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

[Ruralguy]

It might not matter now, but in what way was there a misrepresentation, Research_prof?

I could see people making semi-glib comments such as "You can totally publish and get grants in this environment!"  or "Our students are wonderful!" and they wouldn't have been lying if they simply had different experiences than you have had.

Anyway, even if it were more substantial, it might not matter, because it would be pointless for you to go nuclear and file a grievance even if it were justified.

If you want the current job, do what they ask of you and do it well. If you want another job, well, then you have two jobs. You have to do the current one reasonably enough so as not to generate student or faculty complaints and you have to apply out and as Polly says, do what you need to do for a non-academic job, assuming you don't wish an academic one.  Keep in mind for academic jobs, even schools above you schools league, will possibly not hire someone who has a past record of not getting along with colleagues, so check resentment and such at the door for your current job.

[polly_mer]

research_prof is applying for academic jobs with a research focus per the other thread.  If those jobs were easy to get, then everyone who wants one would have one and we'd never have the bitterness of people who want those jobs being stuck with the loser misrepresented jobs applying out for decades (go talk with the colleague who has no research but is also applying out) or being denied tenure for misalignment with the mission.

[larryc]

For those playing along at home, clean is correct that the departmental yes doesn't matter nearly as much as one might hope.

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.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/04/controversial-tenure-denial-harvard is an example that sticks in my mind.

I don't doubt that you are right on the whole. But at my union shop, the admin cannot and doesn't use tenure denial this way. Faculty are measured by a jointly negotiated faculty activity plan. Tenure decisions are based on that plan, with union oversight. It's a good system, sand there must be other universities with the same.

[Ruralguy]

Larryc,

Could you expand on this with a fictional scenario? It sounds interesting, but I don't quite get it.

[polly_mer]

For those playing along at home, clean is correct that the departmental yes doesn't matter nearly as much as one might hope.

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.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/04/controversial-tenure-denial-harvard is an example that sticks in my mind.

I don't doubt that you are right on the whole. But at my union shop, the admin cannot and doesn't use tenure denial this way. Faculty are measured by a jointly negotiated faculty activity plan. Tenure decisions are based on that plan, with union oversight. It's a good system, sand there must be other universities with the same.

It sounds like this isn't a vote so much as a simple met/didn't meet formal, written quantitative objectives.

It's still weird and wrong that what should be management positions are unionized instead of being shared governance.  A point of tenure is to be admitted as a master to the guild by the guild.

[research_prof]

For those playing along at home, clean is correct that the departmental yes doesn't matter nearly as much as one might hope.

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.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/04/controversial-tenure-denial-harvard is an example that sticks in my mind.

I don't doubt that you are right on the whole. But at my union shop, the admin cannot and doesn't use tenure denial this way. Faculty are measured by a jointly negotiated faculty activity plan. Tenure decisions are based on that plan, with union oversight. It's a good system, sand there must be other universities with the same.

It sounds like this isn't a vote so much as a simple met/didn't meet formal, written quantitative objectives.

It's still weird and wrong that what should be management positions are unionized instead of being shared governance.  A point of tenure is to be admitted as a master to the guild by the guild.

LOL.

I had prepared a very nice response to you, Polly (since you made things personal). But since you deleted your pathetic response, I will mind my own business. You should do the same. Cheers.

[Kron3007]

For those playing along at home, clean is correct that the departmental yes doesn't matter nearly as much as one might hope.

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.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/12/04/controversial-tenure-denial-harvard is an example that sticks in my mind.

I don't doubt that you are right on the whole. But at my union shop, the admin cannot and doesn't use tenure denial this way. Faculty are measured by a jointly negotiated faculty activity plan. Tenure decisions are based on that plan, with union oversight. It's a good system, sand there must be other universities with the same.

This sounds similar to where I am.  I don't know of any instances where the departmental decision was overruled here. 

[polly_mer]

I had prepared a very nice response to you, Polly (since you made things personal). But since you deleted your pathetic response, I will mind my own business. You should do the same. Cheers.

No can do and I've deleted nothing.  The thread has just scrolled on.

These fora are to help people by giving a broader picture and we don't discuss tenure denials for misalignment with mission very frequently.

Big picture for the readers at home:

* Most people who get academic jobs will be at institutions that are significantly lower prestige than where they did their doctorates.  That results in a different student body, often less prepared.  Humanities and social science professors will likely be teaching gen ed courses to students who are uninterested and trying to avoid learning.

* Most people will end up with heavier teaching loads and service expectations than their dissertation advisors.  It is common to have research expectations in the new job, but not the support that would be necessary to be mostly focused on research.  In some cases at teaching-only institutions with expectations of student engagement, substantial research productivity that doesn't involve undergrads will be used as evidence for shirking teaching or service because that's time and energy that could have gone elsewhere.

* While it's possible to move from a medium teaching-load institution to a research institution, there are many caveats.  One big caveat is academic age versus observed productivity.  Someone who is N years out from PhD will be compared to all the others in that same range.  For an elite research institution, a solid funding record with an established research group to move is likely an expectation for anyone who is more than a year or two post-PhD.  Even only being two yearsvout, spending those couple years as an elite postdoc with grants in process is a better position than being full-time faculty who wrapped up papers, but didn't get substantial funding.

The more time spent away from the high-level research, the less competitive the aspirant's CV.  People who move up to higher research will generally be moving after tenure and to more research, not top 5 (e.g., 4/4 to 2/2, not usually 4/4 to 1/0).  One can build a research portfolio over a decade at a higher teaching load, but that's falling behind research-elite peers every year.

* Every year, another cohort of research-elite PhDs is graduated.  A shiny new candidate will nearly always win at the elite research places over candidates with staler-by-the-minute CVs, even if the CV would have been competitive in a previous year not that long ago.

  Keeping active enough on the conference and visiting circuits to remain part of the elite circle will mean being absent from the current job often enough to cause comment and will require substantial resources that will also cause comment. 

Those comments in the current job will not be positive if the expectations are more like two conferences per year and being on campus most business days to be interacting with students outside the classroom.  Service at many teaching-heavy institutions is far more than number of committee assignments and diligently attending meetings.

* Attitude related to the mission with the observable related actions is hard to fake for the necessary years.  The Office Space discussion of how much flair immediately comes to mind. 

Meeting the minimum expectations in key areas of the current job while observably working towards a completely different job at the level of effort that will pay off in getting the new job almost certainly will result in third-year non-renewal or tenure denial.

* Thus, what often happens is people who dearly desire a high-level elite research academic job either:

a) do what's necessary to get the desired job gambling that they will move before their current job terminates

or

b) do what's necessary to keep their current job and then cannot move because of having a non-competitive CV.

In many cases, people fail to move and fail to get tenure.  People who are in fields where academia is the only place where graduate degrees are hired for their expertise are then in a very bad place.

* Therefore, the advice to people who want to be at the elite research places is usually to take a research, soft money position or postdoc to be at the elite level doing elite things instead of taking a completely different job with different expectations.  The standard example remains of being the drummer in the band and somehow trying to leverage years of that experience into being the lead guitarist.

[Wahoo Redux]

Your concept of a teaching-focused university is not entirely correct, Polly, particularly regarding research----or perhaps we might say that your version is a bit too acute.

[Ruralguy]

I've worked consistently at the same so-so SLAC for 22 years, so that makes me a narrow expert in some ways, but limited in others.

In any case, most of Polly's post jibes with my experience, though I partly agree with Wahoo as well. That is, though I had people suspect of *me* as a young buck interested in real research, people don't hold that view very commonly any more toward our younger faculty. I think that's partly because the people staring down on them are folks like me who always resented that sort of behavior, so we don't want to treat anyone else like that. Its also because there's more thorough training of grad students that I see, and at least in the humanities, we get some gems that were passed over by the elite SLACs. Nonetheless, no amount of research here will get you tenure if your teaching is poor, especially if it generates student complaints and you never involve students in your scholarship (I realize the opportunities for that vary with discipline). I don't think anyone has tested not getting tenure on poor service with good teaching and research, but it can certainly make a case for tenure uncertain, and would definitely kill a full professor case.

The bottom line is that if you are working at a teaching oriented school you really must focus on that well enough to make it through tenure, which at some places means you have to be pretty darn good. It does mean writing papers largely on weekends, holidays and summer, and in later years, sabbatical. You can moan about that all you want and deride the other professors all you want for having a shorter stack of journal articles than yours for all the good it will do. Yes, we're probably a bunch of hayseed mo-rons, but us mo-rons are deciding whether you will get food on the table after your evaluation this year or whenever, so be attentive. 

[polly_mer]

Your concept of a teaching-focused university is not entirely correct, Polly, particularly regarding research----or perhaps we might say that your version is a bit too acute.

There's a huge range of institutions from elite research down to community college.  I make no effort to, say, address specifically an R2 with a mix of research, teaching, and service that will vary based on department.

I am familiar with S(elective)LACs that are undergrad-only where research with the undergrads is a required part of the job.  That's not a teaching-focused institution although teaching is valued.

I'm familiar with wannabe S(mall)LACs where teaching and service are king and people are indeed denied tenure by doing too much research that doesn't involve undergrads.  This is a teaching-focused college, never a university.

I'm familiar with universities that do excellent undergrad teaching along side excellent research that has graduate students.  That's not a teachung-focused university although it might be a university.


I'm familiar with universities that have excellent undergrad teaching and excellent elite research, but those are usually two different faculty ladders coexisting on the same campus.  Also not a teaching-focused institution, although a university.

I'm familiar with aspiring-to-be-research universities that burn out faculty by having high teaching loads, requiring substantial service requirements, and still having research productivity expectations.  This is the worst of all worlds because there's only so many hours in a day.  Tenure denials are most frequent here as faculty pick their interest and get denied on the other area.

Go ahead, Wahoo, and write your own post on these "teaching-focused research universities" that isn't really a thing and then we can point out your errors because you aren't up on the patterns from decades of discussions and observations, but only know your experience.

In short, actually give useful advice to the readers at home instead of continuing on the path of wanting me to be wrong, but making no case for an achievable reality that aligns with known evidence.

[Golazo]

I'm at a regional comprehensive. Teaching is first. But if you don't hit the (admittedly modest) scholarship targets, you will get denied, unless there is a compelling reason (I built a new program from scratch instead of publishing). Service and being a good member of the community also matter, but not in the face time in your office way. But you need to be able to show that you are contributing. At the same time, decent teaching can get tenure if you hit beyond the minimum of everything else.

That are probably places where scholarship is treated with suspicion, but I think these are less common than suggested--even my first job at a place and location that were all pretty terrible there was a clear desire for some scholarship. I've had several 4-4 interviews and at all but one, scholarship was clearly part of a successful trajectory. 

[quercus]

^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.

It's so weird. I sent him a text saying I was sorry to hear the news (which was true), and got a kind of anodyne response back. I later heard from another colleague that he had decided to appeal. So that might be the reason for the radio silence. Everyone seems to be under a gag order.  I'll update you if I have anything useful to add later.

[Mobius]

FWIW, I wouldn't have sent that text unsolicited.

[polly_mer]

FWIW, I wouldn't have sent that text unsolicited.

Yes, for the readers at home, don't do that unless you were best friends.  Even then, it would be better to let him take the lead if you were part of the process.

If you weren't on the committee, then a brief condolence note to a best friend may be appropriate.