Political jockeying to get tenure

Graduate School
1

<p>I have a question about the politics required for getting tenure. Sakky mentioned this briefly in another thread (ie an undesirable aspect of being an academic). Is this true in all fields or just the humanities? It seems in science/eng fields that it should be easier to determine who's a strong researcher by one's publication record/citations. </p>

<p>By the way, I think Sakky overstated the difficulty of getting tenure at top schools. Caltech has a very high tenure rate (not one denial that I know of during my 4 years there). Even MIT should be 50% or so, and the people who are denied should be able to get tenure at a school a tier below.</p>

2

<p>My impression is that there's still quite a lot of politics in the tenure process in sci/eng.</p>

<p>I mean, the humanities have publication records and citations too. I don't think that's the determining factor.</p>

3

<p>Although Sakky tends to overstate the difficulty of everything, he is right that getting tenure is often rife with political jockeying and is quite difficult, especially at top schools. As far as I know, schools like MIT dont even bother with it anymore and mainly cycle in assistant profs for a few years then send them on their way and pick up a new batch. Even at my school, a middling Canadian university with no real brand power and limited research opportunities, the last six hires in my department were all PhDs from top programs in the US who, Im guessing, realized the difficulties of getting tenure at most big time US schools and decided to take a shot at it up north. I actually had a conversation about the process with one of the new profs, a very brilliant Harvard grad who teaches political philosophy, and he chracterized it as simply 'frustrating.'</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
By the way, I think Sakky overstated the difficulty of getting tenure at top schools. Caltech has a very high tenure rate (not one denial that I know of during my 4 years there). Even MIT should be 50% or so,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Although Sakky tends to overstate the difficulty of everything

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is that what you guys think? That I'm overstating things?</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</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</p>

<p>*“Over the last 25 years, about 40 percent of the assistant professors who come to Stanford earn tenure... Etchemendy pointed to a lack of internal promotion within Harvard’s tenure system.</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>Tenure</a> policy to remain despite debate at Harvard - The Stanford Daily Online</p>

<p>
[quote]
Caltech has a very high tenure rate (not one denial that I know of during my 4 years there)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then what I recommend is that you don't take my word for it. Since you go to Caltech, you should have extensive contact with the faculty. Go and talk to them, especially new assistant profs or profs who just recently got tenure and ask them how difficult and political the process was for them and for their colleagues at other schools.</p>

5

<p>How about a few more statistics, just for fun?</p>

<p>As shown in Table 1, in any given year, about 100 to 180 faculty members enter provisional
status at Penn State. For the last nine entering cohorts – that is, those beginning in 1990 through
1998 – 55 percent of new entrants had received tenure by the end of their seventh year on the
tenure track</p>

<p>individual institutions are not identified alongside their
data in Table 2. However, it is permissible to note which universities are included: Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Northwestern, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and
Wisconsin. In all cases, except for Penn State, the data are for a single (main) campus, and the
data are defined as in Table 1 unless otherwise noted. That is, the data are for a seven-year
period, starting from the time an individual first entered provisional status... this group of universities, for which the average rate is 53 percent</p>

<p><a href="http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/planning_research/reports/AIR_Tenure_Flow_Paper_06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/planning_research/reports/AIR_Tenure_Flow_Paper_06.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Yale tenure rates: </p>

<p>*Humanities SocialSci PhysicalSci BiologicalSci Total
11% 15% 27% 57% 19% *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yale.edu/gateways/fas_tenure_report.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/gateways/fas_tenure_report.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I have a question about the politics required for getting tenure

[/quote]
</p>

<p>*...many professors still grumble about the back-room political logrolling they claim plays a major role in the tenure process at Yale. One professor said senior faculty have been known to make controversial decisions "in the dark of night with lightning speed."</p>

<p>Cathy Trower, a tenure expert from Harvard, said politics are part of tenure decisions at nearly all institutions, not just at top-tier schools like Yale.</p>

<p>"Obviously everyone will tell you there are politics," Trower said. "When I talk to junior faculty, I really encourage them to think as much politically as they do about their research and really being proactive in forging coalitions on campus and being a likeable colleague."</p>

<p>"Because of the obvious unlikelihood of junior faculty at Yale getting tenure, the process of going through it has been crude and unattractive and in some cases just plain rude and disrespectful," the professor, who asked not to be named, said.*</p>

<p>Yale</a> Daily News - Delving into the complex tenure system</p>

7

<p>tsk tsk. my advisor and i were laughing and poking fun at harvard. we both agreed that harvard is currently the last place we'd want to be given its impossiblity to grant tenure. :) she added, "Or, you need a really big name!" Which is true, too.</p>

<p>There'll be politics everywhere you go, even in business, so there is not a lot you can do to avoid it completely when you're up for promotion.</p>

8

<p>webhappy, there have definitely been tenure denials here at Caltech during the last four years, for example in chemistry and mathematics. There aren't very many asst. professors around and I think their final tenure review is after nine years, so it doesn't happen very often. Unlike Harvard the majority of our faculty is crusty and old, without many new positions open for people to cycle in and out of...</p>

9

<p>Yeah, I'm aware of a rather tough battle two faculty here in Materials Science had a few years ago to see which one would get tenure. We've actually had two new people join within the past two years, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with them as time goes on.</p>

10

<p>Im not at all interested in pursuing a career in academia but after reading threads like these I would be even less inclined to pursue such a career path even if it had crossed my mind. Academia looks brutal.
If youre going to put that much effort and have to deal with that much backstabbing and political maneuvering just to get ahead in your career you might as well get into business and make a serious grip of cash while youre at it.</p>

11

<p>The unfortunate thing is that the political elements of academia have negative repercussions for the undergraduates at the college. We experienced that this year in my department; there are a lot of unhappy students because of petty senior faculty politics.</p>

12

<p>No, political jockeying is not limited to the humanities, though I think there's more competition in the humanities.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Im not at all interested in pursuing a career in academia but after reading threads like these I would be even less inclined to pursue such a career path even if it had crossed my mind. Academia looks brutal.
If youre going to put that much effort and have to deal with that much backstabbing and political maneuvering just to get ahead in your career you might as well get into business and make a serious grip of cash while youre at it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me provide a partial defense of an academic career. It is undoubtedly true that a lot of political jockeying occurs in academia and it is probably one of the least attractive parts of such a career. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there is plenty of political jockeying that occurs in any career. Hence, I would argue that, at least in that respect, academia is no worse than any other career.</p>

<p>In fact, I would argue that academia may actually be better than the private sector in this sense. An academic career is characterized by a series of 'review checkpoints', with the tenure review being obviously the most prominent of those checkpoints, and some schools also using the time of promotion from assistant prof to associate as another review checkpoint before the tenure review checkpoint (and hence some schools have associate profs without tenure and also associate profs with tenure). Your job is relatively safe up until that checkpoint. Granted, if you are clearly doing poorly, you may be asked to leave before you reach your next review checkpoint, but as long as you are making visible progress, your job is safe up and until your next checkpoint, which essentially gives you a breather of several years before you have to really worry about whether you are going to be fired. Contrast that with the private sector where you can lose your job at any time and for any reason, or no reason at all. For example, I know some people who went to industry and within a few months were already laid off, either because the company went through a merger (hence making their jobs redundant), or the company decided to cancel the project that they were hired to work on, etc. Heck, I know a few people who got laid off literally before they had even started the job, as they had already signed their job offer letters but hadn't actually started the job, and the company then decided to rescind those offers, which clearly put those people in quite a bind as they had already turned down offers from other employers. Numerous tech companies and consulting firms became notorious for this during the dotcom bust. </p>

<p>Furthermore, even if you do get fired from your academic job, your firing doesn't occur immediately, as almost all schools will provide you with continuing employment for at least the next semester, and usually for the remainder of the academic year, the purpose of which is to allow you to transition to finding another job. Many universities may also allow you to continue your employment even beyond that 'grace period' as an untenured lecturer, depending on how valuable they consider your teaching to be. How many private sector employers will do the same? Most of them will expel you from their premises the moment they lay you off, and heck, some won't even allow you to return to your desk to retrieve your personal effects (instead, they mail them to you). Even those among those rare companies that do allow for a transition 'grace period' for you to stay at the company while looking for another job, rarely does it last longer than a couple of months. I suppose it makes economic sense - as companies don't want disgruntled employees wreaking havoc in the office - but it's also highly jarring to one day have a job and the next day be laid off. </p>

<p>I think the right psychological way to approach an academic career is to recognize that there is a high chance that you won't get tenure and hence will have to find another employer after 5-10 years (whenever your tenure review is). Sure, there is a chance that you will get tenure and hence be able to work for that university forever, but there is a high chance that you won't get tenure. I don't think this is such a difficult concept to wrap one's head around. After all, if you take a job in the private sector employer, frankly, you probably aren't going to be working for that employer for more than a few years anyway, as that's the time that most people will switch employers, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Furthermore, I think we all recognize that lifetime employment within one company in the private sector is a relic of the past that our parents and grandparents may have enjoyed but we almost certainly won't. I don't think anybody in our generation seriously thinks that they are going to join one firm thinking that they are actually going to be allowed to work there until they retire. I think most of us expect that we will have to move from employer to employer, often times not voluntarily. If those pursuing academic careers have the same expectations, then they will be in good shape psychologically. </p>

<p>So if you get an assistant professor job at Harvard, MIT, Yale, Stanford, or schools like that, you should know full well that you probably won't get tenure. So why worry about it? Instead, just use your time to pursue the research that you want to do, learn as much as you can, and build the connections that you want to build such that when the time comes, you're ready to move onto the next employer. This is no different from a guy joining Microsoft or Google knowing that he's probably not going to be there for more than a few years, and so he's just going to use his time to build his experience and knowledge to transition to whoever his next employer will be.</p>

14

<p>sakky, I have to say.... I'm shocked. This is a very good and clear post that you've written without the need to collect data! :)</p>

15

<p>"webhappy, there have definitely been tenure denials here at Caltech during the last four years, for example in chemistry and mathematics. There aren't very many asst. professors around and I think their final tenure review is after nine years, so it doesn't happen very often. Unlike Harvard the majority of our faculty is crusty and old, without many new positions open for people to cycle in and out of..."</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure no one in the math department has been denied tenure in quite a while-the five(!) people in the department who left in the past four years were all tenured (in fact, were all HIRED as tenured really young without previously holding tenure-track jobs) and left for personal reasons. The current math faculty has only one assistant-professor and she might have been a spousal hire type deal...every other math prof who is under 60 years old (most of the department) was hired as tenured. (This is common among math departments- the ones at Harvard and Yale don't even have a tenure track- only postdocs and full professors). I think the last two CS profs up for tenure were denied, and a chem prof was denied tenure last year, so the trend is not institute universal.</p>

<p>Re:Sakky's "why worry"
There are very practical reasons why an assistant professor would not want to change jobs, uproot their life and move across the country at age ~40, especially in a field where (unlike the private sector examples you mentioned) there are very few academic jobs, certainly enough to take tenure rates into consideration when choosing where to accept a position.</p>

16

<p>I also have to say I am pretty impressed by sakky's defense of academia. </p>

<p>When I was applying to PhD programs, one interviewer (who knew my masters PI who is struggling through the tenure process and stands a good chance to not get tenure) asked me how I felt about entering into this line of work after watching her struggle. My reply was that I have no idea what any job market will be like 5-7 years from now and this is what I love...so this is what I am doing.</p>

<p>Bottom line is, like sakky says, in this economy there are very few sure bets when it comes to getting and keeping any job for long periods of time. If going into academia is what you love, do it, be the best you can be at it and hope it all works out.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
There are very practical reasons why an assistant professor would not want to change jobs, uproot their life and move across the country at age ~40, especially in a field where (unlike the private sector examples you mentioned) there are very few academic jobs, .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, like I said, people in the private sector also have to deal with job insecurity. I don't a fundamental difference.</p>

<p>You mention the insecurity of being in a field where there are few academic jobs. Sure, but that's entirely analogous to joining the private sector in a field that also has few jobs. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. I know a girl who graduated from MIT who is basically a 'biker chick' (her words, not mine), and hence she took a job managing motorcycle manufacturing operations for Harley. She truly loves her job. But she also knows that she's taking a career risk, because the fact is, there are only a handful of companies that actually run motorcycle manufacturing facilities in the US: Harley, Kawasaki, Honda (who is shutting down their US motorcycle plants next year), BMW, and maybe a couple of others. So if Harley runs into financial problems and lays her off, she knows she probably won't be able to find an equivalent job in the motorcycle industry in this country (and she really doesn't want to have to work outside the US). </p>

<p>Now, I know what you're thinking: while she may not be able to find another job in the motorcycle industry, if she's savvy, she will develop general operations management and engineering skills such that she will be able to transition her career to related industries like automobiles or tractors or whatnot. But that's precisely the point. A savvy academic will also know to broaden his skills such that he can also transition his way to another employer. For example, it would behoove an assistant professor of molecular biology to keep up with the biotechnology industry so that he can transition his way to working in the private sector if he fails his tenure review. He should also be making connections with the venture capital community so that he knows which biotechnology sectors are drawing 'hot' investor interest, or even be able to found his own biotech firm based on his research. </p>

<p>Now, where I can agree with you is that there are indeed many fields that don't exactly have a lot of available jobs of any kind - either in academia or in the private sector. Many humanities disciplines fall into this category. But I don't see that those problems are specific to professors of those disciplines, but rather are general problems for anybody within those disciplines. For example, let's say you get a PhD in Art History, you become an asst. prof and then you get fired at your tenure review. Are you really any worse off than if you had instead, after getting that PhD, gotten a private sector job in with, I suppose, an art history private sector employer (whoever those are) and then were laid off? Let's face it. There's just not that many jobs for anybody in the realm of art history. The real lesson may then be to simply not pursue a PhD at all in a discipline that isn't highly marketable, but if you decide to do it anyway, then I don't think academia is a bad place to end up even if you don't get tenure. </p>

<p>The point is, even as an assistant prof, you should be managing your career aggressively the way that ambitious people in the private sector do. You should always be looking to build marketable skills and knowledge that are valuable to a wide variety of employers. You need to take control of your career because, believe me, if you don't do it, nobody else will do it for you. You certainly can't trust your employer (either a private firm or a university) to do it for you because, frankly, they don't care. These guys are not your friends; they're not really looking out for your best interests. The way they see it, if you become obsolete and can't find another job, that's your problem, not theirs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
certainly enough to take tenure rates into consideration when choosing where to accept a position

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, obviously people should prefer to take job offers at universities that have high tenure rates. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that there is little point in stressing over the tenure rates. It is far healthier for a budding academic to simply have low expectations and hence not really expect to get tenured, just like most savvy private sector employees know not to expect lifetime employment. </p>

<p>The real key is to simply try to do the research that you enjoy while building a broad array of marketable skills. If that results in tenure, excellent! If not, oh well, then it's time to move onto something else. Just like if you join a private firm, your attitude should be to try to do good work that interests you, and to constantly build your skills and experience, and if you end up getting laid off, oh well, time to move onto your next employer.</p>

<p>At least, if you become an academic that doesn't get tenure, you can say to yourself that you tried. You'll have the psychological solace of knowing that you put in the effort but it just wasn't good enough for the brass ring. But at least now you know. That's a heck of a lot better than spending the rest of your life wondering 'What if?'.</p>