next »

[snu88]

With a PhD from one of the top schools in the field, I started off my career in industry (in a medical device company). I had a good time there, building a good industry research career and making good money, but 6 years later I decided to re-steer my career back to academia and managed to get a TT position at one of state universities in the West. Income got reduced almost by half (partly because I wasn't a good negotiator), yet I was really happy back in academia, teaching students and having my own lab, etc. I got two external grants, one from a private foundation, the other from the NIH (R03). But the department environment was sub-par in terms of research support. Partly because I was not a good negotiator, I didn't have much start-up support, no real mechanism in place to buy out courses. In hindsight, it might have been bearable, but at times I was frustrated for the lack of the mindset for research in other colleagues (It was relatively a weak department, definitely not like the one I graduated from). Anyhow I probably did OK there, because I got a favorable 3rd year review.

Then I came across a new TT job opportunity from one of Big Ten medical schools, luring me with great support for research. I didn't think very much and hastily came on board, almost out of frustration at the previous place. Now, 3 years later, to make a long story short, I am demoralized, resentful, lost, deprived of enthusiasm, have been misled, been lied to, gained a lot of gray hair (I am 42), started to develop health issues due to stress. Above all, I am pushed to the edge, I will have to leave if I don't bring an NIH R01 grant by next year.

Well, I should face the reality. I got out of the first academic job because of the lack of research support. Now, they provide support in this job, so they want a return. If not, they wouldn't consider it worthwhile to keep me. That's fair, isn't it?

It's not actually that straightforward, because they never truthfully delivered what was promised. It was a horribly poor management. This is a great school overall, but situations in a medical school can be dicey and I was totally unprepared. There are some unique aspects about being a TT faculty member in a med school. If you are either an M.D. or a PhD with right backgrounds to cover some of courses to teach med students, you are a true faculty member. However, if not, your identity as a faculty member can be very flimsy and there are plenty of ways that can go wrong. "Research faculty" should be brought in to a med school only through insightful and specific planning by the upper administrative team, who however often neglect their duties. If things don't go well, they would  say, 'well this guy is not the right material, let's keep looking...'

Now I am trying to get back to the regular academic program that I came from. But I am finding the doors that used to wide open for me are now closed. 6 years ago or 3 years ago, I was probably a better job candidate at that career stage, but right now without R01, I am no more than someone who got denied tenure and lurk around to get a second chance.

In a medical school, your tenure can be only denied. There is no such concept as a "tenured" position in a med school. Beware. Don't make the mistake I made.

Wish me luck.

[mozman]

If you took the job without knowing exactly what it entailed, you are a moron and I am completely unsurprised that you failed.

I spent 7 years TT at one of the top Medical Schools in the country. Competely soft money. I was fully funded by NIH by my third year. If my grants were not successfull, I fully expected to be fired.

This was made clear to me on my interview, and by simply looking around me.

I left for a non med school position recently for personal reasons. my med school dept begged me tp stay.

[snu88]

I spent 7 years TT at one of the top Medical Schools in the country. Competely soft money. I was fully funded by NIH by my third year. If my grants were not successfull, I fully expected to be fired.

This was made clear to me on my interview, and by simply looking around me.

I left for a non med school position recently for personal reasons. my med school dept begged me tp stay.

Well, now I know that your case is perfectly "normal." I should have known it. But what I was told was not as straightforward. I was told that it was not a soft money position, that while getting R01 funding is important in the long term, nonetheless I would be a good addition to the dept with my background in medical device research and clinical applications. The contract did not say that I must be fully funded by 3rd year otherwise I would be let go. Simply by looking around..? Well I should have looked around more, but at least in this dept there are quite a few PhD's that stay here indefinitely long without their own funding. The deal I got was almost "too good to be true" and it didn't seem like nothing to lose. The reality I faced once I came was just cold-blooded, "normal." Yes, I am a moron that got surprised by normalcy. I was too naive. I should have known better. So I am sharing this with others.

(Still the things about the folks without their own funding do not look normal, but I guess that's not my business.)

Probably my case is a combination of personal failure and dysfunction of the structure (including the deception during hiring and beyond). Maybe we shouldn't dwell on the former in this forum, but the latter could happen to anyone, any time, any where, couldn't it? That might be helpful to others. Maybe I put a wrong title---maybe this is not only for med schools, but maybe applicable everywhere.

In case you wonder, yes, many things were documented and I could present evidence of their unprofessionalism to third party. But so what? I don't want to advertise that I am a failure. I should go back wherever I better belong. And I am sad because it doesn't look easy at this moment. So, again, please wish me luck.

[merinoblue]

In a medical school, your tenure can be only denied. There is no such concept as a "tenured" position in a med school. Beware. Don't make the mistake I made.

Really? You've done a study of this and know this for a fact about all med schools?  This would certainly come as a surprise to all the tenured faculty I know in med schools.

You're generalizing based on your single experience.

[mozman]

In a medical school, your tenure can be only denied. There is no such concept as a "tenured" position in a med school. Beware. Don't make the mistake I made.

Really? You've done a study of this and know this for a fact about all med schools?  This would certainly come as a surprise to all the tenured faculty I know in med schools.

You're generalizing based on your single experience.

Actually, in many med schools, there is no effective tenure.  At my former institution, they only offered "tenure" at Full Professor (not Associate).  However, even if you had tenure, you were still soft money.  If you had no grants, they couldn't fire you, but did not have to pay you.

Is it tenure if it doesn't come with any salary?  I don't think so.

But again, none of this was hidden. It was hammered into us again and again.

OP, if none of this was spelled out in your contract or Faculty Handbook, then contact an attorney.  But I bet it was.

[snu88]

In a medical school, your tenure can be only denied. There is no such concept as a "tenured" position in a med school. Beware. Don't make the mistake I made.

Really? You've done a study of this and know this for a fact about all med schools?  This would certainly come as a surprise to all the tenured faculty I know in med schools.

You're generalizing based on your single experience.

If you can cover some courses in the med school in the curriculum (and if that is the job expectation), the tenure process can be pretty much the same as elsewhere. For those on the other side--the "research-only" side, things are quite different. If you have your own R01 (or equivalent), you are de facto tenured, regardless of the position title and rank, and generally they try their best to keep you with some additionally sweetened deals (such as more lab space, better admin support, even a pay increase---not the way you think.. they sometimes let you get paid more from the grant you bring in). For those not familiar with this---this is pretty much all business. If you bring in money, you are treated well. R01 by default brings $1.25 mil plus about half of that goes to the school as an indirect. Those who bring in R01's are treated with special status. That's the way it is.

However, suppose you were full prof and had stayed so long time with full funding, and unfortunately failed to renew the grant at one point. Then you'd have to beg for mercy. Even if your status is "tenured," they can do all kinds of nasty things on you. They harass you in ways that they are not supposed to. For example, during the "unfortunate" period of lapse of funding, suppose they had agreed to provide X dollars support in the contract, but they actually try to only give you 0.5 X dollars. You get upset of course (and they know it) and try to fight, but in the end you might get only 0.75 X support. (and of course you don't go to court to get the rest of 0.25X back for the similar reasons that I don't fight in my situation). Once this happens, you realize that your career as a so-called "established researcher" is not that all secure.

I know one acquaintance who had been funded for almost 20 years in one place. Everything was fine, good performance, and having good interactions with colleagues, etc. One point, a new chair came in and changed the department culture. Shortly after, unlucky for him, he couldn't renew his grant. Instantly his lab got taken away, his salary got down to 25%. He was basically forced to retire, after 2 decades of revenue generation for the organization. Sounds foreign? Maybe so if you are only in academia. Sadly it does make sense in the eyes of "business." Sadly many med schools operate on this model. Officially he was still a full professor with tenure. So, what does tenure mean to him?

In regular academic programs, if you have made significant contributions/achievement in your career long enough, you don't have to worry about your job as a tenured full professor. You could decide to "slow down" in your research and explore some other things that you haven't really done a lot--like doing some work in admin or maybe more teaching, etc, and slowly prepare for your retirement. You don't have that luxury in med schools.

You may say I am over-generalizing based on fragmentary observations. I admit that this is an extreme case and you don't hear this kind of horror stories often. Of course, another reason that this doesn't happen often is, there are several mechanisms (officially and unofficially) that I didn't mention here to prevent these unfortunate events. In fact, many tenured people in med school you know are protected that way, not by the tenure system itself. I do point out that being in this kind of environment we all come to realize that getting tenured in med schools on research track is pretty different and set up our own strategies to survive.

I can say that I have done some study of this. It was too late, though. And the more I learn, the more reasons I see that things are not in favor of me.

[alleyoxenfree]

OP, I wish you well as you dig out from this mess.  I found it interesting to read about.  Others have been through similar things but your details make for fascinating new twists and turns to the academic saga.

If I were your friend, I'd advise you to focus on all that you've accomplished, and on the fact that you've made several reasonable moves, the last one of which didn't turn out as well as you hoped.  People do lie and deceive, and sometimes it's easy (for the well-connected, well-mentored white men, disproportionately, and children of the rich) for others to criticize about what others should and shouldn't have known.

Dust off your CV and use your experience about what turned out well for you so far in your career, and what didn't, and go into the next search with more knowledge.  You have excellent skills, where this place tenured you or not.  Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants, but that would be my own personal form of revenge. :-)

Good luck.

[snu88]

OP, if none of this was spelled out in your contract or Faculty Handbook, then contact an attorney.  But I bet it was.

For those who care to know some details:

The official offer letter specifies that the dept is responsible for covering 70% of salary during the first 3 years (the rest 30% comes from my R03) and it is reduced to 50% afterwards. It further says on the 5th year I will be reviewed for tenure and a secured funding of R01 along with other factors will be considered for tenure decision.

What I am now told is that as of the 3rd year anniversary, the departmental salary portion will be 50% (as expected, that's not the issue here) and the institution's commitment to my employment will expire as of the end of 4th year. That is quite a twist of situation because my "tenure clock" suddenly got short, but maybe that's how I see it from the perspectives of regular academians. In a med school system, basically anything can be possible. I suspect that I could get that 5th year back if I go to court (or by even threatenning), but the matters are more complicated than that.

In addition to salary support, I was also promised in writing to be given X, Y and Z----I came to realize that they were not willing. I cried, fought, badgered, blackmailed them in friendly(?) ways and eventually got X, half of Y and not Z yet. This is how they harass people if they want. I am very sure that if I decide to go to court they will very quickly bring 0.5Y and Z to me and claim that they have done their legal obligations, nullifying the merit of the case. That's how I spent my 3 years here so far. So, I am not motivated to ask for mercy to fulfill the initial promise/implication of 5 year commitment.

I don't want to keep dragging on this "loser talk," but reading thus far you might have guessed that things are a lot more complicated down under. In case you are curious, a political/personality battle I had nothing to with was another factor that went in to play. The guy who recruited me was the enemy of everyone (which I had sensed a bit but I didn't know it would be this bad). It was very unfortunate for me to be unwittingly on the side of an unpopular person. Everyone, those in the dept and higher up admin people at the college level) are sympathetic with me but not truly interested in helping me, because they are reluctant to do anything with this guy. Probably they will do something if I become an immediate risk in their operations (like threatening a lawsuit or something). Without my own weapon (R01) ready at hand, that's suicidal.

[snu88]

OP, I wish you well as you dig out from this mess.  I found it interesting to read about.  Others have been through similar things but your details make for fascinating new twists and turns to the academic saga.

If I were your friend, I'd advise you to focus on all that you've accomplished, and on the fact that you've made several reasonable moves, the last one of which didn't turn out as well as you hoped.  People do lie and deceive, and sometimes it's easy (for the well-connected, well-mentored white men, disproportionately, and children of the rich) for others to criticize about what others should and shouldn't have known.

Dust off your CV and use your experience about what turned out well for you so far in your career, and what didn't, and go into the next search with more knowledge.  You have excellent skills, where this place tenured you or not.  Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants, but that would be my own personal form of revenge. :-)

Good luck.

Thank you very much for your advice. That's an excellent way to revenge. Get out and get even...

[alleyoxenfree]

OP, I wish you well as you dig out from this mess.  I found it interesting to read about.  Others have been through similar things but your details make for fascinating new twists and turns to the academic saga.

If I were your friend, I'd advise you to focus on all that you've accomplished, and on the fact that you've made several reasonable moves, the last one of which didn't turn out as well as you hoped.  People do lie and deceive, and sometimes it's easy (for the well-connected, well-mentored white men, disproportionately, and children of the rich) for others to criticize about what others should and shouldn't have known.

Dust off your CV and use your experience about what turned out well for you so far in your career, and what didn't, and go into the next search with more knowledge.  You have excellent skills, where this place tenured you or not.  Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants, but that would be my own personal form of revenge. :-)

Good luck.

Thank you very much for your advice. That's an excellent way to revenge. Get out and get even...

Actually, get out and become successful elsewhere is my advice.  I was mostly joking and don't waste too much time on revenge, which takes energy.  But I do always wonder why people who lie and deceive in academia think it never comes around - even if they don't know it.  For instance, I've had opportunities to assign people's books, and know they would love the sales, but I just don't feel motivated to teach the work of people who have been rotten to me, so I don't.  Their loss.

Your story about being promised things that weren't delivered, unfortunately, happens to others.  So does the stuff about higher-ups being unwilling to intervene, even when they can.

Spend all your energies on getting out of this hellhole and you will likely be able to leave them in your rearview mirror.

[oldfullprof]

My advisor, who's famous, wanted me to apply to med schools, or at least for a postdoc.  Many medical sociologists filter through Rutgers, for example.  I had no desire to be a handmaiden. 

[mozman]

I'm not disputing the OP that these things happen at medical schools. They do.  They are very common - the norm rather than the exception.

I'm simply boggled that the OP was surprised by any of this.  This is common knowledge.  Who gives up a successful position to take a new job without researching and knowing all the facts?  Maybe the dept. did act dishonestly (I personally doubt it - in my experience, these traits are a point of pride for such departments, and they advertise them), there are ways of doing your homework and finding out what the score is before accepting the job.

If you don't do your research, you are going to get screwed.

Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants

I know this is a joke, but it reinforces my opinion that many administrators at NIH and NSF took these jobs because they couldn't hack it as scientists.  Also, the PO has very little to say about whether a grant is funded at NIH - they can push a borderline grant over the line at the end of the year if there is money left over, but neither the PO or the SRA has any say in the review process.

[mleok]

I'm not disputing the OP that these things happen at medical schools. They do.  They are very common - the norm rather than the exception.

I'm simply boggled that the OP was surprised by any of this.  This is common knowledge.  Who gives up a successful position to take a new job without researching and knowing all the facts?  Maybe the dept. did act dishonestly (I personally doubt it - in my experience, these traits are a point of pride for such departments, and they advertise them), there are ways of doing your homework and finding out what the score is before accepting the job.

If you don't do your research, you are going to get screwed.

Agreed, I'm in applied mathematics, and even I am aware that a tenure track position in a medical school is essentially a soft money position, which can be particularly stressful for those without a clinical practice, since it essentially entails continually competing for huge grants in an increasingly competitive funding climate.

For a clinician-scientist, tenure does impart some measure of stability, since it guarantees the position and affiliation with the medical school, which provides one with the opportunity to practice medicine, and thereby bring in money, without necessarily having to compete for grant money.

I know this is a joke, but it reinforces my opinion that many administrators at NIH and NSF took these jobs because they couldn't hack it as scientists.  Also, the PO has very little to say about whether a grant is funded at NIH - they can push a borderline grant over the line at the end of the year if there is money left over, but neither the PO or the SRA has any say in the review process.

I don't know about NIH, but I've found the permanent program managers at NSF to be competent scientists, who transitioned either from tenured academic positions, or permanent staff positions at the national labs. I would not discount the influence of program managers at NSF, since they convene the panel, and given the fact that only a small handful of proposals receive the highest priority for funding from the panel, and a much larger group receive a fund if possible rating, which gives the program manager pretty broad discretion to fund proposals from this "borderline" category.

[snu88]

I'm not disputing the OP that these things happen at medical schools. They do.  They are very common - the norm rather than the exception.

I'm simply boggled that the OP was surprised by any of this.  This is common knowledge.  Who gives up a successful position to take a new job without researching and knowing all the facts?  Maybe the dept. did act dishonestly (I personally doubt it - in my experience, these traits are a point of pride for such departments, and they advertise them), there are ways of doing your homework and finding out what the score is before accepting the job.

If you don't do your research, you are going to get screwed.

mozman, for the record, I have no intention of defending myself. You are right. I didn't do the homework so I am screwed. No excuses. Period.

People being dishonest shouldn't be the point here. If you really ask me which one I agree with more---me being an idiot or them being dishonest. I would actually pick the former. Do you think I am really blaming others in this mess? I said earlier that this is a combination of my personal failure and structural dysfunction. The personal part is my own homework to do from now on (including figuring out how to get an R01 in the near future whether here or elsewhere) and shouldn't be the subject of this forum. The structural part was, I thought, something to be shared with everyone here. I suspected some might find it useful. So I posted. Should I have not done it?  Did I offend you any way? You can disagree with me but why do you have to tear me down? Earlier you called me a moron. And I accepted it. But I felt that it would be fair to provide some details here in case if you or anyone cares. Obviously you still doubt that they were dishonest. That's fine. I have no more comments because there's a possibility that you may be really right. But you got it wrong if you thought that I was blaming others. I truly truly think that I am an idiot and moron to have gotten myself screwed. And the best way to get me out of here is for ME to get an R01. Not THEM giving me something or helping me some way.

So, please, please stop insulting the injured.

[geonerd]

Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants

I know this is a joke, but it reinforces my opinion that many administrators at NIH and NSF took these jobs because they couldn't hack it as scientists.  Also, the PO has very little to say about whether a grant is funded at NIH - they can push a borderline grant over the line at the end of the year if there is money left over, but neither the PO or the SRA has any say in the review process.

The hypothetical PO would have a conflict of interest and may not be permitted to oversee proposals from his or her former institution.

I've been very impressed by the competence, broad knowledge, and thoughtfulness of the PO's (NSF, NASA) with whom I've worked.