Heads Up

Falling in Love

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines First Person The Rejection Letter I Wish I Could Send If we had to make up a story for why you might be interested in our position, then interviewing you was too risky. Peer Review Hirings and Firings The new law school at the University of California at Irvine gets some high-profile hires ... and other appointment news. Ms. Mentor Does This Make Me Look Old? Advice on how best to dress, and act, when you look as young as your students. Career News Gone, and Being Forgotten Why are some of the greatest thinkers being expelled from their disciplines? Resource Salaries: Faculty | Administrative Presidential pay: Private | Public Financial resources: Salary and cost-of-living calculators Career resources: Academic | Nonacademic Library: Previous articles by topic | by date | by column Career Talk, Ms. Mentor, and more... Landing your first job On the tenure track Mid-career and on Administrative careers Nonacademic careers for Ph.D.'s Talk about your career Blogs

By Philip Drew

I enjoy a good love story, except when I find myself accused of trying to ruin a perfectly good "marriage."

Say you are a dean or a provost, and you have agreed to offer a tenure-track position to a department's favorite faculty candidate. The applicant pool was deep and strong, and the department has worked hard to get the best possible fit for its needs.

But there's a catch. The favored candidate is A.B.D., all but dissertation, and "the plan," if it works, is for her to complete her Ph.D. by the end of her first semester on the job -- more or less.

The department head, its faculty members, even the candidate, assure you that all is in order. Not to worry, they say, the candidate will have no problem finishing the work and receiving the degree by January 1. Trust us, they say. This will work, and after all, this candidate is a real find -- it would be settling for second best to look deeper down the list for someone with a terminal degree in hand.

So there you are. You have agreed to this arrangement and, if you've been on the job for any length of time, you have done so reluctantly. You have insisted that the contract letter be specific about what is required of your new hire, and by when. You offer her a tenure-track position with the requirement that her terminal degree be awarded by January 1, as previously agreed.

The candidate's tenure clock starts immediately, though, as was everyone's desire -- except yours. You have made that concession because everyone has assured you there is no reason, none at all, to believe the degree won't be in hand by January 1. It's a formality, you know.

You probably even said something like, "If the degree isn't in hand by January 1, we will start a new search immediately." Everyone agreed, because it would never come to that. In fact, you are labeled a pessimist for harboring such negative thoughts.

Well . . . the deadline approaches, and the department head wants to talk about our fabulous new faculty member.

You see, the final work on her dissertation hit a snag. Nothing to worry about, of course, but the degree won't be completed by January 1 as promised. July 1 is a sure thing, though.

The new faculty member is just as wonderful as everyone predicted -- a great teacher, a great scholar, a great colleague. Just this one little snag to deal with, you know? Would you mind reissuing a new contract that extends the date of her degree completion to July 1? And would it be OK to continue the tenure clock, too?

What, you say? Everyone agreed that January 1 was a firm deadline, right? Everyone agreed that if that date came and went with no degree in hand, a new search would be started, right? So, what's wrong with sticking to the deal, you ask?

"We're in love."

Oh, I know that's not what they actually say, but that is what they mean. In four short months, the members of the department have developed a relationship with their favorite new colleague. If only she actually had a Ph.D., all would be well.

And to make things go smoothly, everyone wants you to be sympathetic, flexible, understanding, thoughtful, etc., etc. Just agree to July 1. It's a sure thing. Be a leader, they say!

When you wonder aloud what would happen if the degree is not completed by July 1, you hear something like this: "In that case, we'll start a new search right away to fill the position the following fall. Of course, she could be a candidate for that position in the event that she finishes her degree in the meantime. But don't worry. It won't come to that."

You had better start worrying. Trust me, the department is in love, and nothing will derail its attempts to find a solution that keeps its favored faculty member there.

As you may have guessed, this is no made-up story.

Suppose you agree to extend the deadline to July 1. Because the original terms of the contract have not been met, you might suggest that the position be converted to a non-tenure-track position, effective January 1, and put off a decision about what to do if the degree still isn't completed by July 1.

If she completes her Ph.D. on or before that date, then you can (at your option) convert the position back to the tenure track, and start the tenure clock from zero at that point.

Try to do that, and I guarantee the department will be steaming. Its members will say, "All this does is marginalize the new faculty member by changing the appointment type while still agreeing to an extension of the deadline! You're mistreating and insulting a terrific faculty member who we hope will have a long and productive relationship with us."

Two issues are behind that reaction. Of course, the first is the candidate's ego since no one likes the thought of being taken off the tenure track. But the reason for that has everything to do with the second issue, and that's the matter of the tenure clock.

Is it appropriate for a new hire still trying to complete the terminal degree to be credited with time toward tenure during that same period?

The arguments I have heard in favor of counting the A.B.D. time toward tenure are various, but they all share the common claim that the new faculty member is "doing all the same things" that the other tenure-track faculty members are doing.

I disagree. The assistant professor who is A.B.D. is (or should be) trying to complete her terminal degree; the other assistant professors in the department are not. The time she spends trying to complete her degree is time she is not spending on various forms of postdoctoral work: on new scholarly directions that build on and extend (or even depart from) the doctoral scholarship; on taking on graduate students; on developing teaching strategies based on careful study of various modes of student learning.

A faculty member who is A.B.D. doesn't have time for those efforts, and those are the efforts that are crucial to building a successful foundation for earning tenure here. So it's actually unfair to our new hire to count the time she has spent trying to complete her terminal degree as time toward her probationary period.

Of course, she and her department colleagues probably won't see it that way. They won't want her to be perceived as needing special treatment. "She's teaching, conducting scholarly work, and serving the department," they will say. "You're nit-picking." At the core, they view the thought of extending her tenure clock as being mean to her, not helpful.

What is a dean or a provost to do?

You could stick to the "a deal is a deal" approach and declare that if January 1 comes and no terminal degree is in hand, then a new search must be started. But rest assured the favored faculty member will want to be a candidate in that new search, and if she earns her Ph.D. in time, how fair will the second search be? You already know who the department wants to hire!

And if you are persuaded to make that same hire a second time, then what was the point of the deadline specified in the original contract?

So the effect is exactly as if there never was a deadline in the first place, and instead all you did was "stick it" to the department and the candidate by making them go through the recruiting process a second time. Of course, they only did that reluctantly (because you insisted on it), and they may even have done so fully intending to get the obvious outcome.

You've been "played," and now you're viewed as a jerk and an ignoramus for making this "tough" on everyone. I say don't even go there. But what do I know? I probably am a jerk and an ignoramus.

I want to be clear that I don't think there is anything wrong with hiring someone A.B.D., as long as you don't also hire the person into a tenure-track position and begin crediting his or her time on the job toward tenure. After all, that is the real problem here.

In hindsight, the best solution I can think of is not to offer a tenure-track appointment to anyone without the terminal degree in the first place.

I realize that really isn't an option if you have already gone and done it. But if you find yourself faced with the prospect in the future, here's how I would suggest handling it.

If you intend to permit A.B.D. hires, then when the position announcement is posted, be clear that such appointments will be made into a non-tenure-track position until the terminal degree is conferred. When that happens, you can convert the position into a tenure-track slot and start the tenure clock. Just don't imply in the job announcement that you would be willing to make the initial hire into a tenure-track position without the terminal degree.

Based on my experience, if you find yourself in the middle of such a mess, then no matter what you do, the outcome will either make you the bad guy or require you to sidestep your responsibility for maintaining professional standards in academe.

And why? Because the department is in love.