In the following I address the tenure decision process at the Ross School of Business, the importance of teaching to that decision, the importance of research to the School, and, finally, how a person might make sense of a specific tenure decision.
In reading the following, you should be aware that I am a professor who relatively recently went through the tenure process (and was granted tenure). Given this, I am aware that some of the following may seem self-serving. Further, the following opinions are from me and do not represent the official position of anyone anywhere. It's just my take on things right now.
I'll start with a quick overview of the tenure decision (many details are left out), Just as being a student involves more than going to class, being a professor involves much more than teaching classes. It also involves doing research and performing service activities (committee work of various sorts, etc.). A newly-minted Ph.D. student starts his or her career as an assistant professor. This person works for about six years and then puts together his or her tenure case. The case is composed of items related to research and teaching. The former consists of a research statement that summarizes his or her work, several of his or her best papers, and a list of the names of 20 researchers from his or her field that the candidate thinks would be willing and able to provide an informed opinion about the candidate's research. (These letters are written in confidence so that the writer can express himself or herself without reservation.) The teaching-related items are a teaching statement that is usually a comment on past performance and future plans, and the numeric student evaluations from classes the candidate has taught.
At the beginning of the seventh year the candidate's department evaluates his or her case. The general decision criteria used is that the candidate must be either a great researcher or a great teacher and must be very good in the other. The school then goes out and asks for letters of recommendation. Once the school has received these letters, the department's tenured faculty read them and come to a recommendation about the candidate. This is passed to the school whose interests are represented by various senior faculty and deans. The school reviews the case and arrives at some sort of consensus on it. If positive, the decision is forwarded to the University Provost; if that decision is positive, then it is forwarded to the University Regents. If the decision by the school is negative, then the process usually stops at that point.
If the candidate is approved by the Regents, then he or she becomes an associate professor. As a tenured professor, this person essentially has a lifetime employment contract. Unless the person breaks serious laws or is involved in equally serious ethical violations, then this person doesn't have to worry about getting fired. That's why the tenure decision is so important. The motivations for the person have changed overnight. Before tenure the person is motivated to work so that he or she might get lifetime employment security; after tenure the person is motivated to work by his or her own intrinsic value system. For the employer (the university) there's now no "stick", only "carrot".
A full professor (or simply "professor") is someone who has gone through an additional process some time after the original tenure decision. This can occur anywhere from 3 years to 10 years later --- or never. This additional title indicates that the School respects his or her intellectual accomplishments and trusts him or her to make long-term decisions related to the School.
Now, as to specific tenure cases and trying to understand a specific tenure decision. In the first place, I have certainly not agreed with all of the School's past tenure decisions. That is my right. I'm sure that if I'm involved in tenure decisions in the future, others will not agree with my decisions. It is an inherently contentious, difficult, ambiguous, and extremely important process. It is a difficult one for all but the most seasoned tenure observers to attempt to divine. It is doubly difficult for students because they generally see only half the picture.
As discussed above, the official measure of a candidate's teaching quality is student evaluations. (See my previous post on this topic.) As for the research decision, that can be a point of contention even among informed observers and participants. This is why the school asks for so many letters. Look at what groups can stop the tenure process: research peers from other institutions, the candidate's department, the school, and the University administration. There are hundreds of reasons for someone not receiving tenure, many of them not related to the quality of the candidate's research. It's really tough to know exactly what the reasons are unless you're in on the decision process. Even then, it can be difficult to articulate why a particular decision is made. Think about your own decisions about whether you like to work with someone or not. Sometimes you are able to articulate those reasons but sometimes you are not. It's the same here but it's a very important and public decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment