How long does it usually take to become an assistant professor?

[mathboy98]

<p>

Well, that’s the point, though – that you can effectively not do work during that time and just delay graduation by a year or so. You do the “real work” before the baby and after the baby sleeps through the night.

</p>

<p>Well, to be clear I understood one could push things off when it’s graduate school. The thing is, it all depends if one is married during graduate school; it seems pretty common for one to be married shortly after it (say at age 27-29). I think there’s a huge advantage to the flexibility of graduate school, and one could effectively not do much while a child is in its most restless phases.</p>

<p>So the trouble comes in the (not unlikely) event that one is married after grad school, and in the heat of trying to move forward to a more permanent position in academia, or taking up a particularly taxing job that younger folk often do to make money while they’ve got the energy to cope with high-pressure work. I guess Momwaiting’s own mom said it best – really one must suck it up. </p>

<p>And greater than 50 sounds like a pretty nice chunk of work – a good bit more than 7 hours a day including weekends. What does “working” exactly mean? It almost seems impossible to me that one could be coming up with new ideas all the time – a lot of it would have to be writing things out, checking a small brainwave’s validity, reading a new research paper that is relevant to one’s work, and the like. If that’s so, then I think it could be nice, because one can loose oneself for hours just figuring a few things out. The word “working” can sound very intimidating if one doesn’t classify what it is, at least such is my feeling.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

And not to mention, it is hardly inconceivable to me that a decent number of men with academic inclinations would have spouses with similar inclinations, so it would take quite a bit of juggling and incredible discomfort to start a family during this stressful period. At least so it seems. Does the following apply to tenure-track positions, or postdocs, or both:

</p>

<p>One common method by which I’ve seen men ‘solve’ this problem is to first get tenure…and then afterwards marry a much younger woman. While the term ‘trophy wife’ may not be entirely apropos, I have been struck by the number of tenured male professors who are married to women who have plenty of child-bearing years remaining. (Or maybe simply having a much younger wife is the real appeal, with the option of having children being a bonus.) Unfortunately, such an option isn’t available to female faculty, as cougars can’t give birth. </p>

<p>Lest you find the above a sexist statement, allow me to point out that the real problem the inherent incompatability between the tenure clock and the female biological clock, which leads to women invariably getting shafted. Yes, some schools will tack on an extra year for female faculty for each child they bear, but that introduces inequities of its own having to do with fatherhood - if a male junior professor wants to stay home to care for his newborn child, why shouldn’t he also be provided some extra tenure clock time? - and to varying family arrangements: should a female single mother who is solely responsible for the care of her newborn really be provided the same increment of clock time as one who has a husband who is ready to be a stay-at-home dad and/or an extended family who will aid in caring for the baby?</p>

<p>Personally, I think the most effective, albeit admittedly unrealistic, solution is to simply abolish the tenure clock system entirely. Why exactly should the tenure clock exist at all? Why can’t junior faculty earn tenure whenever their body of work merits that they do, however long that happens to be? If it takes 20 or 30 years until somebody finally earns tenure, what’s wrong with that? As long as satisfactory work is being conducted requisite towards maintaining junior faculty status, that person should be allowed to stay on yearly contracts until he/she does. Maybe that person never attains tenure, but still performs satisfactory work towards maintaining a junior faculty position for an entire career, and that would be fine. I see no reason to cast anybody out simply because they didn’t produce a tenure-worthy body of work by the time their (arbitrary) tenure clock expires.</p>

[Momwaitingfornew]

<p>

Why can’t junior faculty earn tenure whenever their body of work merits that they do, however long that happens to be? If it takes 20 or 30 years until somebody finally earns tenure, what’s wrong with that?

</p>

<p>While the above sounds good, in practice it won’t work. Universities use the tenure track to remove professors who are not as productive as they would like. Contracts are often given for three years. The first renewal gets rid of professors who are obviously not up to par; those who are renewed get an idea of what they need to do to be more competitive for tenure. The second coincides with the end of the tenure process. And of course, there are extensions. If this process were allowed to proceed indefinitely, there would be no turnover. and mediocre professors (esp. those that know it) would hang on. The tenure year is the first time a professor’s work, both at the university and in his field, is scrutinized in-depth. Extensions are one thing; an indefinite schedule is another.</p>

<p>As for the number of hours per week, it depends on the person, the field, the research, etc. And the work load does not get lighter once you have tenure. If anything, it increases simply because of your standing in the community and (if in science) the number of grants you receive.</p>

<p>My D worked with two postdocs this summer. One arrived at 9:30 every morning and left at around 6 pm. The other arrived at 2 pm and stayed until 9 pm. On weekends, the lab was deserted except if an experiment needed to be taken care of. Everyone in the lab had twelve hour days at crucial points in their work. Lab meetings extended the day to 7 pm or so. To me, this doesn’t sound like an inordinate amount of work time – much less than my tenured husband’s schedule. Of course, I don’t know how much time was spent reading, writing, etc. at home, and it’s possible that things are crazier during the academic year. </p>

<p>The beauty of going into academia is the ability to (more or less) keep to your own schedule. Let’s say that you have a sick child. If you don’t have a class that day or an important meeting, you stay home and work from there. During the summer, you and your spouse can time-shift, one working early and the other later. It’s not easy jockeying time like that, but it’s easier than trying to work around a 9-to-5 job.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>

So the trouble comes in the (not unlikely) event that one is married after grad school, and in the heat of trying to move forward to a more permanent position in academia, or taking up a particularly taxing job that younger folk often do to make money while they’ve got the energy to cope with high-pressure work. I guess Momwaiting’s own mom said it best – really one must suck it up.

Or plan better. I got married during my first year of graduate school because I didn’t want to be working on my thesis and planning a wedding at the same time. ;)</p>

[sakky]

<p>

While the above sounds good, in practice it won’t work. Universities use the tenure track to remove professors who are not as productive as they would like. Contracts are often given for three years. The first renewal gets rid of professors who are obviously not up to par; those who are renewed get an idea of what they need to do to be more competitive for tenure. The second coincides with the end of the tenure process. And of course, there are extensions. If this process were allowed to proceed indefinitely, there would be no turnover. and mediocre professors (esp. those that know it) would hang on. The tenure year is the first time a professor’s work, both at the university and in his field, is scrutinized in-depth. Extensions are one thing; an indefinite schedule is another.

</p>

<p>You speak of enforced turnover as if it is actually desirable; I disagree - I consider it to be highly undesirable. Now, to be clear, schools need some turnover to terminate junior faculty who are clearly not working out. However, the issue on the table is regarding enforced turnover, that is, those junior faculty members who are performing satisfactory work at the junior level, but just not at a level sufficient to warrant promotion to tenure. What’s wrong with just allowing them to stay at the junior level, potentially forever, as long as their work is satisfactory at that level? </p>

<p>More to the point, why is it desirable to replace such faculty with a newly minted PhD or post-doc who almost certainly has a research record that is worse than the faculty you are replacing? (Granted, if that new PhD already has a superior research record to his replacement, then that’s a different story.) Such an enforced turnover system replaces better employees with worse employees, which is precisely what you should be trying to avoid, as well as propagating career uncertainty throughout the entire process. After all, that new PhD isn’t really been done any favors either, for a few years later, he too may be replaced by yet another new PhD. </p>

<p>Now, perhaps the system would then also require more extensive and more timely - perhaps yearly or semesterly - reviews. To that, again, I would say, what’s wrong with that? Schools should be reviewing their faculty more carefully and more frequently. After all, right now, we have a system where mediocre junior faculty members know that they have a guaranteed job for the length of their contract. For example, right now, I know some PhD students who are disillusioned with their field, but are nevertheless close to graduating, who have said that they would be perfectly happy to take an assistant professorship and basically not do anything academic, but simply squat on those contract years as an extended, multi-year, and fully paid job search for an alternative career (i.e. management consulting, Ibanking, private equity, venture capital, etc). That’s what Vikram Pandit did: junior professor at Indiana for a few years before jumping to Morgan Stanley, and now is CEO of Citigroup. </p>

<p>Certainly, nobody disputes that if somebody is doing nothing - that is, not publishing, not winning grants, not shepherding any PhD students to graduation, not doing anything - that person should be terminated. However, if somebody is producing at a satisfactory rate, but just not at the level that warrants tenure, why terminate that person in favor of somebody else who hasn’t (yet) produced anything, and perhaps never will?</p>

[Momwaitingfornew]

<p>

Certainly, nobody disputes that if somebody is doing nothing - that is, not publishing, not winning grants, not shepherding any PhD students to graduation, not doing anything - that person should be terminated.

</p>

<p>“Not doing anything” is clear-cut. Not working up to the level of other faculty members is not. Very few assistant professors are let go after three years, even if they have very little to show for those three years. The tenure process kicks in after five years (unless an extension has been granted) precisely because that amount of time is deemed necessary to establish oneself professionally. Tenure is basically a thorough employment evaluation. If a professor makes the grade, then he is granted tenure. If he falls behind, then he is let go, usually with an added year to allow him time to seek employment elsewhere.</p>

<p>Turnover by itself is not good. Turnover to remove mediocre professors is.</p>

<p>

However, if somebody is producing at a satisfactory rate, but just not at the level that warrants tenure, why terminate that person in favor of somebody else who hasn’t (yet) produced anything, and perhaps never will?

</p>

<p>If you get a job for a tenure track position, then you are expected to perform up to the level of other tenured professors. Many university have non-tenure track positions – called some variation of professor-of-practice or researcher – and these instructors can indeed be satisfactory, without having to rise to the level of tenured professors, although they also don’t have the possibility of that job security at the end. (At my university, some professors-of-practice have been hired as associate professors, with the tenure process starting immediately after the promotion.)</p>

<p>I know it’s a tough road. And I don’t think there are easy answers. At least now universities grant extensions, something that wasn’t possible 20 years ago,</p>

[sakky]

<p>

“Not doing anything” is clear-cut. Not working up to the level of other faculty members is not.

</p>

<p>

If you get a job for a tenure track position, then you are expected to perform up to the level of other tenured professors.

</p>

<p>Ha! Well, I can think of quite a few tenured professors who are certainly not producing at the level of other faculty, and arguably aren’t doing anything at all, at least academically. Sure, they may be doing plenty of consulting, earning speaking fees, serving on company Board Directorships, starting their own companies, or publishing in the popular press, but they’re not actually doing anything academic. In fact, it’s become something of a running joke within academia that the junior faculty are almost inevitably more academically productive than are the senior tenured faculty of that department. </p>

<p>That’s the problem with tenure: it removes all possibility of sanctions. You grant somebody a job for life, and people inevitably lose their incentive to work hard. Sure, tenured faculty may be expected to perform up to the level of other tenured faculty, however low that level may be, but what if they don’t even meet that level? You’ve already awarded them tenure, so what are you going to do now? </p>

<p>

Very few assistant professors are let go after three years, even if they have very little to show for those three years.

</p>

<p>Well, I think that varies greatly from school to school, and in particular, with the ranking of the school. At Harvard, probably more than half of all junior faculty are dismissed after their first contract. I suspect the same is true at MIT. In fact, it’s generally understood at schools of that caliber that the vast majority of junior faculty will be denied tenure. </p>

<p>

Turnover by itself is not good. Turnover to remove mediocre professors is.

</p>

<p>And that’s precisely what I’m talking about: what is the definition of “mediocre”? Almost all of Harvard 'sjunior faculty will be eventually terminated. Does that mean that almost all of Harvard’s junior faculty hires are ‘mediocre’? If so, then that means there is clearly something highly deficient with Harvard’s hiring standards. That notion confounds logic besides, as Harvard would be expected to be able to pick from the very best new PhD’s and post-docs in the world to become new junior faculty, hardly a population that could be termed mediocre by any reasonable definition. I think the far more likely explanation is that Harvard is imposing a system of enforced turnover. </p>

<p>*But with a Harvard Ph.D. and three years of teaching experience, he is familiar with the culture of junior faculty. “It’s a research institute. The reality is that’s what they tenure on. It’s definitely demoralizing for junior faculty that there is a 70-80 percent chance that they will be fired,” he says. “Harvard defines its tenure process as getting the best in the world.
*</p>

<p>[The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Magazine :: Just the Tenured of Us](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=160925]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=160925)</p>

<p>*“Virtually no assistant professors hired by Harvard end up getting tenure,” he said. “So the only tenured faculty at Harvard are basically those who are hired from the outside as senior faculty. *</p>

<p><a href=“http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2002/1/18/tenurePolicyToRemainDespiteDebateAtHarvard[/url]”>http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2002/1/18/tenurePolicyToRemainDespiteDebateAtHarvard&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Nor is Harvard an exception. Consider MIT and Yale, where the vast majority of junior faculty will not win tenure.</p>

<p>*
…at MIT, on the other hand, only one-third of the men and women on the tenure track will be invited to make their permanent intellectual home at the Institute.*</p>

<p>[Women</a> and Tenure at the Institute - MIT News Office](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/trwomen.html]Women”>Women and Tenure at the Institute | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology)</p>

<p>the obvious unlikelihood of junior faculty at Yale getting tenure</p>

<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Delving into the complex tenure system](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/11001]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/11001)</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

@sakky

That notion confounds logic besides, as Harvard would be expected to be able to pick from the very best new PhD’s and post-docs in the world to become new junior faculty, hardly a population that could be termed mediocre by any reasonable definition. I think the far more likely explanation is that Harvard is imposing a system of enforced turnover.

</p>

<p>From a third party’s perspective on what’s been happening here, I can definitely see the point Sakky makes, which, to put it succinctly, is that one’s position in academia doesn’t seem to correlate very accurately with one’s research productivity. I know a tenured professor or two who live like hermits, and the kind who chew herbs instead of research! And of course, there are the squatters, as well as the productive postdoctoral fellows who get kicked out. I guess the professors-of-practice positions Momwaiting mentions are an alternative to be sought. The fact that one has to be kicked out so early puts lots of pressure, especially in the early years.</p>

<p>I guess my main interest in this question is really about family life. Academia sounds wonderfully friendly for family life if one crosses the stage of pressure, but else it sounds pretty inconvenient to have to move from place to place even if one’s research is relatively productive.</p>

<p>Sounds like the people who made up the system grew up in a time when nobody was given partial credit on exam questions!</p>

<p>

@molliebatmit

Or plan better. I got married during my first year of graduate school because I didn’t want to be working on my thesis and planning a wedding at the same time.

</p>

<p>I’d have to be really lucky for things to work out that well for me…:D</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

@sakky

One common method by which I’ve seen men ‘solve’ this problem is to first get tenure…and then afterwards marry a much younger woman. While the term ‘trophy wife’ may not be entirely apropos, I have been struck by the number of tenured male professors who are married to women who have plenty of child-bearing years remaining. (Or maybe simply having a much younger wife is the real appeal, with the option of having children being a bonus.) Unfortunately, such an option isn’t available to female faculty, as cougars can’t give birth.

</p>

<p>Either marry within 3 years of grad school like Mollie, or marry some attractive 25-27-year-old when I’m 32 – fair enough. Can’t be all bad. That is, in case of pursuing a career in academia at all.</p>