Give Me Tenure, or Give Me ...

By Philip Drew

I'm not often surprised by a question from a faculty candidate during a campus interview, but yesterday was an exception.

My role as an academic administrator in the interview process is to talk about personnel actions -- promotion, tenure, performance evaluations, and so forth -- so it's common for the conversation to focus on how those processes usually unfold, what the expectations are, and who will conduct the reviews. But until now, I've never had a new faculty candidate, with no previous experience, say, "I think I will be able to be awarded tenure early. Please tell me how that process will work."

The sarcastic side of me wanted to burst into applause at such a display of hubris. "You haven't even started yet, or accomplished anything as a faculty member on our campus, and you want to know how we'll reward your superstar status? Bravo!"

Fortunately, my more politic side prevailed, and I offered a measured response about meeting performance standards over a certain amount of time and demonstrating a sufficient trajectory and pattern of work, not just a quick burst of impressive activity. But now that I've had time to think, I'm actually worried about how this scenario will play out five years from now -- or maybe only four.

I see (in my nightmares) Dr. Superstar exclaiming, "How dare you diminish my accomplishments by failing to support me for early tenure! You don't need six years to see that I'm just as productive as anyone else around here -- and I've shown that in only five years!"

That sort of thing occurs on every college campus, and it's probably something that every dean and provost face about once a year. It's not really a new phenomenon, but it does seem to me that it's becoming an increasingly frequent (and unfortunate) expectation -- that some new faculty members will apply for tenure before the end of the probationary period, which on my campus is six years.

Usually, the early tenure request comes in the fifth year, but I've even seen it come in the third year. Apparently, there's early tenure, and then there's really early tenure.

Even if Dr. Superstar is doing fine work and presents no indication of any problems for the future (setting aside the possible ego problem), it isn't hard for me to explain why a request for early tenure might not be supported, but it does appear to be quite hard for a person like Dr. Superstar to understand the explanation. The problem seems to center on what it means to "meet the criteria" for tenure and, more to the point, what it means to do so early.

To take an extreme example, let's say an institution decided to quantify the criteria for tenure and set up a point system on a spreadsheet. Once faculty members collected enough points, they could argue that they should be awarded tenure.

If that's the model, what would we do if a faculty member managed to generate enough points in just one year to receive tenure? Would we actually have to grant tenure after only a year? I don't think so (and by the way, I also don't think that tallying points is how one should evaluate performance).

OK, so no one has ever tried to convince me that tenure should be awarded in an "after only one year" circumstance. However, I have been pressured to support awarding tenure at the five-year mark.

The most common argument I hear for early tenure tends to be offered by the candidate's department head. It goes something like this: "Dr. Superstar is doing just fine and is meeting all of our expectations. He has met our standard for effective teaching, for scholarly work, and for service, and he has done so in just five years. He's good, and we are sure to award him tenure next year; so why wait? We want to recommend him for early tenure now."

That claim assumes tenure standards can be evaluated using absolute measures that are independent of time. And that's where I disagree.

In my mind, the point of the probationary period leading up to tenure is to provide time for the faculty member to demonstrate a pattern of accomplishments -- a trajectory of work -- that gives us enough information to make an informed decision. Shortening the probationary period reduces our ability to make well-founded conclusions about such a pattern.

It's simply not in the best interest of the institution or the department to short-circuit the evaluation period. More time provides more evidence, and more evidence makes the decision (whatever it turns out to be) a better one.

In short, the standards for evaluating effective teaching, scholarly work, and service require a certain period of time to produce sufficient evidence of a pattern -- and six years is the accepted standard for the amount of time needed.

Of course, my argument isn't well received. The counterargument is always, "But you're just postponing the inevitable -- Dr. Superstar will get tenure next year. And you're just insulting him by putting it off. He might even leave as a result!"

That brings back memories of my own tenure case. I was recommended by my department for early tenure, too. And I recall the provost paying me a personal visit to bring the bad news -- no go, he said.

But he also told me that I was doing great work and that in another year, with continued effort on my part, I was a sure thing.

I asked him, How could I be "good enough" next year but not this year?

His response was simple and clear: Because waiting until next year provides one more year to continue my productive efforts, to grow professionally, and to demonstrate my commitment and value to the institution. He was right. I was wrong. And I was awarded tenure the very next year.

In hindsight, I am a better faculty member and a better administrator today because I learned a lesson back then about what it means to demonstrate your value and contributions to an institution, how long it takes to do that, and how the institution shows its appreciation of your work in return. It worked just as he said it would.

When we hire new faculty members, we enter into a contract. The contract says that they will be evaluated for tenure over a fixed period of time and that the evaluation will be based on well-understood criteria and conducted with forthrightness, honesty, and open communication. They agree to it, and so do we.

To be indignant when the university does not want to renegotiate that contract and award tenure early seems wrong to me. And then to claim that the university is demonstrating a lack of appreciation for a faculty member's work and effort is also wrong. It simply isn't true.

But I'm also a realist. My university has awarded tenure early in certain cases. To my mind, candidates for early tenure must meet three requirements:

• There can be no areas of concern or weakness in any component of the evaluation -- none whatsoever. I would hope for a statement from the tenure committee to the effect of, "The committee has no suggestions for improvement in any area, because there are no areas that need improvement."

• In the areas of effective teaching and scholarly work, I would require the faculty member to well exceed the normal expectations for tenure that would have been applied at the six-year mark. Since we are limiting our ability to see the pattern, I want to be assured that the candidate is not simply meeting the normal standards early, but rather is an exceptional case that is truly hard to match. The bar for early tenure is higher -- much higher -- than it is for those who apply at the normal, six-year mark.

• Finally, and this is where I become a businessman as well as an academician, I need to be convinced that we're not merely showing our appreciation for a job well done but, rather, making a necessary competitive move in a marketplace in which some institutions raid the faculty ranks of others. Simply put, will we lose this assistant professor to another university by not awarding tenure right now? (I said I was a realist.)

If those three requirements are met, then I would consider supporting early tenure for Dr. Superstar. In the absence of any of the three, I plan to paraphrase my former provost and tell the candidate: Take another year and continue to prove your value to the institution. Make us proud. And if you do that, we'll honor our part of the contract as well.