasingly marginalized, out of touch, out of date, inactive scholar, who made tenure but never would do so today, but who knows it and feels inferior to the junior people. These scholars may be the types who never really put in the serious service, but who show up to all the meetings, keep their heads down, but never decline an obligation. I feel for them and think that junior people should try to draw them out of their shells. They have seen it all over the years, and are a good source of departmental information. These profs are sometimes the best teachers in the department.

3. Obstructionist deadwood who vote "present" at important faculty meetings. Haven't published in years, haven't made any meaningful service commitments, and are seriously lousy teachers. Yet somehow they make their way onto a P&T where they terrorize their betters. These people will eventually retire, and I think we just have to be patient until then.

[terpsichore]

I've seen the types of senior colleagues that Amnirov describes, but they are not the only types of senior colleagues. There are also faculty who focused on research in the early stages of their career, but whose scholarly interests shift over time, typically to improving teaching, reforming curricula, student welfare, faculty issues, budget reform, or some other aspect of university life. Some of these colleagues go into administration, but others stay in their departments as faculty.  These colleagues make important contributions, but they may slow or even cease publishing research.  From the outside they may seem to be 'deadwood', but their thoughtful work and dedication deserves respect.

Perlmutter does not highlight one difference in expectations between faculty hired now and those hired decades ago. In the STEM fields, research universities usually make a large start-up investment to enable new faculty to set up their labs. That investment has escalated in the last 20 years. Part of the pressure on young faculty in the STEM fields to get grants comes because the university wants to recoup its investment.

[nocalprof]

I have to say, my first reaction to this thread was to STFU and stay away from it, knowing how bitter I already am about this issue.

However, at this very moment our dead wood pile is having a very intense and loud conversation down the hall about the intricacies about how Google works ("Did you realize that Google actually goes out and worms its way across the Internets on its own??").

These two in particular pull in just shy of six figures a year to sit and gab ALL DAY LONG.  One of them refuses to sit on any committee - he'll never get promoted to full, but he has no desire to - he puts out a paper every 2-3 years and he's happy to sit and gab.  The other one does a fair amount of committee work, but not at the college or university level, and he literally hasn't published anything since the mid-90's (nor gotten funding of course).  And he told me with a straight face during my interview here that the only way I would rise in the ranks is to publish publish publish because we have a reputation to uphold.

I wish I could say they were both stellar teachers, but they're not - all the junior faculty blow them away in numerical evaluatins, and since they've hired new faculty we've doubled the size of undergrad majors because we pull people in from the intro classes.

Sigh.

[zoelouise]

Never mind.

[fannie]

Well, I agree generally with OAProff and LarryC.

In my department, I am the only one who publishes at a rate that even approaches a top 100 SLAC.  I was fairly sure that it would be held against me at tenure time.  I would be told I was publishing too much and not teaching or servicing enough. In fact, a colleague from another department told me point blank that if I did not publish on pedagogy then I had no reason to be at this university.


In actual point of fact, my publications are what got me tenured despite any B and M about me from departmental factions.  The old standard "she publishes a lot" in "traditional scholarship" weighed out more heavily than any other category in the eval. 

As for the standards, well, on the books they are pretty fair standards.  You can't get the highest eval for research unless you publish in a major, peer-reviewed journal or hold an exec position on a national professional conference.  But I got to participate in departmental evaluations every year and could see how loosely we evaluated these criteria - fact is that I could slide by doing much less.  I took advantage of these loose criteria because I needed to retrain into a secondary discipline once I started this job, so I am really thankful that I still appeared to be research heavy.

I am pleased to be able to step back from doing the doubletime work of service and teaching now that I have tenure.

As for respecting the senior colleagues:  each of my colleagues did something with excellence that I cannot do.  Either they were stellar as teachers or stellar in navigating the university political network. 

I try to keep my mouth shut when my chair does something particularly dumbass  and look for progresses made.  I am forever grateful to the others who mentored me through the tenure process, too.

As for my junior colleagues respecting me: well I really don't give a damn what they think of me, to be perfectly honest.  As long as they follow my model in treating colleagues with respect in word and deed, and as long as they pull their weight, I don't really care what they spend their time doing, teaching or research. 


My recollection as a junior was that I felt pretty full of myself.  I recollect serving on search committees where we interviewed a lot of young hotshots who also felt pretty full of themselves.  I particularly recollect one dude who was trying to teach us some theoretical method that was, in essence, STRUCTURALISM!  I thought that was pretty funny. 

My sense is that going through the tenure process pretty much pricks that balloon of arrogance.  I don't mind feeling less full of myself now.  I would advise juniors to get over themselves sooner rather than later.  You aren't the best thing that ever happened to this campus or to this profession.  Even if you feel that way when you are frustrated by the 'deadwood' in the department.

[ruralguy]

I am an 11th year scientist at a SLAC, and about 3 years out from promotion to full.

My SLAC is ranked 100-ish, and I really mean the bottom of that (from US News anyway--ranked
muvh higher by others).

I'd say I publish "every several years" (1st authored peer reviewed paper), in addition to a smattering of
2nd authorships, small grants, etc. I have recieved two awards from my college, one regarding research,
and 1 being for general achievement.

Its hard to know if this is any longer typical for those coming up for tenure, but I know for a fact its better than both of the tenure cases in my field. Its probably significantly "worse" (or at least lower output) than something like a dozen or so colleages (of 80-ish tenured and TT), though its probably one of the higher out puts in the sciences here.

My teaching is generally good, with some smatterings of excellence, and, unfortunately, an occaional bomb.

I've chaired committees and served on others.

Our college T&P committee has the middle of the roaders that I think Larryc mentioned.  I suppose I resemble that remark, though I haven't been on Tand P.

If I were, I'd probably critique research (partcularly of scientists) more than teaching, simply because I know I am not necessarily the most stellar example. Though, I can spot a real stinker, I  suppose. In general one shouldn't go off too much on someone if they know they have some flaws in that area themselves. I don't mean they should shut up, but have the sense to let someone else to take the lead.


I honestly hope that people wont see me as deadwood once I decide to write more textbooks than papers, but so be it.

[untenured]

Although senior deadwood does exist, it might not be appropriate to compare senior and junior productivity on a 1 to 1 basis.  Part of the reason why professors were less productive in 1975 was that there were far fewer resources available in many fields.  Imagine being as productive as you are now without, say, the internet or even a computer.

This does not fully account for the difference, of course, but may be something to think about.

Untenured

[msparticularity]

There are also faculty who focused on research in the early stages of their career, but whose scholarly interests shift over time, typically to improving teaching, reforming curricula, student welfare, faculty issues, budget reform, or some other aspect of university life. Some of these colleagues go into administration, but others stay in their departments as faculty.  These colleagues make important contributions, but they may slow or even cease publishing research.  From the outside they may seem to be 'deadwood', but their thoughtful work and dedication deserves respect.

Yes, this is what I see among the vast majority of my senior colleagues also. There are one or two who don't seem to have done much since tenure besides complain and annoy others, of course, but you can find people like that in any workplace--and it's certainly no reason to go around painting people as deadwood with a broad brush. It's certainly true that the vast differences in expectations can lead to misunderstandings, when our senior colleagues don't truly understand what is involved in the amount of work that is expected of younger scholars. However, communication seems the appropriate way to work that out, rather than defaulting into condescension, bitterness, and dismissal of their genuine expertise in other areas.

[spyzowin]

Although senior deadwood does exist, it might not be appropriate to compare senior and junior productivity on a 1 to 1 basis.  Part of the reason why professors were less productive in 1975 was that there were far fewer resources available in many fields.  Imagine being as productive as you are now without, say, the internet or even a computer.

This does not fully account for the difference, of course, but may be something to think about.

Untenured

Although the lax standards of yesteryear are an issue, I don't think it would be so much of an issue if the deadwood had slowly increased their output. The problem is when people did virtually nothing to get tenured, and then started doing less than that.

[neutralname]

As to the question whether the portrait of senior faculty is fair or not, I won't say anything.  I've contributed to many threads about deadwood in the past.

I'm more interested in the psychological part, concealing resentment and respecting people.  I've got a colleague who makes little effort to conceal his contempt for others.  He is more productive than most and he seems a little paranoid.  He has managed to isolate himself from colleagues and administration. 

I've got another colleague who is extremely pleasant to everyone, and votes with the majority on just about every issue.  Yet she actually gets upset about what is said and about the fact that she does not get what she wants.

I conclude that neither full honesty nor faking it are in themselves good policies.  It's a matter of building coalitions and support, remaining collegial, picking your battles, not making it personal, and remembering that it is only academics.   

[spyzowin]

I conclude that neither full honesty nor faking it are in themselves good policies.  It's a matter of building coalitions and support, remaining collegial, picking your battles, not making it personal, and remembering that it is only academics.   

This is wise advice.  Align yourself with the senior faculty who are on the most labor intensive if not necessarily most important committees and who continue to research and publish. Volunteer for everything when you're untenured so that when you are tenured you'll get invitations to the really good committees as a reward for tedious service.

Don't take it too seriously. Just tell yourself that you're upset at someone who has spent the last thirty years pretending to study Merovingian trade and yet has no idea how to check his voice mail or trim his horrible orange toenails.

[janewales]

It's important to remember that "senior" is a big tent. If what we're talking about are people who sit on the t and p committees that will decide the fate of current juniors, then at my university at least, that means everyone at or above rank-- new associate professors, senior associate professors, new full professors, senior full professors.... At least two of these groups-- the newly promoted at each rank-- have met _current_ standards, not standards of the past, which may or may not have been less stringent (there's a bit of mythologizing about how easy tenure used to be-- in my department, the generation that really could get tenure on an article has retired).

While it's easy and even kind of fun at times to rant about "deadwood" who got tenure on the basis of a 2-sentence note, it's important to remember that many of the people deciding your fate did in fact work very hard to get into that position, and may now be working even harder because, as others have pointed out, now that they are senior, they are often called upon to do a great deal of administration. Yes, it sometimes comes with teaching release, but many kinds of administration do not, and those that do often expand to fill all that time and more (a lot of higher-level admin requires full-time commitment over the summer, for example). The newly-promoted associate still has a promotion to think about; the newly-promoted full has been acculturated, for perhaps the last 15 years, to work all the time.... Schools differ, of course, but at my R1, anyway, I'm not seeing a lot of true deadwood.

[mozman]

Its annoying.  But it was a different time.

I have outlined before how my undergrad adviser got his job (NOT my grad adviser - he has >150 pubs and several million dollars in current grant money). 

His post-doctoral adviser thought that after 3 years he had been a post-doc long enough and called his buddy the chair at the local state university (my undergrad alma mater).  The hire was made - no interview.  He had 2 publications from his dissertation and one middle author pub from his 3-year post-doc.

He got tenure with no additional pubs.

He got promoted to Full with one middle author pub with his post-doc adviser as lead author (15 years after leaving the lab) and one pub "in review".

This last "in review" paper bothers me because it was MY paper.  We got the reviews back (a substantial revise and resubmit) and since he had gotten promoted in the meantime he never completed the revision.  This was 13 years ago.

But he is a great guy, and a good teacher, and he doesn't skimp on service.  Still, most of the young hires in the department had a better research record in their last year of grad school than this guy had in his whole career.

[spyzowin]

But he is a great guy, and a good teacher, and he doesn't skimp on service.  Still, most of the young hires in the department had a better research record in their last year of grad school than this guy had in his whole career.

Well, he's not really deadwood if he is at least good at two out of three things.