Need to know what to say to colleague when he is denied tenure next week

[marshwiggle]

To me it seems a bit more marginal than what some are posting, but perhaps I'm not seeing it right.

You mean the committee's recommendation?

He has ignored everything from hints and nudges to formal written evaluations urging him to improve in this area.

I don't know how much more warning a person could have gotten about where their actions were leading.

[apl68]

Compassion and care run in more than one direction here.

That happens in a lot of situations.  It's good that you're able to bear that in mind.  It sounds like between that and the advice you've received you should be able to trust your instincts here.

[arty_]

A colleague was not tenured in my department last year - in our case the person's research was minimal -- I dreaded those questions as well. And the person was repeatedly warned, had really fantastic, consistent mentoring complete with regular check ins, offers of reading, etc etc but just couldn't pull the trigger on publishing. And of course, they were "blind sided."

One thing that was easier for me, is that the person was very collegial. So socially I saw my position as continuing to act "normal." A lot of colleagues treat an untenured person like they have a contagious disease, or a shameful condition and stop talking with them - start averting their eyes, etc. So my approach was just to continue to act normal, keep inviting them to whatever it was I invited them to before, keep having coffee, drinking whatever. I didn't respond to  their anger -- I just listened if that was needed, and treated them like the friend they are.

[Kron3007]

To me it seems a bit more marginal than what some are posting, but perhaps I'm not seeing it right.
Even so, a valid decision was made with ample warning (so long as what we are being told is accurate).

I get that service is not usually considered the most important aspect of a tenure bid, but in many ways it is.  As a colleague, I don't really care whether you publish 2,6, or 10 papers a year.  It really doesn't impact me.  However, I really do care if you are skipping out on pulling your weight, and that extra committee falls on my lap.

If they had been told everything is cool and were rejected now, I would have sympathy.  However, if they were warned verbally and in writing and failed to pick up some service, this falls squarely on their shoulders. 

Again, as a colleague, this is the last person I would want tenured.

That being said, I would still try to be kind.

[mleok]

To me it seems a bit more marginal than what some are posting, but perhaps I'm not seeing it right.
Even so, a valid decision was made with ample warning (so long as what we are being told is accurate).

I get that service is not usually considered the most important aspect of a tenure bid, but in many ways it is.  As a colleague, I don't really care whether you publish 2,6, or 10 papers a year.  It really doesn't impact me.  However, I really do care if you are skipping out on pulling your weight, and that extra committee falls on my lap.

If they had been told everything is cool and were rejected now, I would have sympathy.  However, if they were warned verbally and in writing and failed to pick up some service, this falls squarely on their shoulders. 

Again, as a colleague, this is the last person I would want tenured.

That being said, I would still try to be kind.

I agree wholeheartedly, unless the other faculty member is a research collaborator, or a person I can write a grant with, their research productivity rarely has a significant impact on me, and their ability to pull their weight in service and service teaching is extremely important.

[Ruralguy]

I actually greatly sympathize with this view Kron, as many of my past posts will show.
I think service is not taken seriously by most schools, and especially not enough at SLACs where it is needed more and at which many such schools have a long tradition of faculty governance and overall participation in campus life.

I was characterizing the case as perhaps "marginal" though since other factors such as teaching (OP didn't comment on this actually) and research are more than adequate or superior and , if like us, are counted at something like 60% and 30% for tenure. That leaves the service at about 10%. For us, a 100-ish ranked SLAC, service would probably never kill a case, even though it probably should if its at *zero* or worse (that is, the person is actively criticizing service as well as not participating). Also, maybe research or teaching isn't quite as great as maybe people were assuming? Anyway, that's why I said what  I said. I'm actually likely to be on my college's P&T committee next year, and would like to see what my fellow committee members think about how service is counted toward tenure and promotion (most people are adequate, though, you kind of wish maybe they'd take a crack at chairing something, or getting on to one of the "bigger" committees if they are a reasonable person who has been here for 10 years).

[Mobius]

Got a piece of advice during a flyout once.

"You need to be on campus more than 1-2 days a week to do your share of advising, committee work, and available to colleague if needed."

I guess the person being replaced rarely showed up besides to teach and others had to do more work.

[Kron3007]

I actually greatly sympathize with this view Kron, as many of my past posts will show.
I think service is not taken seriously by most schools, and especially not enough at SLACs where it is needed more and at which many such schools have a long tradition of faculty governance and overall participation in campus life.

I was characterizing the case as perhaps "marginal" though since other factors such as teaching (OP didn't comment on this actually) and research are more than adequate or superior and , if like us, are counted at something like 60% and 30% for tenure. That leaves the service at about 10%. For us, a 100-ish ranked SLAC, service would probably never kill a case, even though it probably should if its at *zero* or worse (that is, the person is actively criticizing service as well as not participating). Also, maybe research or teaching isn't quite as great as maybe people were assuming? Anyway, that's why I said what  I said. I'm actually likely to be on my college's P&T committee next year, and would like to see what my fellow committee members think about how service is counted toward tenure and promotion (most people are adequate, though, you kind of wish maybe they'd take a crack at chairing something, or getting on to one of the "bigger" committees if they are a reasonable person who has been here for 10 years).

Where I am (Canadian Research intensive university) research is definitely prioritized, followed by teaching and service.  However, even if they are weighted differently, you need to pass all three.  I was basically told that excelling in service will not get me tenure if other aspects are not good, but inadequate service could detail an otherwise solid case, just as we see here. 

It sounds to me that this is a case where the system worked very well and the department will benefit from it.  Someone who shirts service pre-tenure is unlikely to pick up the slack afterwards.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, I guess the weights in categories only have meaning if you get above a certain threshold. Below that threshold, any category could lead to a negative decision.

[Ruralguy]

And I'm cracking up over the 1-2 day a week thing. I wouldn't say we are absolute about a 5 day a week minimum,
But people who try 3 or lower would get into hot water, and I know lots of STEM depts like to have people around a lot   due  to help with lab work, etc..

[polly_mer]

I remember a departmental meeting at Super Dinky that went downhill quickly when multiple someones stated how much more work they got done at home instead of the office and the response was, yeah, because whoever is on campus gets inundated with students desperate to find any faculty member or other service work that can't wait.

The hilarious part was this was a combo department with life science, physical science, social science, and math.  The social science folks were at each other's throats over not being on campus enough because none of them lived in town and thus tried to be on campus only two days per week.

The rest of us were on campus most business hours 5+ days a week trying to stay ahead of lab set up, student questions, and grading.  The idea of being on campus only long enough to hold classes and absolute minimum office hours was foreign to us.

The tenure denials happened in social science every couple years and mostly a failure on service.

The rest of the sciences and math had such rapid turnover in TT positions due to good critical thinking skills that only one person in the decade before SD's closure even went up for tenure.

[marshwiggle]

I was characterizing the case as perhaps "marginal" though since other factors such as teaching (OP didn't comment on this actually) and research are more than adequate or superior and , if like us, are counted at something like 60% and 30% for tenure. That leaves the service at about 10%. For us, a 100-ish ranked SLAC, service would probably never kill a case, even though it probably should if its at *zero* or worse (that is, the person is actively criticizing service as well as not participating).

As I indicated above, regardless of what the nominal percentages are for various components, anything that got specified on a formal, written evaluation as needing improvement to me means it MUST be addressed.

If a candidate were admonished for parking in the Dean's parking space, any sane person would STOP PARKING IN THE DEAN'S PARKING SPACE. So an attitude of "Screw off; I don't do service" seems to have gotten about the expected result.

[tiva]

I'm sorry you have to go through this, and even sorrier he has to go through it. Tenure denials are always wretched, even when the candidate ignored years of useful mentoring advice.

[quercus]

I'm sorry you have to go through this, and even sorrier he has to go through it. Tenure denials are always wretched, even when the candidate ignored years of useful mentoring advice.

Yup, that's about the size of it. The decision came down today (earlier than I expected) and it is a no.

I don't want to give any more details, but if I've learned anything that might be useful to other tenure-seekers, it is:

"Don't just hit the numbers on papers published and student evals. Be the kind of colleague that everyone else in the department will want to work with FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES."

And if I've learned anything that might be useful to other departmental/university committees, it is:

"Give detailed feedback about how to remedy deficiencies that you identify in the annual reviews. Don't just tell people they are deficient. Whether the issue is mentorship, advising, service, preps, teaching materials, grants, publications, whatever--tell candidates how much and what kind of thing they need to do more or less of."

[mamselle]

Will they appeal, do you think?

M.