Tenure denials – who's to blame?

[Hegemony]

My university varies widely in how we support tenure candidates. Our particular departmental procedure is robust. Our chair checks in with the person during the second year to make sure they seem to be on course. Then there's a formal third-year review, conducted by a committee, which prepares a report and advises the person on what most needs to happen to ensure tenure. When the actual tenure review is approaching, the chair checks to make sure everything is on track. Then a committee assembles the tenure file, and the whole department (of tenured people) has a meeting to review it, where we discuss everything from strategy ("Should the book section come before or after the media section?") to punctuation.  The candidate is sent the results and works to revise the tenure package. The department votes on the candidate, and the chair writes a report about the whole thing which is passed on up the levels of administration.

By contrast, another department known to me does absolutely zero. The candidate is welcome to look at the faculty handbook for answers. They write their tenure statement in isolation, nobody checks it, and the chair sends it up through the administration. We had a case recently where the candidate simply didn't understand what the tenure package was supposed to include, and left off a whole lot of important information, like being on a national government body related to their field, winning a national award, and similar. The file was in the university committee meeting, where the vote was about to be against tenure, when someone on the committee happened to say, "Wait a minute, I thought I heard something about this person winning an award..." The fact that a whole lot of stuff had been left out of the file came to light, the package was sent back to the department, and one departmental member volunteered to help the candidate put the package together with more information. That volunteer was astounded to hear what our department does for our candidates. We were astounded to hear what they fail to do. It's no accident that most of our candidates get tenure and few of theirs do.

The folks in our department who failed to get tenure were people who had egregious problems that coaching couldn't fix, e.g. a candidate who, despite extensive mentoring and encouraging, couldn't seem to manage to send anything out for publication in the six years he was with us. But if something seems to be going amiss, our department swoops into action, so nobody fails for lack of information or advice. Clearly this is not the case everywhere.

[darkstarrynight]

My department's bylaws state that voting faculty would not recommend tenure if it is better to go through a search and wait the probationary six-year period again for another colleague. That is a difficult and long road, so the chances were pretty good if one does what they need to do in the teaching/advising, research, and service areas and is collegial.

[Wahoo Redux]

Maybe I'm overly cynical but I think a motto on the old fora was something like "If they want to tenure you, they will. If they don't, they won't". Research requirements will bend for a beloved colleague, or suddenly be read extremely stringently for someone the department wants to show the door anyway.

Observed one of these from a distance (since I am a lecturer married to a tenured professor).

The difference between the candidates appeared to race.

[dismalist]

Here's a review of Jason Brennan's new book Good Work if You can Keep It: How to Succeed in Academia about getting  tenure and such, by the widely despised Professor Bryan Caplan:

https://www.econlib.org/jason-brennansgood-work-if-you-can-keep-it/

The review rings true.

[Parasaurolophus]

Here's a review of Jason Brennan's new book Good Work if You can Keep It: How to Succeed in Academia about getting  tenure and such, by the widely despised Professor Bryan Caplan:

https://www.econlib.org/jason-brennansgood-work-if-you-can-keep-it/

The review rings true.

Brennan is extremely prolific, and sometimes even right. But he's a dick.

[spork]

Here's a review of Jason Brennan's new book Good Work if You can Keep It: How to Succeed in Academia about getting  tenure and such, by the widely despised Professor Bryan Caplan:

https://www.econlib.org/jason-brennansgood-work-if-you-can-keep-it/

The review rings true.

I think the review is hilarious and generally accurate. But I'm curious -- why do you describe Bryan Caplan as "widely despised"? He's at George Mason, like Brennan. The economics faculty there seem to be a jolly bunch that has a lot of fun. Alex Tabarrok used one of my publications for his and Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution University platform, and when I thanked him for noticing my work we had a very pleasant email exchange. Very different from the usual Ivory Tower response I get, which is either no response at all or "you're not at Harvard or Stanford so why should I bother communicating with you?"

[Ruralguy]

I think its an ideology thing.  I know some Masonites. I wouldn't say they're conservative, exactly. Probably  libertarian is a more apt description. 

[spork]

I think its an ideology thing.  I know some Masonites. I wouldn't say they're conservative, exactly. Probably  libertarian is a more apt description.

Understatement, haha. And they would probably get a kick out the term "Masonites."

On the actual subject of this thread, I have seen enough terrible tenure cases (both rejections and approvals) to blame people at all levels, but in my opinion it boils down to a lack of accountability and effective oversight. Supposed mentors who don't provide good advice to junior faculty. Junior faculty who don't act on good advice that they do get. Terribly written policies. Procedures that aren't followed. Vindictive departmental colleagues. Lazy committee members. Incompetent administrators.

[dismalist]

Here's a review of Jason Brennan's new book Good Work if You can Keep It: How to Succeed in Academia about getting  tenure and such, by the widely despised Professor Bryan Caplan:

https://www.econlib.org/jason-brennansgood-work-if-you-can-keep-it/

The review rings true.

I think the review is hilarious and generally accurate. But I'm curious -- why do you describe Bryan Caplan as "widely despised"? He's at George Mason, like Brennan. The economics faculty there seem to be a jolly bunch that has a lot of fun. Alex Tabarrok used one of my publications for his and Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution University platform, and when I thanked him for noticing my work we had a very pleasant email exchange. Very different from the usual Ivory Tower response I get, which is either no response at all or "you're not at Harvard or Stanford so why should I bother communicating with you?"

Yeah, I like the Masonites, too, and am glad, but not surprised, that they were civilized to you. "Widely despised" only on this board, but maybe I misjudged. :-)

[darkstarrynight]

That was an amusing review. Thanks for sharing, dismalist!