next »

[hiddendragon]

Hi, everyone,

I'm still on the tt, but I'm just curious about those who remain at associate level for a long time--20 years and still associate level, for example.  Why do they not get promoted?  Secondly, do they give you a timeline--like 6 years for assistant profs.--to obtain associate and then to move to full prof?  Or, do you just move whenever you've fulfilled the criteria?  So, for example, if you missed the time line in 6 years (or 4, or whatever) to advance from associate to full is there no hope of ever making full prof?  Again, this is just my own curiosity about the process beyond tenure.  I'm not looking to offend anynone here.

[instructorman]

I've wondered that myself to some extent.

I think maybe (my last promotion being from assist to assoc prof) that some people might finally decide that it's not worth the hassle for a couple of thousand a year more. Or perhaps they've moved on to other interests (possibly outside of their academic focus). Or perhaps they feel they've made too many enemies along the way who would sabotage their application.

In looking at it from my perspective the only real benefit that I see at my school (other than the money and title) is that you get fast tracked onto "more glamorous" committees like searches for deans, presidents and provosts, all of which can prove to be huge time burglars.

[seniorscholar]

In my R-1 English department (and a number of similar departments where I have friends or have done outside promotion reviews) the basic qualification is a "second book indicating national or international reputation." Of course it's the last five words there that can cause major arguments in the department's (or college's) promotion committee meeting: good university press, reviews in variety of journals, invitations to give keynote talks at national/international conferences or visiting lectures at international universities, etc. etc. There's often a predisposition to discount a second book very similar to the first (in topics and methods), and there's also an understanding that the "selfish" scholar who never shows up on campus except when teaching and who never takes on any significant committee/administration responsibilities, or who doesn't produce grad students who "do well" in the profession, has to reach a much higher research bar. All of these things, however, are unstated except when a meeting is in progress: the published requirement is (1) another major book and (2) adequate teaching and service.

In my department, we've had one recent promotion to full of a person whose first book, 30 years after tenure (which, frankly, had been granted for burdensome service in a program long since discontinued) was truly significant, based on years of archival work, and reviewed not only in academic journals but in places such as the New York Review of Books. We've also not promoted someone with three mediocre books on the same topic who had done no service whatsoever and never had a grad student. And several of us have been promoted to full within four years after tenure. So the time factor is unimportant except for one thing (which I learned only be sitting on the college committee one year): the Dean will not approve the promotion of someone who has done nothing of significance even when the department has clearly wanted to make the promotion a retirement gift (only full profs can retire as Emeritus, giving them a number of lifetime campus and library privileges).

Yet of course: this must clearly be extremely institution and field dependent, even more than tenure itself. In fact, I remembered while typing that I've done an outside promotion review when the chair clearly signaled to me that retirement was looming for the candidate [and they wanted to promote therefore].

[aside]

Associates that do not get promoted to full generally fall short of the requirements in the area of research/creative activity, though deficiencies in teaching effectiveness will be a problem at teaching institutions, and not being a good colleague will not help your case.  Rate of scholarly productivity is a factor, but there usually is no set timeline as there is for tenure.

[shrek]

At my university (R-1), there is a post tenure review after 5 years in rank (and every 5 after that). At that first point and at 5 year intervals, you are considered for promotion. After the first 5 year consideration you can ask to be considered for promotion. Usually those who are then put up for promotion are those who have continued to be very active in research and publishing. Often, they publish more as associate profs than as assistant profs. They are those who are doing nationally and internationally recognized work, winning prestigious awards, getting their 2nd R01. Some folks stay research-active (but not THAT research active) and as a result they may not be put up for promotion to full. Some opt to shift into doing more service-oriented work. Some basically retire in the job (not too many, but some).  They won't be promoted to full.

[janewales]

My research university's framework agreement specifies that it is not expected that everyone will be promoted to full. I have spent several years on faculty- and university-level tenure and promotion committees, and the areas that usually cause trouble for applications for promotion to full professor are

1. An underwhelming research profile (might include things like a thin publication record; underwhelming venues; or a certain monotony to the work)
2. Insufficient evidence of recognition/ reputation in the field (things like a lack of invitations; letter-writers who say they were unfamiliar with the person's work before being asked to review the file; a lack of grant success)
3. A lack of successful supervision of graduate students (seems particularly crucial in the lab sciences)
4. Poor teaching

I have seen files where someone is moving within 4 years; I have seen cases where it's been 20 years or more since the promotion to associate.

[larryc]

I think those 20-year associates are all folks who could not get the second book out at places with a substantial publication requirement for promotion. Also, at some schools the pay bump is not very significant.

[systeme_d_]

At my old place, some folks stayed at associate because the pay bump was not all that huge, and because the service expectation went up tremendously at full. 

Yes, there were also some folks who just didn't want to write that second book, but more folks I knew were just not willing to do more service.  These were usually folks who commuted, too. 

[janewales]

At my old place, some folks stayed at associate because the pay bump was not all that huge, and because the service expectation went up tremendously at full.   

The pay bump isn't huge at first at my place: a very modest 1.5K or so in the year of promotion. But a promotion does initiate a whole new set of salary steps: 1.5K a year, ad infinitum. That does add up. It is also easier to make a case for a correction to inversion from the position of full (as opposed to senior associate). So there are real financial incentives to making the final move.

However, it's true that the service expectations rise too. Here, department chairs have to be fulls, for example. That alone would be a good reason for never making the jump!

[totoro]

Hi, everyone,

I'm still on the tt, but I'm just curious about those who remain at associate level for a long time--20 years and still associate level, for example.  Why do they not get promoted?  Secondly, do they give you a timeline--like 6 years for assistant profs.--to obtain associate and then to move to full prof?  Or, do you just move whenever you've fulfilled the criteria?  So, for example, if you missed the time line in 6 years (or 4, or whatever) to advance from associate to full is there no hope of ever making full prof?  Again, this is just my own curiosity about the process beyond tenure.  I'm not looking to offend anynone here.

I think this is much more variable by university culture compared to the assistant to associate/tenure process that is much more uniform across institutions and will be different at teaching and research oriented universities. I was at a non-elite R1 university in the US where I got tenure. I was told in order to apply for full I need to serve time in teaching and service at the institution or I would annoy the committee whatever my research track record was. At other places it all depends on track record but the quality of track record required will vary a lot. At my alma mater it seemed to take a long time to get to full prof. Here in Aus it is all about research track record and international reputation. There are more full profs at the top research universities as a result. People who remain associate forever - see "terminal associate prof" e.g. http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2009/03/terminal-associate.html

The paybump here is like $A20k per year. At my US R1 the full profs in my department with one exception earned $US25k or more more than me.

[busyslinky]

Longterm Associate Professors are those that have not been productive in their research for a number of years.  They may have served as administrators or been wonderful teachers, but that is not enough.

In my case when I went up for Full Prof. the major issue at my school was how long I was in the position at Assoc. Prof.  They wanted at least six year (unofficially). But, if I had pressed, I probably could have gone up earlier. 

[polly_mer]

I think those 20-year associates are all folks who could not get the second book out at places with a substantial publication requirement for promotion. Also, at some schools the pay bump is not very significant.

I'm not sure what our pay bump is, but I do know that, at the moment, becoming an associate professor is a separate step from being tenured.  I would bet folding money that part of the reason for the disconnect is an institutional history of tenuring people to fulfill certain roles that are extremely difficult to fill even with an international search.  Consequently, those people are tenured for that one tiny niche skill set, but because of the failure in basic skills like teaching and service, these folks will never be promoted to full (under the old system where the rank of associate came with tenure) or associate (under the new system where associate is a separate step after tenure).

[pgher]

There is one in my (engineering) department retiring shortly.  Out of curiosity, I looked at his publication record.  I can't find anything since 1995, and only two journal articles in total.  (Of course, electronic databases are less reliable when looking at the '80s.)  As busyslinky notes, my colleague is a good teacher (and teaches an overload), but that's just not enough at an R2.

[oldfullprof]

Got it after four.  I had cut my pubs to about one a year, but that was way-enough for our teaching place.

[hiddendragon]

Thanks for responding, everyone.  I have been worried about the production of grad. student requirement.  They DO NOT specialize in my field here and I doubt I will get many grad. students, if any.  So far, I've only had 8 that applied to study with me.  The dept. accepted zero.  If production of grad. students is one of the requirements, I am afraid I'm gonna have to move when the opportunity presents itself for me.  I may have to go to a place where I can supervise grad. students.  And, of course, I'm thinking of this now because I know how hard it is to move once one is tenured.