<p>so - obviously this can only be answered anecdotally.</p>
<p>but - what is a newly-minted PhD (with say 2 years post-doc experience) expected to achieve in the 6-7 years he needs to tenure? can anyone weigh in with any "objective" measures? </p>
<p>e.g.
5 pubs in top peer-reviewed journals?
25 pubs in top peer-reviewed journals?
5 pubs in average peer-reviewed?
25 pubs in average peer-reviewed?</p>
<p>so - what are we looking at?</p>
<p>I would assume that it would depend on the university that you are trying to get tenureship at.</p>
<p>say ur average decent state university.</p>
<p>e.g. ala indiana university, UAB, Ohio state etc.</p>
<p>Hard enough to not count on it and to be able to say you've found it worthwhile even if you're fired after 5 years.</p>
<p>I can tell you what won't help. Getting published in 3 avg/yr and organizing a student protest against the uni admin in yr 4. Apparently ;)</p>
<p>Other than that, I agree with the above posts.</p>
<p>At my university, there's a departmental "point system" in many science departments that chairs can use to gauge progress, and chairs and mentors will monitor (and suggest strategies to achieve) these points so that tenure committees will see what they want to see when the time comes for tenure review.</p>
<p>There are also usually third, fourth, and fifth year dossier reviews (done by dept, dean, and provost) that "grade" tenure-track folks on their progress. (I just got mine back for this year, yeesh.)</p>
<p>More points for higher-impact journals, fewer points for lower-impact journals, more points for monographs, fewer points for textbook chapters, more points for first author, fewer for second, third, etc. </p>
<p>From what I've seen, these things (especially at state universities) are quantified to death in the sciences, with each journal in each subfield ranked for "impact" using an algorithm that factors in journal circulation, status as "journal of record," etc. Gosh, you science folks love numbers. LOL</p>
<p>hmm... i'm in asia now, and i didn't realize the "point" system existed in NA too. i thought the love affair with IF was largely an Asia thing. i guess i was wrong!</p>
<p>if that's the case, i can comment on how promotions occur here.</p>
<p>Lecturer -> Assist. Prof (100)
Assist. Prof -> Assoc. Prof (150)
Assoc. Prof -> Prof (200)</p>
<p>the number in brackets is the number of points u need to accumulate. u can get points for guest lectures and other paraphernalia etc. but 80% of ur accumulated points must have come through publishing. the points u get from a published manuscript as follows:</p>
<p>Points = C x J x A
where
C: type of manuscript (3 for article, 2 for review, 1 for case report)
J: journal ranking (numbers are approximate to give idea how its done)
IF > 15, J = 15
IF > 5, J = 7.5
or
IF top 20% in category, J = 7.5
IF 20-40 in category, J = 5.5
IF 40-60 in category, J = 4.5
IF 60-80 in category, J = 3.5
IF < 80 in category, J = 2.5
A: Author position (5 if first author, 3 if second, 1 anywhere else. 6 if solo authorship. corresponding author position also 5 points)</p>
<p>so for instance, u publish in "Dada Science" as follows:
Original article, its ranked 12/50 (and IF < 5.0), 2nd author.
C = 3
J = 5.5
A = 3
That article would get u: 3 x 5.5 x 3 = 49.5 points.</p>
<p>i didn't realize NA did similar things (apparently).</p>
<p>I think it's more common to see a general holistic guideline, which makes politics an important factor. So, it's a flexible combination of politics, publications, and amount of grant money brought in.
Unfortunately, teaching is often at the bottom of the list of priorities.</p>
<p>The "general holistic guideline" usually ranks publications as number one, using Impact Factor to assign points. It ranks teaching next, using multiple measures (chair evaluations, peer evaluations, small group diagnostics, and student evaluations). It ranks service third, again, using multiple measures (departmental service, university service, service to discipline).</p>
<p>I wish that they would include communication ability. Its fine that professors have accents, but it is really hard to understand some of them even at office hours -_-</p>
<p>can anyone comment on suggested "numbers"? </p>
<p>eg. what does the resume of a typical just-tenured-prof at Average-Decent-State-U look like?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wish that they would include communication ability. Its fine that professors have accents, but it is really hard to understand some of them even at office hours -_-
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Prof.X is in the liberal arts I think. Many science and engineering professors are, quite frankly, worthless as teachers.</p>
<br>
<p>At my university, there's a departmental "point system" in many science departments </p>
<br>
<p>Prof X</p>
<p>just wondering. does the department only evalute work done by the candidate during their term at the particular school they are working at? suppose u have an individual who got a few decent publications prior then during their PhD. does any of this factor into their tenure review, or is the tenure review based solely on the work done at the institution during the 7 years?</p>
<p>14ofspades,</p>
<p>Every single university with which I am familiar (and that's a lot of universities, all in the US and Canada) will only count items published (and courses taught, and service performed) WHILE at the university granting tenure. In other words, previous pubs do not count at all.</p>
<p>inkbottle,
Darn right. I'm in the humanities. ;)</p>