What are some reasons a TT as prof may be denied tenure in your experience?

[Hibush]

* Not being a superstar. This one's confined to the Ivies and their ilk.
* Getting caught out by changing expectations. (This is the hardest one. Yes, people should get feedback along the way to prevent some of the cases described above. But when the goalposts move suddenly, it can catch many folks out.)

A lot of places aspire to ilkhood, and hope to do so via a new hire. Figure out whether you are that hire. Superstardom--by whatever standard--is really subjective and there are likely to be many interpretations among the people who are asked to judge. One important indicator is the job description. Typically it would say something like "will develop an externally funded, internationally recognized research program on...."

Expectations do change all the time. It is really important to be clear whether expectations have shifted or you are sampling a different set of informants whose unchanging expectations are distinct from your initial set of informants. These two can be conflated with a change in department chair, dean or deanlet. 

[research_prof]

I think giving any sort of general recommendations without knowing the OP's field and university (ranking, focus on research or not, etc.) might not be helpful. For example, if you are at a university that is really serious about research, they may ask you to bring a CAREER award to get tenure. On the other hand, if at my department they do not give tenure to anyone that publishes more than 1 paper (even if it is a crappy one) per year and probably has more than 10 citations per year, they will have to fire all the assistant professors but one. And as you probably have noticed, I am not even mentioning ANY grant activity. And we claim to be a "research-intensive" department. Of course, we are not, but when I say that people get offended.

[moebius_strip]

I think giving any sort of general recommendations without knowing the OP's field and university (ranking, focus on research or not, etc.) might not be helpful. For example, if you are at a university that is really serious about research, they may ask you to bring a CAREER award to get tenure. On the other hand, if my department they do not give tenure to anyone that publishes more than 1 paper (even if it is a crappy one) per year and probably has more than 10 citations per year, they will have to fire all the assistant professors but one. And as you probably have noticed, I am not even mentioning ANY grant activity. And we claim to be a "research-intensive" department. Of course, we are not, but when I say that people get offended.

I am in an R2 that has R1 aspirations. My field is HCI. I am very active. No one has brought in any grants in my department, and most folks publish 1-2 papers a year if that. I have brought so far ~600k USD (I am only a year here. Literaly joined before the pandemic started; in R1s in my field, average is around 600-700k of grant money to tick the external funding box so I am fine grantwise as far as I can tell), supervise 4 Ph.D. students, publish in the best venues in my field, etc. Also, my teaching evaluations are very high (4.9/5). I absolutely love my work and I know how to play the game. I do not worry about tenure. I don't think that I will have issues.. but recently a colleague got denied and got me wondering.

[Volhiker78]

I think giving any sort of general recommendations without knowing the OP's field and university (ranking, focus on research or not, etc.) might not be helpful. For example, if you are at a university that is really serious about research, they may ask you to bring a CAREER award to get tenure. On the other hand, if my department they do not give tenure to anyone that publishes more than 1 paper (even if it is a crappy one) per year and probably has more than 10 citations per year, they will have to fire all the assistant professors but one. And as you probably have noticed, I am not even mentioning ANY grant activity. And we claim to be a "research-intensive" department. Of course, we are not, but when I say that people get offended.

I am in an R2 that has R1 aspirations. My field is HCI. I am very active. No one has brought in any grants in my department, and most folks publish 1-2 papers a year if that. I have brought so far ~600k USD (I am only a year here. Literaly joined before the pandemic started; in R1s in my field, average is around 600-700k of grant money to tick the external funding box so I am fine grantwise as far as I can tell), supervise 4 Ph.D. students, publish in the best venues in my field, etc. Also, my teaching evaluations are very high (4.9/5). I absolutely love my work and I know how to play the game. I do not worry about tenure. I don't think that I will have issues.. but recently a colleague got denied and got me wondering.

Keep doing what you are doing and you should be good.

[Ruralguy]

I certainly can't see why there'd be a problem. I mean, there might be people grumbling about you being "too good," but that crap rarely leads to a denial unless there
really is a significant deficiency somewhere. It doesn't seem as if there is in your case, though you didn't mention service.

More to the point, do you know why your friend was denied? You don't have to tell us the details, but if you know why, and you know you don't have those problems, then this isn't your anxiety to cling to. Sounds like a form of survivor guilt?

[mamselle]

I was thinking that, too: find out why your colleague was denied, if you don't already know (and be sure you get the real reasons, in case there was some lily-gilding for public consumption in operation) and check your own status vs. that.

If you have some shared issues, fix 'em fast. If not, as stated above, worry about more pertinent worries.

Worry is a reminder with a time limit. If you have all the reminders in hand, the time limit will take care of itself and you can let the worry evaporate.

M.

[clean]

I do not worry about tenure. I don't think that I will have issues.. but recently a colleague got denied and got me wondering.

One of the committee members on my dissertation (interim dean at the time) said, "Dont worry about tenure requirements at your location.  Worry about what they are in the market.  IF the place you are at wont tenure you, then you wont have any problems finding another/better job."


Another observation is that I have known several people that have changed jobs either because they were not going to make tenure, or after they were denied.  It seems to me that in all situations, both the employer and employee were better off by parting ways.  While it is annoying and disappointing (not to mention stressful) to be denied tenure, it is often for the better!

One last word about the Market:  Remember that IF you are UP for Tenure, then you should be On the Market anyway. You need to be sure that the place that you are applying to get "a contract without renewal" (which is what tenure is), is a place that you want to be!  Be sure that it is the best place for you, that there are not better places that you could/should be.  Remember, that once you have that contract without renewal, the pressure to find another job greatly diminishes.  Are you SURE that you want to stay there long term?  BE SURE!

[Vkw10]

In most of the tenure denial cases I've seen, the basic problem seemed to be that the candidate didn't match their efforts towards the local tenure requirements. Get familiar with your department, college, and university requirements for tenure and promotion. Look at the requirements for promotion to full, too. Look at your assigned percentage of effort (teaching, scholarship, service, occasionally something else).

Your goal is to be able to write a tenure dossier showing that you've clearly met the requirements and have made a good start toward eventually being promoted to full professor. You need to aim above the minimum and you need to be consistent. Plan to meet the minimum a year before your dossier is due, so you have time to exceed the minimum.
Working a bit ahead is also insurance against factors outside your control, like a slow peer review or a pandemic delaying your book.

[Ruralguy]

Find people who were strong candidates for tenure, preferably in your discipline and recently.

Try to get them to share their dossier.

Don't freak out about this if they seem stronger than you.

Just model accomplishments and how they expressed themselves as best as you can.

[Katrina Gulliver]

I've seen people get caught in ratcheting research requirements (where the expectation to publish in a "top journal" - which had a 25% acceptance rate in 1992 when dept chair published in it, but has a <5% acceptance rate now) was used as a reason to deny tenure.

But the rule that someone stated on the old fora was a good one: if they want to tenure you, they will. If they don't, they won't.
As larryc said, people don't want to deny tenure to a colleague - at least not to someone they like. If you run around pissing off all your colleagues, are a lawsuit magnet, or otherwise problematic, no amount of publications will save you.

(I've seen that too - guy was friendly and nice but just REFUSED to do any service. Thought he was too good for it or whatever. Just said NO. Published like crazy, good books. Promoted, he was not). 

[Ruralguy]

I don't think this old saw is completely true. It depends a lot on who "they" is. At some schools, the people who know you best have the least power. At that point, it could boil down to how "by the book" a t and p committee is.
I've seen some of the nicest, but somewhat marginal cases get dinged, and then I've seen a d-bag skate who had less to show. Of course, that persons department was a basket of dbags, so maybe they really liked him!

I've never once seen a highly skilled person not get tenure because some powerful people hated them.
It always boils down to marginal cases.

[polly_mer]

I've never once seen a highly skilled person not get tenure because some powerful people hated them.

You need to get out more.

[Ruralguy]

Maybe, but I meant "by the standards of the school". At some level, we're all highly skilled.
I'm speaking as someone who very very nearly didn't get it. I thought I deserved it, but I could see now how some might have seen some marginality. Either that or they hated me more than I thought and still do.

[polly_mer]

Maybe, but I meant "by the standards of the school". At some level, we're all highly skilled.
I'm speaking as someone who very very nearly didn't get it. I thought I deserved it, but I could see now how some might have seen some marginality. Either that or they hated me more than I thought and still do.

I haven't seen too many flat out hatreds at work, although it's never good to make enemies of the president, provost, and half the board by being absurdly vocal in public on issues that have many valid sides, but the individual picks an invalid side to promote to the local media.  I've definitely seen people not get renewed or tenure who would otherwise have made the bar on research, teaching, and service.  The level of anti-service has to be extreme, though.

I have, however, seen several severe enough misalignments such that someone was surprised by the tenure denial.  I've seen people who didn't fit and repeatedly were cautioned on how they didn't fit with the mission of the college get denied tenure, even though those folks weren't marginal compared to others.  "Hate" is probably not the right word, because no one wished them ill, but enough people didn't want to spend the next several decades dealing with that repeated behavior that was misaligned.  I can think of multiple people who were trying to improve the college and were succeeding in making changes who were denied or had additional hoops to jump through the appeal process due to making positive changes that others did not see as positive.

[Ruralguy]

I see what you are saying (I think). But its not like its a "one off" where someone gets into a single dispute with a Dean and then doesn't get tenure even though all evals are good, some publications are done and the person has been on committees.

At least, I haven't seen that. I have seen people who were good, say, in one area, mediocre/OK in one, and very bad in another. The "very bad" makes the entire case marginal, and if, mixed in with that, is a sense that the person is unpleasant, etc., then, yes, I can see why such a person wouldn't get tenure. I have also seen excellent in two areas and mediocre in one be marginal for tenure---those usually pass through, but if the person is a jerk, then, uh oh, case can be seen as more marginal than it probably should be.

All I am really saying is that its far too reductive to say:

they like you=shoo-in for tenure
they hate you= GONG! You are the weakest link, goodbye! You're fired!