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

[polly_mer]

The last few years have seen several public instances of faculty tenure decisions where the departments voted yes, the institution declared no, and the onlookers were outraged.

I imagine votes in the other direction are much more rare; i.e. institutions hired someone that department had rejected.

I was in the hall one day at Super Dinky when the department chair stormed into the provost's office to start yelling about a faculty member being granted tenure when the lower-level votes were all no.

That department wanted to free up the slot to get someone who would teach better and do more service.  They were overruled because stability was more important.  Running yet another job search for a mere gen ed faculty member was a waste of resources when we were paying head hunters for hard-to-fill faculty positions in majors where we could get students.

[Ruralguy]

At my school, the department has little official say. The chair (or in some cases when possible, the rest of the dept.) writes a letter that goes to the  Tenure committee. Its just one piece of evidence among many.
Since most people get tenure (90% or more in my entire time here), it tends not to be too controversial, but in some case, the dept. wants someone, and they are denied, or vice versa (well, in the vice versa case, the person gets tenure, so nobody knows about this unless someone complains loudly enough about it---which is how I know that happens at all!).

[Wahoo Redux]

Running yet another job search for a mere gen ed faculty member was a waste of resources when we were paying head hunters for hard-to-fill faculty positions in majors where we could get students.

Oh Polly.

You are a card.

[research_prof]

I have a junior colleague who is almost certain to be denied tenure next week. It is going to come as a shock to him, I think. By the numbers, on paper, he looks as good or better than candidates who have received tenure at our SLAC.

There are weaknesses throughout his case but the big fail is service/collegiality. He has never pulled his weight on a whole host of service and teaching commitments that are important to the dept and the institution's mission. He has even outright refused to do some of them. This has led to resentment from the other faculty who are left picking up the slack.

He has ignored everything from hints and nudges to formal written evaluations urging him to improve in this area. I think he has been getting bad advice from his R1 colleagues about focusing solely on research and not getting bogged down with service and student demands. He's also a bit toxic/narcissistic and not inclined to perceive his failings in areas he doesn't care about (community, institutional mission, social justice).

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now. What kinds of things would be useful to say?

My goals are:

* be compassionate and understanding
* be truthful
* be careful about confidentiality (which probably means only talking about my own personal opinion of his case and nothing else)

For those who have navigated this situation in their departments before, what can I say that would be helpful to him? I honestly think what he needs to do is sit down with all his annual P&T reviews and see the signposts that were there...but I'm not sure this is helpful. I also think he should get a jump on figuring out his next steps and getting a new job...but again, I'm not sure this is helpful to say.

For anyone who has been denied, what would it be helpful to hear?

Ugh, is there ANYTHING helpful to say in this situation? I am dreading everything about this.

Look, I believe you should have done your part and advised your colleague years ago to leave your institution and go to an R1. I feel it is unfair to him as well that you guys hired him, while he seems to have been clear from the beginning (unless I misunderstand the story) that he is interested in conducting research and not do any teaching or service.

Probably not your fault, but definitely your admins' fault. If your institution is teaching focused, then do not hire the strongest candidate from a research point of view. What do you think? The strongest candidate research-wise would not be interested in conducting research, but would be interested in teaching? Hire someone, who is not as strong from a research point of view and they might actually be happy to teach more.

I would say there's a lot of "wrong" in this response. Good SLACs are looking for excellent researchers. Perspectives like this are why candidates with strong track records who would otherwise fit the mission of a SLAC well often are viewed with skepticism, and there's not much foundation for it.

It is, in fact, possible to be a strong researcher *and* fit a teaching-focused mission at a SLAC. In fact, that's the type of hire that many top-tier SLACs are looking for: someone who will win both CAREER awards and teaching awards.

CAREER award (or not) is an one-time distinction. Serious R1 universities are interested in faculty that can develop a sustainable research agenda and a team that grows year by year. This requires a continuous (and growing) stream of funding from diverse sources (which is damn hard for junior faculty), so getting a CAREER award (and nothing else) will simply not make the cut.

I happen to have interviewed with departments of premier R1 institutions over the last few weeks. The department heads told me that simply bringing a CAREER award without any other funding will not give me tenure and that they would prefer I bring several other grants and not bring a CAREER. So the prestige of a CAREER is one thing, but all money is green and universities want as much indirect cost as possible to keep the business going.

Also, please compare the google scholar of faculty at top R1 institutions and SLACs... After doing so, you will get all your potential questions answered.

[polly_mer]

Running yet another job search for a mere gen ed faculty member was a waste of resources when we were paying head hunters for hard-to-fill faculty positions in majors where we could get students.

Oh Polly.

You are a card.

No, that was the logic.  We paid good money to head hunters trying to get sufficient nursing and business faulty to run the majors that attract students.

Not tenuring the suboptimal humanities professor meant we would have to run a search to replace him.  Gen ed courses don't bring in new students.  One bad gen ed course doesn't repel students.

When you only have 25 full-time faculty total, the overhead on running N+1 searches instead of N searches is noticeable when N is greater than 2 and every search committee needs a minimum of one representative from each affected department.

The nurses run their own search.  Replacing the sole humanities person in a given field means having a six-person committee of faculty who already have a 4/4 load and a minimum of two other committees.  Gen ed affects everyone, unlike the faculty who teach majors with perhaps one service course.

Life is hard at the truly tiny colleges where total faculty is tens of people and there aren't adjuncts or many administrators to share the load.

It's really not worth the effort in a tight year to run a TT search for a position teaching courses that don't matter and it's a selling point to have within rounding of all gen ed courses taught by full-time faculty.

[eigen]

I have a junior colleague who is almost certain to be denied tenure next week. It is going to come as a shock to him, I think. By the numbers, on paper, he looks as good or better than candidates who have received tenure at our SLAC.

There are weaknesses throughout his case but the big fail is service/collegiality. He has never pulled his weight on a whole host of service and teaching commitments that are important to the dept and the institution's mission. He has even outright refused to do some of them. This has led to resentment from the other faculty who are left picking up the slack.

He has ignored everything from hints and nudges to formal written evaluations urging him to improve in this area. I think he has been getting bad advice from his R1 colleagues about focusing solely on research and not getting bogged down with service and student demands. He's also a bit toxic/narcissistic and not inclined to perceive his failings in areas he doesn't care about (community, institutional mission, social justice).

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now. What kinds of things would be useful to say?

My goals are:

* be compassionate and understanding
* be truthful
* be careful about confidentiality (which probably means only talking about my own personal opinion of his case and nothing else)

For those who have navigated this situation in their departments before, what can I say that would be helpful to him? I honestly think what he needs to do is sit down with all his annual P&T reviews and see the signposts that were there...but I'm not sure this is helpful. I also think he should get a jump on figuring out his next steps and getting a new job...but again, I'm not sure this is helpful to say.

For anyone who has been denied, what would it be helpful to hear?

Ugh, is there ANYTHING helpful to say in this situation? I am dreading everything about this.

Look, I believe you should have done your part and advised your colleague years ago to leave your institution and go to an R1. I feel it is unfair to him as well that you guys hired him, while he seems to have been clear from the beginning (unless I misunderstand the story) that he is interested in conducting research and not do any teaching or service.

Probably not your fault, but definitely your admins' fault. If your institution is teaching focused, then do not hire the strongest candidate from a research point of view. What do you think? The strongest candidate research-wise would not be interested in conducting research, but would be interested in teaching? Hire someone, who is not as strong from a research point of view and they might actually be happy to teach more.

I would say there's a lot of "wrong" in this response. Good SLACs are looking for excellent researchers. Perspectives like this are why candidates with strong track records who would otherwise fit the mission of a SLAC well often are viewed with skepticism, and there's not much foundation for it.

It is, in fact, possible to be a strong researcher *and* fit a teaching-focused mission at a SLAC. In fact, that's the type of hire that many top-tier SLACs are looking for: someone who will win both CAREER awards and teaching awards.

CAREER award (or not) is an one-time distinction. Serious R1 universities are interested in faculty that can develop a sustainable research agenda and a team that grows year by year. This requires a continuous (and growing) stream of funding from diverse sources (which is damn hard for junior faculty), so getting a CAREER award (and nothing else) will simply not make the cut.

I happen to have interviewed with departments of premier R1 institutions over the last few weeks. The department heads told me that simply bringing a CAREER award without any other funding will not give me tenure and that they would prefer I bring several other grants and not bring a CAREER. So the prestige of a CAREER is one thing, but all money is green and universities want as much indirect cost as possible to keep the business going.

Also, please compare the google scholar of faculty at top R1 institutions and SLACs... After doing so, you will get all your potential questions answered.

I said nothing about what R1s were looking for.

I talked about what top-tier SLACs were looking for. I'm not sure how your experience at an R1 means you suddenly know what SLACs are looking for and how they should change their hiring strategies?

Did I perhaps miss you talking about your experience working at or hiring at a research-active SLAC?

That said, I'm quite familiar with what it takes to get hired at an R1 in my field. I'm also familiar with the profiles that are competitive for R1 hires in my field. And I'm also sure that there's a large overlap in people who will be successful at a SLAC and at an R1 based on those research profiles. What I'm not doing is saying that R1s are hiring the wrong people, or telling people on a P&T committee at an R1 that they hired and mentored the wrong person, despite not working at an R1.

Not sure why you felt this needed to be a dick measuring contest between research productivity at different institution types.

[research_prof]

I have a junior colleague who is almost certain to be denied tenure next week. It is going to come as a shock to him, I think. By the numbers, on paper, he looks as good or better than candidates who have received tenure at our SLAC.

There are weaknesses throughout his case but the big fail is service/collegiality. He has never pulled his weight on a whole host of service and teaching commitments that are important to the dept and the institution's mission. He has even outright refused to do some of them. This has led to resentment from the other faculty who are left picking up the slack.

He has ignored everything from hints and nudges to formal written evaluations urging him to improve in this area. I think he has been getting bad advice from his R1 colleagues about focusing solely on research and not getting bogged down with service and student demands. He's also a bit toxic/narcissistic and not inclined to perceive his failings in areas he doesn't care about (community, institutional mission, social justice).

I'm in his department (and his subfield) but also sit on the highest upper-level committee that reviewed his case, and the consensus that he is borderline/untenurable is pervasive at all levels. (We don't do up-or-down votes; we rate candidates on a 10-pt scale in all three areas.) Since he's 99% likely to get denied and 100% clueless about why, I'm prepping now. What kinds of things would be useful to say?

My goals are:

* be compassionate and understanding
* be truthful
* be careful about confidentiality (which probably means only talking about my own personal opinion of his case and nothing else)

For those who have navigated this situation in their departments before, what can I say that would be helpful to him? I honestly think what he needs to do is sit down with all his annual P&T reviews and see the signposts that were there...but I'm not sure this is helpful. I also think he should get a jump on figuring out his next steps and getting a new job...but again, I'm not sure this is helpful to say.

For anyone who has been denied, what would it be helpful to hear?

Ugh, is there ANYTHING helpful to say in this situation? I am dreading everything about this.

Look, I believe you should have done your part and advised your colleague years ago to leave your institution and go to an R1. I feel it is unfair to him as well that you guys hired him, while he seems to have been clear from the beginning (unless I misunderstand the story) that he is interested in conducting research and not do any teaching or service.

Probably not your fault, but definitely your admins' fault. If your institution is teaching focused, then do not hire the strongest candidate from a research point of view. What do you think? The strongest candidate research-wise would not be interested in conducting research, but would be interested in teaching? Hire someone, who is not as strong from a research point of view and they might actually be happy to teach more.

I would say there's a lot of "wrong" in this response. Good SLACs are looking for excellent researchers. Perspectives like this are why candidates with strong track records who would otherwise fit the mission of a SLAC well often are viewed with skepticism, and there's not much foundation for it.

It is, in fact, possible to be a strong researcher *and* fit a teaching-focused mission at a SLAC. In fact, that's the type of hire that many top-tier SLACs are looking for: someone who will win both CAREER awards and teaching awards.

CAREER award (or not) is an one-time distinction. Serious R1 universities are interested in faculty that can develop a sustainable research agenda and a team that grows year by year. This requires a continuous (and growing) stream of funding from diverse sources (which is damn hard for junior faculty), so getting a CAREER award (and nothing else) will simply not make the cut.

I happen to have interviewed with departments of premier R1 institutions over the last few weeks. The department heads told me that simply bringing a CAREER award without any other funding will not give me tenure and that they would prefer I bring several other grants and not bring a CAREER. So the prestige of a CAREER is one thing, but all money is green and universities want as much indirect cost as possible to keep the business going.

Also, please compare the google scholar of faculty at top R1 institutions and SLACs... After doing so, you will get all your potential questions answered.

I said nothing about what R1s were looking for.

I talked about what top-tier SLACs were looking for. I'm not sure how your experience at an R1 means you suddenly know what SLACs are looking for and how they should change their hiring strategies?

Did I perhaps miss you talking about your experience working at or hiring at a research-active SLAC?

That said, I'm quite familiar with what it takes to get hired at an R1 in my field. I'm also familiar with the profiles that are competitive for R1 hires in my field. And I'm also sure that there's a large overlap in people who will be successful at a SLAC and at an R1 based on those research profiles. What I'm not doing is saying that R1s are hiring the wrong people, or telling people on a P&T committee at an R1 that they hired and mentored the wrong person, despite not working at an R1.

Not sure why you felt this needed to be a dick measuring contest between research productivity at different institution types.

I have no interest in participating in dick measuring contests. All I am saying is the hiring committee or the department head (or even the dean) should have been clear to the faculty they hire from the very beginning and say: "We value teaching and service equally (or even more) than research. So, even if you bring millions of dollars, but you show no interest in teaching and service, you will not get tenure". Something like could have saved the P&T committee (and yourself!), the burden of having to explain to this guy why he is not getting tenure, and it could also have saved to this guy, 5-6 years of his life. Of course, it would have saved department resources, because now that you guys will not give tenure to this guy, you will need to run another search to hire someone else.

PS: In my field, there is usually a huge gap (in terms of research/funding/papers) between faculty at SLACs and at premier R1s. I have seen people from SLACs getting CAREER awards, but they typically have something like 2-3 papers per year and 50-100 citations overall (which is the track record that good PhD students have in their first 2-3 years). Apologies if my observation does not apply to other fields.

[polly_mer]

You're still early career, research_prof.  The best advice is to listen, reflect, and learn.

The accumulating evidence on these fora is you're operating from a lot of "should" instead of actual knowledge, even on very common issues. 

Asserting truth from your observations even in your field is coming across as unreliable narrator due to narrow experience.  Premier R1s and elite SLACs are very different beasts than good SLACs where research matters as does service.


IIRC, you're at a place with more teaching and less research than you like and have asserted attitudes that would result in written warnings, although not likely dismissal at third year.  Why did you take that job and what could anyone say now to get you to align with the mission instead of being so dismissive of your senior colleagues?

[Ruralguy]

OK folks, I'm locking up the measuring tapes.

Back to how to how the OP's dilemma relates:

The dilemma didn't relate to this person's teaching and research, at least not in a way that was obvious.
It wasn't even really the nebulous "collegiality" category (or non-category as it may be). It was more that this guy was shirking important service.

I think we had input from some people at R1's who also said in this extreme it could be an issue for tenure at their school too. Obviously, in practice, its a matter of degree. Some programs would *care*, but not ding for tenure, but some would *care* more, and ding for tenure.

In any case, though Quercus *wisely* didn't get into precisely what past evaluation letters said, I think (s)he made it clear that there was communication of what precisely their school cared about.

Obviously this guy probably would have preferred being at an R1, or at least that's what he projected. Whether or not he would have been competitive at an R1 will be something time will tell if he applies to them and is successful. Its not a SLAC's job to be telling their faculty that they should be freed to go to an R1. Its their job to let faculty know how they could improve to do their best job at their school and them let them go at tenure time if they haven't been good enough. Other mentors and friends could tell our faculty how to get jobs at R1's if that's their interest. 

[research_prof]

You're still early career, research_prof.  The best advice is to listen, reflect, and learn.

The accumulating evidence on these fora is you're operating from a lot of "should" instead of actual knowledge, even on very common issues. 

Asserting truth from your observations even in your field is coming across as unreliable narrator due to narrow experience.  Premier R1s and elite SLACs are very different beasts that good SLAC where research matters as does service.


IIRC, you're at a place with more teaching and less research than you like and have asserted attitudes that would result in written warnings, although not likely dismissal at third year.  Why did you take that job and what could anyone say now to get you to align with the mission instead of being so dismissive of your senior colleagues?

Polly, because you do not know my situation (you believe you do, but, in reality, you are clueless). I do more service than my peers, I do the same amount of teaching, and, of course, significantly more research.

But you are right. Nothing will get me to align with the mission of a teaching-focused department/university (even if they give me written warnings or deny my tenure). That's why I am trying to pack my stuff as soon as possible and go "play ball" with people in and actually above my league. That's what I am really looking forward to: compete/work with people better than me, who can pull their own weight.

Why I accepted this position? Well, because the position was misrepresented to me. Long story short: I was (to some extent) scammed by my department's/college's admins.

[Ruralguy]

...Oh my....you think in our collective years we haven't heard that old chestnut before, research_prof?

[clean]

I was (to some extent) scammed by my department's/college's admins.

why stay?

[mamselle]

^UNRELATED

OP, how is it going?

Any conversations or feedback to report?

What was the response of the individual when you talked with them (if you have) since the decision?

M.

[fizzycist]

There's something about tenure denial that I find extremely fascinating. How does it happen, who is to blame, and what is the fallout? It happens so infrequently at my place/in my circles that I rarely hear these stories. I hope there will be more posts related to it, but can understand if nobody wants the characters in these fora to relish over their/their friends' misery.

[polly_mer]

But you are right. Nothing will get me to align with the mission of a teaching-focused department/university (even if they give me written warnings or deny my tenure). That's why I am trying to pack my stuff as soon as possible and go "play ball" with people in and actually above my league. That's what I am really looking forward to: compete/work with people better than me, who can pull their own weight.

What happens when you can't get one of those jobs and you get non-renewed (third year) or denied tenure (sixth year)?

I don't have to know extra special you because I've known far too many people who want research positions, took teaching positions that were "misrepresented", and then had no luck moving up in the time allocated.

There's usually a couple of those folks every year on these fora.  The anger and bitterness at entirely predictable situations is common.

Seriously, what are you doing now to move to a non-academic position when the clock runs out where you are?