How much research at your institution, for tenure?

[Conjugate]

My own institutions mandates teaching as 70% of your evaluation, with research (or "faculty development") and service allowed to make up 30% in whatever combination (multiples of 5%) you wish. This would be an Option 5.

I'm only curious as to how people perceive their institutions, and have no ulterior motive or use in mind for these results.

[pgher]

I would say that we are an aspiring research institution that still values teaching. Service requirements are highly variable among departments. Mine is pretty low; other small departments need warm bodies on committees.

[drbrt]

I'm at 50-40-10 here at my aspiring research institution. It gets tricky because that 50 is still a 4/4, but we do get grad student graders for pretty much every class.

[Hegemony]

We're at 40-40-20 research-teaching-service. In theory.  In practice, the teaching tends to consume about 70% of the time, so I'd say we're actually at 20-70-30. Yes, that does equal more than 100.

[Hibush]

R1 science: We hire assistant professors typically with 60% research. Any less would not be tenurable, any more and research would have to carry the whole tenure package.

We expect quite a bit from the research component, not only publications but assessment of what happened as a result of those publications and the associated research. I jokingly say that a million dollars does wonders for a tenure package. The reality is that it will take that much money to do an appropriate amount of research.

Teaching quality is critical since we have high-performing and high-paying students, and base funds are tried to enrollment. While the number of courses is low (1-1 or 1-2), the instructor usually develops them from the ground up and most are unique to our school. That's a lot of prep! We also assess teaching effectiveness for tenure in multiple ways. (There is training for those who are hired with only TAing as teaching experience). Great researchers have run into tenure trouble for not getting the teaching right.

We go easy on the service before tenure.

[AJ_Katz]

One manuscript for every 20% FTE in research.  One graduate course every other-year and co-teaching a grad class every year for every 20% FTE in teaching.  These are informal guidelines in my department.  Quality matters, but the metrics that constitute quality vary from position-to-position within the department.

[docwalrus]

R1 University but within a smaller college.  The goalposts continue to shift so it is tough to say.  However conventional wisdom is $750,000 in funding, 12 manuscripts in reputable journals.  Typical teaching load is a 2-1, but with minimal TA support and the expectation to develop entirely new content for the assigned courses.

[Parasaurolophus]

Mine's a regional university that transitioned up from being a community college about ten years ago. There's no tenure system here (yet), just a unionized faculty pool. Advancement is predicated entirely on teaching and service, with no research component. The load is 4-4 (or 3-3-2ish), and you're expected to give 37 service hours per course--so, around 296 hours of service a year.

[glowdart]

We're at 40-40-20 research-teaching-service. In theory.  In practice, the teaching tends to consume about 70% of the time, so I'd say we're actually at 20-70-30. Yes, that does equal more than 100.

This sounds like us.

(Indeed, I've often wondered over the years if we work together.)

[Kron3007]

Our standard distribution is 40-40-20.  Tenure mostly focuses on research, but there is no hard formula for output (as it should be).  That's not to say teaching isn't important, and poor performance could sink a case, but excellent teaching would not substitute for a poor research portfolio.

[Ruralguy]

We don't have a formula, but certainly teaching is emphasized over teaching  by a lot, and this is what is stated in the handbook (as well as service). Even with the percentages though (in our case just roughly approximated), every category is a potential sine qua non. That is, if you are poor in one category, its going to be almost impossible to make up for it in another and still get tenure. I suppose its happened, since we tend to be lenient.

I'm not sure "way too much service" is accurate for everybody at my school, since a lot of people get a way with either the minimum or nothing. Its even worse when people are given awards when they are in this category (its easier to get a paper published or plan a new class if you are not being forced to even serve on the Parking Ticket Appeals Committee). Competent people are often urged to run for important committees, and then often are the ones who either volunteer or are urged to become Chair. I actually feel that this is important, especially for full professors.

[Conjugate]

We don't have a formula, but certainly teaching is emphasized over teaching  by a lot, and this is what is stated in the handbook (as well as service). Even with the percentages though (in our case just roughly approximated), every category is a potential sine qua non. That is, if you are poor in one category, its going to be almost impossible to make up for it in another and still get tenure. I suppose its happened, since we tend to be lenient.

I'm not sure "way too much service" is accurate for everybody at my school, since a lot of people get a way with either the minimum or nothing. Its even worse when people are given awards when they are in this category (its easier to get a paper published or plan a new class if you are not being forced to even serve on the Parking Ticket Appeals Committee). Competent people are often urged to run for important committees, and then often are the ones who either volunteer or are urged to become Chair. I actually feel that this is important, especially for full professors.

Yes, I realized that "way too much" as the only option for Service was inadequate, but it seems to reflect the opinions of many (most?) faculty to whom I've spoken, and a poll allows only five options. I suppose I could have put in another poll, with varying levels of service vs. research and "way too much teaching," and another with service vs. teaching and "way too much research," but even then....

[mythbuster]

Well there's the official breakdown, and then there is reality. I'm at a compass point comprehensive master's institution. Officially we are 70% Teaching 25% research 5% service. But the reality is more 50-50-50. Now what thta looks like in terms of funding or papers gets even more murky depending on your department.
    In the tenure discussions there has been a huge overemphasis on the research as its the one part people feel can be objectively critiqued. At least that was the case until our new President arrived an now it's all about that overall score on your teaching evaluations.  So I likely won't be going up for Full until that fight with the union blows over.

[Golazo]

Here at my public regional 4-4, its two peer-reviewed "things" for tenure (book chapters, articles, etc). I think we are probably in the 60-20-20+ range. You can bring one of them with you, though I should have the two at my new place without a problem. Venue doesn't matter at all, in fact, I've been told not to submit to places that take too long for review (ie, aim high, but not at somewhere that will take a year, so you have plenty of time to go quickly down the food chain). Co-authored also dosen't matter, though my book and current R&R are solo. 

[Trogdor]

Well there's the official breakdown, and then there is reality.

That's an important thing to realize, especially at an institution with aspirations or delusions of grandeur. At many schools, the bar keeps rising, often so fast that a tenure packet that was approved just a few years ago might not be today. Faculty members who got tenure with just a handful of publications may expect their younger colleagues to have twice as many.
And there are the subjective "intangibles" such as collegiality, which can be interpreted however someone wants.

So... I have a modest proposal. Any department that wants to increase tenure expectations should have to do so retroactively. Anyone who got tenure in the past 10 years should have the new standards applied to them. if they wouldn't have gotten tenure, then their tenure should be retroactively revoked up until the date when they did meet the new standards, and should have to pay back whatever additional salary they earned during that time.

for example.
Professor A got tenure five years ago with two publications.
The new standard is three publications.
Professor A didn't get a third publication until last year.
Professor A got a $10,000/year increase in salary.
Professor A would still have tenure, but would be expected to repay 4 years of that salary increase ($40,000)