next »

[janewales]

I'd definitely insist that they count my already published book toward tenure.

We hire people like you quite often, and while it is indeed typical to offer a shortened tenure clock and to pay attention to publications that came before, we also need to see new and ongoing productivity. So it's important, particularly if you're negotiating for a shorter clock, to be certain that you still have work in the pipeline and can place several things well, quite quickly. The chances are that what you needed for tenure at your current institution isn't enough for tenure at an institution that is a step up, so be realistic as you think about what it will take to get to a tenurable file at the new place, and be careful in how you frame your concerns about your previous publications-- you don't want to sound like you think you can coast.

[lameusername]

I didn't think about it that way--the reason I want to move on is because I want to do more research, not less. But it is true, if I want everything on my cv to count, it may create an impression that I don't want to work too hard. I do have new work. I just have little time to make it really good and send it out, with my current teaching and service load. Your advice will make me think twice about how much time on my tenure clock I'd want to condense.

[txgalprof]

yes

[larryc]

I made  a lateral move with a big drop in pay and gave up tenure four years ago. I moved from a place very similar to where you are now to an exciting city that I love and a job with different and more interesting responsibilities. I was tenured here last spring and love the job and the area. Don't be afraid to make the move.

[aside]

I'm just posting to note that I just made a move from a tenured position to a TT position.  My reason for leaving?

1) Old job = bad location, in a state institution with financial troubles and poor leadership

2) New job = fabulous location, in a (mostly) well-run private institution with no significant financial troubles.

I made a move similar to systeme_d's (though location was not a factor) to a much more highly ranked research university.  It worked out really well, but I must say the shortened tenure track made the first two years harrowing.  There were no guarantees and a good bit of risk, for the reasons janewales indicates:

We hire people like you quite often, and while it is indeed typical to offer a shortened tenure clock and to pay attention to publications that came before, we also need to see new and ongoing productivity. So it's important, particularly if you're negotiating for a shorter clock, to be certain that you still have work in the pipeline and can place several things well, quite quickly. The chances are that what you needed for tenure at your current institution isn't enough for tenure at an institution that is a step up, so be realistic as you think about what it will take to get to a tenurable file at the new place, and be careful in how you frame your concerns about your previous publications-- you don't want to sound like you think you can coast.

This is excellent advice.  Consider carefully whether you have what it takes to succeed at a higher level (and if possible get a second opinion from someone you respect and can trust to give a candid assessment), and as you make your decision, weigh the risks.  Consider also what sort of lag times there might be for publication acceptances and appearances in your field; in mine, they can vary substantially even among the top journals and were a major factor in deciding where to submit (given that I needed results right away).

[lameusername]

During my on-campus interview, the chair said I already have enough publications to be tenured at their university, but their offer would, of course, be consistent with the ad: It will be for a TT position, which I totally understand. So now I wonder how much I want to condense if I get an offer. Cut it by half? 3 years to tenure decision would mean I can prove ongoing scholarship. (I have a few things in circulation, so I hope I'll have at least two more articles within the next year or so.)

[aside]

When we bring someone in in your situation, a three-year track is the standard offer even for those who seem ready now in terms of publication, with the understanding that one may go up early if one wishes.  It provides a cushion for all concerned.  If you have a similar offer and understanding about going up early, I would not recommend negotiating for a shorter track beforehand.

[systeme_d_]

I'd focus on salary in my negotiations, and take the chair's advice on what to do about years toward tenure.

This is because the chair should know the lay of the land at that university, and should have an idea about whether P&T committees are okay with "evidence of excellence in teaching" or whether they want to see "evidence of teaching excellence AT THAT UNIVERSITY." Likewise, he should know whether they will be fine with your record of service, or do they want to see "service TO THAT UNIVERSITY."

Your negotiated salary on entering that institution will be the base upon which all raises are calculated, though, so I'd push for salary and let the chair guide you on the years-toward-tenure issue.

That's what I did, anyway.

[totoro]

I agree with Systeme-D. I had a 3 year tenure track as a tenure track associate prof. It was a bit of a scramble to start teaching new courses and get out new publications and get grants all of which were needed at that institution (rather than relying on track record) to get tenure.

[lameusername]

So I got an offer today! I love the town, and I have good vibes about the department. The chair said we could condense the time on TT. I'd take this job in a heartbeat, but it's going to be a huge salary cut for me. I'm going to read up on negotiations on this forum and perhaps post a new thread about ways to negotiate. (I've never done it before. When I got my first job, I was so naive that I didn't negotiate a thing.)

[aside]

Congratulations, and good luck with the negotiations!