reappointment at the rank of Assistant Professor

[violet]

I was contacted by a university with a request to write a letter assessing one of their faculty members. It was worded as follows:

"Our department is considering the reappointment of Assistant Professor X at the rank of Assistant Professor."

Initially, I thought that there was a typo and "at the rank of Assistant Professor" should have been "at the rank of Associate Professor." But they told me there is no typo. The faculty member is being reappointed as an Assistant Professor. Is it normal to request outside letters for that? I have a good sense of how to assess someone for tenure at the rank of Associate. But how does one assess someone who has been employed in a tenure-line position for 6 years and is being considered for reappointment at the rank of Assistant Professor?

[Morden]

I wonder if this place has decoupled tenure and rank. So you can be granted tenure but it requires a different application to be granted promotion. Did the university provide any description of the criteria by which you are supposed to judge this case?

[violet]

I'm hoping they will but they didn't provide any criteria yet. I'll add another detail to explain why this is bothering me. I applied for this position (the one held now by the person I am being asked to assess; I was rejected and she was accepted). This is a top university and she has a weak publication record since her appointment. So I'm guessing that this is being done because they know she would never get tenure with her current pub. record but perhaps she could get it in 6 years. I'm beginning to regret agreeing to this....

[Ruralguy]

Yes, to me it seems like either decoupling of tenure and rank or this isn't a tenure decision at all.

[Puget]

We have reappointment after three years here, which I believe is fairly common. Ours does not include outside letters, but I'd imagine this place is just somewhat of an outlier in doing so. At least for us, the criteria are the same as for tenure but the bar is much, much lower -- almost everyone gets reappointed but it serves as an early warning on what you still need to do to be tenure-ready.

[Parasaurolophus]

I wonder whether the fact that you applied for that job constitutes a conflict of interest. That this is bothering you a bit suggests to me it kind of is, and perhaps you should recuse yourself (thereby also saving yourself the hassle).

[Ruralguy]

OP,

From what you provide I think you should recuse for sure. It's the right thing  to do and an easy out.
I wonder why they contacted someone who they rejected for a hire to assess a tenure candidate, and for that very same job...weird!

[spork]

Bow out unless you are compensated for your time and effort. $500 ought to cover it.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Yes, sounds like a conflict of interest. Recuse.

Seems to me that the chair never should have sent this to you.

[Ruralguy]

Someone is bound to notice that the outside reviewer was the same person who applied for the job and didn't get it.
That could really foul up the case, and I think it constitutes malfeasance by the chair. However, presuming that it's an unfortunate coincidence, just say no and explain why.

[clean]

Bow out unless you are compensated for your time and effort. $500 ought to cover it.

These sorts of things are often 'compensated' as service and added to the annual report and counted toward a raise (IF there is one!).

Im not aware of anyone paying OR getting paid for an external review such as this.  (BUT if they are I will certainly counter the bid to $425)

[mleok]

Bow out unless you are compensated for your time and effort. $500 ought to cover it.

These sorts of things are often 'compensated' as service and added to the annual report and counted toward a raise (IF there is one!).

Im not aware of anyone paying OR getting paid for an external review such as this.  (BUT if they are I will certainly counter the bid to $425)

I've been paid to do tenure reviews, and even a letter for an initial appointment. Typically, these are institutions which are lower ranked than mine, or an elite LAC as opposed to the R1 that I'm at.

[lightning]

If the chair is digging up reviewers from a pool of rejected applicants, the chair must be getting desperate and/or they have no friends to lean on nor power/status to leverage.

Furthermore, I thought outside reviewers were supposed to hold one rank above the current rank of the applicant?

Also, I sense that people are getting tired of doing reviews for other universities. I've got a mole in admin, and they told me that it's getting harder to find outside people to do tenure and promotion reviews.

[Parasaurolophus]

It seems plausible that it's not digging. For example, I've applied to over 500 jobs, most of which had 650+ applicants (one of which had over 1200). It would be pretty easy not to know I'd applied to your institution and been rejected, even if you were on te committee.

It's a little different if the OP was interviewed, however.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Seems like a tenure letter writer should be a senior, not a peer who was applying for the same assistant position within the last several years.