University's motivation for having tenure-track positions
Suppose I used to hold a tenure-track math position at a R1 institution, but then I was denied tenure. Assume I do not care about job security (and never cared) and I would be more than happy to keep working under the same conditions and would work just as hard as I worked before tenure denial. The question is: what are the reasons why the department would not be happy to keep me (under the same conditions)?
Some hypotheses:
- Me working at the department is beneficial for the department at any given point of time. If this is true, then they should be OK with me remaining in my present position.
- Accepting someone for tenure-track is a calculated risk the department takes (because it can not judge purely from the post-doc record whether one is going to be a great researcher or not). Now that my tenure-track is over, they have figured out that I am not good enough and it is beneficial for them to kick me out.
- For an average person, the possibility of tenure is a strong motivator. It is beneficial for the department to have someone who has been promised tenure at any given point of time but it is not beneficial once the person knows they won't be given tenure. I am just a weirdo who happens not to care.
mathematics tenure-track
New contributor
|
show 4 more comments
Suppose I used to hold a tenure-track math position at a R1 institution, but then I was denied tenure. Assume I do not care about job security (and never cared) and I would be more than happy to keep working under the same conditions and would work just as hard as I worked before tenure denial. The question is: what are the reasons why the department would not be happy to keep me (under the same conditions)?
Some hypotheses:
- Me working at the department is beneficial for the department at any given point of time. If this is true, then they should be OK with me remaining in my present position.
- Accepting someone for tenure-track is a calculated risk the department takes (because it can not judge purely from the post-doc record whether one is going to be a great researcher or not). Now that my tenure-track is over, they have figured out that I am not good enough and it is beneficial for them to kick me out.
- For an average person, the possibility of tenure is a strong motivator. It is beneficial for the department to have someone who has been promised tenure at any given point of time but it is not beneficial once the person knows they won't be given tenure. I am just a weirdo who happens not to care.
mathematics tenure-track
New contributor
I think the answer is the second hypothesis, but I will leave it to one of the more senior faculty here to weigh in...
– Dawn
3 hours ago
1
One could dream up a number of other hypotheses, but to what point? That’s how the game is played, and those are the rules. No tenure, time to move on.
– Jon Custer
3 hours ago
In the situation you described, even if the department were happy to keep you as an untenured faculty member, they couldn't do so. In my university, the Regents' Bylaws say that, if we kept a tenure-track assistant professor in that position longer than 7 years, then (s)he would automatically have tenure, whether or not tenure was "awarded". (Department and college administrators whose negligence led to such "de facto tenure" would be in very hot water.)
– Andreas Blass
3 hours ago
@JonCuster I personally did move on but the point is somebody at some point did invent the rules of the game so that they would benefit him. I want to understand the rationale.
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
3
I think you're missing opportunity cost. Suppose they had a choice between keeping you at your current salary, and firing you and hiring someone new at the same salary (or likely less). You've already demonstrated that you do not meet the standards expected of a tenured faculty member. The new person might eventually do so. Doesn't that seem like an easy decision?
– Nate Eldredge
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Suppose I used to hold a tenure-track math position at a R1 institution, but then I was denied tenure. Assume I do not care about job security (and never cared) and I would be more than happy to keep working under the same conditions and would work just as hard as I worked before tenure denial. The question is: what are the reasons why the department would not be happy to keep me (under the same conditions)?
Some hypotheses:
- Me working at the department is beneficial for the department at any given point of time. If this is true, then they should be OK with me remaining in my present position.
- Accepting someone for tenure-track is a calculated risk the department takes (because it can not judge purely from the post-doc record whether one is going to be a great researcher or not). Now that my tenure-track is over, they have figured out that I am not good enough and it is beneficial for them to kick me out.
- For an average person, the possibility of tenure is a strong motivator. It is beneficial for the department to have someone who has been promised tenure at any given point of time but it is not beneficial once the person knows they won't be given tenure. I am just a weirdo who happens not to care.
mathematics tenure-track
New contributor
Suppose I used to hold a tenure-track math position at a R1 institution, but then I was denied tenure. Assume I do not care about job security (and never cared) and I would be more than happy to keep working under the same conditions and would work just as hard as I worked before tenure denial. The question is: what are the reasons why the department would not be happy to keep me (under the same conditions)?
Some hypotheses:
- Me working at the department is beneficial for the department at any given point of time. If this is true, then they should be OK with me remaining in my present position.
- Accepting someone for tenure-track is a calculated risk the department takes (because it can not judge purely from the post-doc record whether one is going to be a great researcher or not). Now that my tenure-track is over, they have figured out that I am not good enough and it is beneficial for them to kick me out.
- For an average person, the possibility of tenure is a strong motivator. It is beneficial for the department to have someone who has been promised tenure at any given point of time but it is not beneficial once the person knows they won't be given tenure. I am just a weirdo who happens not to care.
mathematics tenure-track
mathematics tenure-track
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 3 hours ago
bye_bye_harvardbye_bye_harvard
161
161
New contributor
New contributor
I think the answer is the second hypothesis, but I will leave it to one of the more senior faculty here to weigh in...
– Dawn
3 hours ago
1
One could dream up a number of other hypotheses, but to what point? That’s how the game is played, and those are the rules. No tenure, time to move on.
– Jon Custer
3 hours ago
In the situation you described, even if the department were happy to keep you as an untenured faculty member, they couldn't do so. In my university, the Regents' Bylaws say that, if we kept a tenure-track assistant professor in that position longer than 7 years, then (s)he would automatically have tenure, whether or not tenure was "awarded". (Department and college administrators whose negligence led to such "de facto tenure" would be in very hot water.)
– Andreas Blass
3 hours ago
@JonCuster I personally did move on but the point is somebody at some point did invent the rules of the game so that they would benefit him. I want to understand the rationale.
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
3
I think you're missing opportunity cost. Suppose they had a choice between keeping you at your current salary, and firing you and hiring someone new at the same salary (or likely less). You've already demonstrated that you do not meet the standards expected of a tenured faculty member. The new person might eventually do so. Doesn't that seem like an easy decision?
– Nate Eldredge
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I think the answer is the second hypothesis, but I will leave it to one of the more senior faculty here to weigh in...
– Dawn
3 hours ago
1
One could dream up a number of other hypotheses, but to what point? That’s how the game is played, and those are the rules. No tenure, time to move on.
– Jon Custer
3 hours ago
In the situation you described, even if the department were happy to keep you as an untenured faculty member, they couldn't do so. In my university, the Regents' Bylaws say that, if we kept a tenure-track assistant professor in that position longer than 7 years, then (s)he would automatically have tenure, whether or not tenure was "awarded". (Department and college administrators whose negligence led to such "de facto tenure" would be in very hot water.)
– Andreas Blass
3 hours ago
@JonCuster I personally did move on but the point is somebody at some point did invent the rules of the game so that they would benefit him. I want to understand the rationale.
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
3
I think you're missing opportunity cost. Suppose they had a choice between keeping you at your current salary, and firing you and hiring someone new at the same salary (or likely less). You've already demonstrated that you do not meet the standards expected of a tenured faculty member. The new person might eventually do so. Doesn't that seem like an easy decision?
– Nate Eldredge
2 hours ago
I think the answer is the second hypothesis, but I will leave it to one of the more senior faculty here to weigh in...
– Dawn
3 hours ago
I think the answer is the second hypothesis, but I will leave it to one of the more senior faculty here to weigh in...
– Dawn
3 hours ago
1
1
One could dream up a number of other hypotheses, but to what point? That’s how the game is played, and those are the rules. No tenure, time to move on.
– Jon Custer
3 hours ago
One could dream up a number of other hypotheses, but to what point? That’s how the game is played, and those are the rules. No tenure, time to move on.
– Jon Custer
3 hours ago
In the situation you described, even if the department were happy to keep you as an untenured faculty member, they couldn't do so. In my university, the Regents' Bylaws say that, if we kept a tenure-track assistant professor in that position longer than 7 years, then (s)he would automatically have tenure, whether or not tenure was "awarded". (Department and college administrators whose negligence led to such "de facto tenure" would be in very hot water.)
– Andreas Blass
3 hours ago
In the situation you described, even if the department were happy to keep you as an untenured faculty member, they couldn't do so. In my university, the Regents' Bylaws say that, if we kept a tenure-track assistant professor in that position longer than 7 years, then (s)he would automatically have tenure, whether or not tenure was "awarded". (Department and college administrators whose negligence led to such "de facto tenure" would be in very hot water.)
– Andreas Blass
3 hours ago
@JonCuster I personally did move on but the point is somebody at some point did invent the rules of the game so that they would benefit him. I want to understand the rationale.
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
@JonCuster I personally did move on but the point is somebody at some point did invent the rules of the game so that they would benefit him. I want to understand the rationale.
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
3
3
I think you're missing opportunity cost. Suppose they had a choice between keeping you at your current salary, and firing you and hiring someone new at the same salary (or likely less). You've already demonstrated that you do not meet the standards expected of a tenured faculty member. The new person might eventually do so. Doesn't that seem like an easy decision?
– Nate Eldredge
2 hours ago
I think you're missing opportunity cost. Suppose they had a choice between keeping you at your current salary, and firing you and hiring someone new at the same salary (or likely less). You've already demonstrated that you do not meet the standards expected of a tenured faculty member. The new person might eventually do so. Doesn't that seem like an easy decision?
– Nate Eldredge
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In most jobs in industry, new employees go through a probationary period during which they can be let go (fired) for poor performance without the protections and benefits that more experienced employees might get. If a new employee isn't working out, then they'll be let go during this probationary period.
In higher education in the US, the (customarily at most 7 years long) tenure track is an extremely long probationary period tied with policies that (in the name of academic freedom) give tenured faculty very strong protection against being fired or laid off.
When a tenure-track professor is denied tenure, the university has decided that they're not doing well enough in the job to justify a lifetime commitment from the institution. There are significant costs associated with recruiting a replacement, as well as significant consequences for the morale of other junior faculty, so these decisions aren't made lightly.
Allowing a tenure track faculty member to continue as non-tenured faculty member after you've denied them tenure has problems. In addition to lowering the morale of other tenured and tenure-track faculty, it runs afoul of the guidelines for tenure promulgated by the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) that say that tenure must be granted after seven years of service.
It should be noted that the tenure system is in a significant decline in the US. More and more, teaching and research work is being done by people in non-tenure-track positions and the number of tenured faculty is declining.
1
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
1
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It is a strategy to avoid the Peter Principle, similar to the military's up-or-out policy.
In particular, there are only so many slots for professors (tenured or otherwise). They want to allocate those slots to the best candidates as possible. Mathematically, there is some quality threshold Q', and they want to give only to candidates with Q > Q'. Now if your Q is less than Q', letting you go will allow them to bring in someone else whose quality may be greater than Q', which improves the department (or your replacement may also have Q < Q', in which case they'll get let go also and try again). In other words -- by not offering tenure, the university is taking the gamble that they can find someone better to fill the spot long-term.
Further, I suspect it is also true that Q is not static, but changes (decreases) after a tenure decision is made.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
bye_bye_harvard is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f128033%2funiversitys-motivation-for-having-tenure-track-positions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In most jobs in industry, new employees go through a probationary period during which they can be let go (fired) for poor performance without the protections and benefits that more experienced employees might get. If a new employee isn't working out, then they'll be let go during this probationary period.
In higher education in the US, the (customarily at most 7 years long) tenure track is an extremely long probationary period tied with policies that (in the name of academic freedom) give tenured faculty very strong protection against being fired or laid off.
When a tenure-track professor is denied tenure, the university has decided that they're not doing well enough in the job to justify a lifetime commitment from the institution. There are significant costs associated with recruiting a replacement, as well as significant consequences for the morale of other junior faculty, so these decisions aren't made lightly.
Allowing a tenure track faculty member to continue as non-tenured faculty member after you've denied them tenure has problems. In addition to lowering the morale of other tenured and tenure-track faculty, it runs afoul of the guidelines for tenure promulgated by the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) that say that tenure must be granted after seven years of service.
It should be noted that the tenure system is in a significant decline in the US. More and more, teaching and research work is being done by people in non-tenure-track positions and the number of tenured faculty is declining.
1
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
1
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In most jobs in industry, new employees go through a probationary period during which they can be let go (fired) for poor performance without the protections and benefits that more experienced employees might get. If a new employee isn't working out, then they'll be let go during this probationary period.
In higher education in the US, the (customarily at most 7 years long) tenure track is an extremely long probationary period tied with policies that (in the name of academic freedom) give tenured faculty very strong protection against being fired or laid off.
When a tenure-track professor is denied tenure, the university has decided that they're not doing well enough in the job to justify a lifetime commitment from the institution. There are significant costs associated with recruiting a replacement, as well as significant consequences for the morale of other junior faculty, so these decisions aren't made lightly.
Allowing a tenure track faculty member to continue as non-tenured faculty member after you've denied them tenure has problems. In addition to lowering the morale of other tenured and tenure-track faculty, it runs afoul of the guidelines for tenure promulgated by the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) that say that tenure must be granted after seven years of service.
It should be noted that the tenure system is in a significant decline in the US. More and more, teaching and research work is being done by people in non-tenure-track positions and the number of tenured faculty is declining.
1
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
1
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In most jobs in industry, new employees go through a probationary period during which they can be let go (fired) for poor performance without the protections and benefits that more experienced employees might get. If a new employee isn't working out, then they'll be let go during this probationary period.
In higher education in the US, the (customarily at most 7 years long) tenure track is an extremely long probationary period tied with policies that (in the name of academic freedom) give tenured faculty very strong protection against being fired or laid off.
When a tenure-track professor is denied tenure, the university has decided that they're not doing well enough in the job to justify a lifetime commitment from the institution. There are significant costs associated with recruiting a replacement, as well as significant consequences for the morale of other junior faculty, so these decisions aren't made lightly.
Allowing a tenure track faculty member to continue as non-tenured faculty member after you've denied them tenure has problems. In addition to lowering the morale of other tenured and tenure-track faculty, it runs afoul of the guidelines for tenure promulgated by the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) that say that tenure must be granted after seven years of service.
It should be noted that the tenure system is in a significant decline in the US. More and more, teaching and research work is being done by people in non-tenure-track positions and the number of tenured faculty is declining.
In most jobs in industry, new employees go through a probationary period during which they can be let go (fired) for poor performance without the protections and benefits that more experienced employees might get. If a new employee isn't working out, then they'll be let go during this probationary period.
In higher education in the US, the (customarily at most 7 years long) tenure track is an extremely long probationary period tied with policies that (in the name of academic freedom) give tenured faculty very strong protection against being fired or laid off.
When a tenure-track professor is denied tenure, the university has decided that they're not doing well enough in the job to justify a lifetime commitment from the institution. There are significant costs associated with recruiting a replacement, as well as significant consequences for the morale of other junior faculty, so these decisions aren't made lightly.
Allowing a tenure track faculty member to continue as non-tenured faculty member after you've denied them tenure has problems. In addition to lowering the morale of other tenured and tenure-track faculty, it runs afoul of the guidelines for tenure promulgated by the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP) that say that tenure must be granted after seven years of service.
It should be noted that the tenure system is in a significant decline in the US. More and more, teaching and research work is being done by people in non-tenure-track positions and the number of tenured faculty is declining.
answered 3 hours ago
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
29.3k353107
29.3k353107
1
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
1
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
1
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
1
1
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
thank you for your answer. So the answer is essentially "There is pressure from the society to give tenure to people who have worked for the department for 7 years." Do I understand correctly?
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
1
1
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
The tenure system is something that was created and maintained by universities and their faculty. I don’t think that the rest of society has had much to say about it, although some politicians have certainly argued that it should be abolished.
– Brian Borchers
2 hours ago
add a comment |
It is a strategy to avoid the Peter Principle, similar to the military's up-or-out policy.
In particular, there are only so many slots for professors (tenured or otherwise). They want to allocate those slots to the best candidates as possible. Mathematically, there is some quality threshold Q', and they want to give only to candidates with Q > Q'. Now if your Q is less than Q', letting you go will allow them to bring in someone else whose quality may be greater than Q', which improves the department (or your replacement may also have Q < Q', in which case they'll get let go also and try again). In other words -- by not offering tenure, the university is taking the gamble that they can find someone better to fill the spot long-term.
Further, I suspect it is also true that Q is not static, but changes (decreases) after a tenure decision is made.
add a comment |
It is a strategy to avoid the Peter Principle, similar to the military's up-or-out policy.
In particular, there are only so many slots for professors (tenured or otherwise). They want to allocate those slots to the best candidates as possible. Mathematically, there is some quality threshold Q', and they want to give only to candidates with Q > Q'. Now if your Q is less than Q', letting you go will allow them to bring in someone else whose quality may be greater than Q', which improves the department (or your replacement may also have Q < Q', in which case they'll get let go also and try again). In other words -- by not offering tenure, the university is taking the gamble that they can find someone better to fill the spot long-term.
Further, I suspect it is also true that Q is not static, but changes (decreases) after a tenure decision is made.
add a comment |
It is a strategy to avoid the Peter Principle, similar to the military's up-or-out policy.
In particular, there are only so many slots for professors (tenured or otherwise). They want to allocate those slots to the best candidates as possible. Mathematically, there is some quality threshold Q', and they want to give only to candidates with Q > Q'. Now if your Q is less than Q', letting you go will allow them to bring in someone else whose quality may be greater than Q', which improves the department (or your replacement may also have Q < Q', in which case they'll get let go also and try again). In other words -- by not offering tenure, the university is taking the gamble that they can find someone better to fill the spot long-term.
Further, I suspect it is also true that Q is not static, but changes (decreases) after a tenure decision is made.
It is a strategy to avoid the Peter Principle, similar to the military's up-or-out policy.
In particular, there are only so many slots for professors (tenured or otherwise). They want to allocate those slots to the best candidates as possible. Mathematically, there is some quality threshold Q', and they want to give only to candidates with Q > Q'. Now if your Q is less than Q', letting you go will allow them to bring in someone else whose quality may be greater than Q', which improves the department (or your replacement may also have Q < Q', in which case they'll get let go also and try again). In other words -- by not offering tenure, the university is taking the gamble that they can find someone better to fill the spot long-term.
Further, I suspect it is also true that Q is not static, but changes (decreases) after a tenure decision is made.
edited 28 mins ago
answered 34 mins ago
cag51cag51
18.3k93869
18.3k93869
add a comment |
add a comment |
bye_bye_harvard is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
bye_bye_harvard is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
bye_bye_harvard is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
bye_bye_harvard is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f128033%2funiversitys-motivation-for-having-tenure-track-positions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I think the answer is the second hypothesis, but I will leave it to one of the more senior faculty here to weigh in...
– Dawn
3 hours ago
1
One could dream up a number of other hypotheses, but to what point? That’s how the game is played, and those are the rules. No tenure, time to move on.
– Jon Custer
3 hours ago
In the situation you described, even if the department were happy to keep you as an untenured faculty member, they couldn't do so. In my university, the Regents' Bylaws say that, if we kept a tenure-track assistant professor in that position longer than 7 years, then (s)he would automatically have tenure, whether or not tenure was "awarded". (Department and college administrators whose negligence led to such "de facto tenure" would be in very hot water.)
– Andreas Blass
3 hours ago
@JonCuster I personally did move on but the point is somebody at some point did invent the rules of the game so that they would benefit him. I want to understand the rationale.
– bye_bye_harvard
3 hours ago
3
I think you're missing opportunity cost. Suppose they had a choice between keeping you at your current salary, and firing you and hiring someone new at the same salary (or likely less). You've already demonstrated that you do not meet the standards expected of a tenured faculty member. The new person might eventually do so. Doesn't that seem like an easy decision?
– Nate Eldredge
2 hours ago