Had an interesting conversation earlier this week regarding where the bar for tenure should be set for those young ‘uns like me who are starting out on the tenure track at a time when costs are rising and paylines are plummeting. (For the record, the conversation was with a full Professor who brought up the topic and who is adamant that the bar needs to be lowered when the current crop of junior faculty go up for tenure.)
As with a lot of TT peeps doing basic science research at R1 schools, a large part of my being granted tenure will be determined by my ability to secure significant extramural funding ... even though I’m in a very small, non-research-intensive program and none of my tenured colleagues received substantial funding at any point in their careers. The expectation is essentially that I will need an R01 and publications but a very senior and experienced colleague seemed confident that in the current economic climate one or two smaller awards (not necessarily continuing) would probably be sufficient by the time I apply for tenure. I still have a few more years before crunch time but my mind is always mulling over how I’m going to make things work with dwindling funds and paylines. I like to be prepared.
The topics that were touched on during the discussion included whether the bar should be set a tad lower for my peers and I than it was for recently-tenured or soon-to-be tenured colleagues. And the very real prospect of myself and most of my newbie peers being denied tenure due to frighteningly low paylines and essentially wiping out a whole generation of promising faculty members.
I know there are going to be some Prof Greybeards and Bluehairs out there who still insist that things were harder back in the day when they had to prepare manuscripts on slates and walk 20 miles to work in 10 foot high snowdrifts with no shoes. But where was the bar set at that point? And where was it 10 years ago? Five years ago? Where should it be now relative to those? Is it fair to judge success based on a goal that gets more and more difficult to reach as the economy slides into oblivion? Is it fair to ask for leniency when predecessors may not have had that opportunity? Are these questions merely the whining of a newbie PI who is wringing her hands in despair after the week from hell?
Thoughts?
Writing, Thinking and Reflecting
11 hours ago
As somebody about to start a new tenure track job, I definitely think about the same issues. I understand that there have always been challenges with funding, but the current paylines seem insane. Certainly it makes no sense to escalate standards on all sides.
ReplyDeleteBut how I am going to remain sane is to work hard. Hard work is pretty much the only control I have -- it lower anxiety and makes the tenure hurdle less likely to be a tripwire!
Good luck and I hope that next week is as good as Friday was bad!
I am also new on the tenure track and have been thinking about the same issue. My impression is that the bar will actually be higher for my cohort than it was in the old days. True, the current economic state makes it harder to obtain grants. But from the university's perspective, there are more high-quality replacements available than ever before. Anyone who doesn't have big grants probably can be replaced with someone who does!
ReplyDeleteWe've even been told that 3-year re-appointments now depend on showing strong productivity, whereas they used to be a given. Apparently spinning up a new lab is no longer an excuse for lack of grants or an initial decline in paper output. It's hard not to feel that the bar has moved higher to an unfair degree.
Grants should not be a requirement for tenure.
ReplyDeleteA researcher who produces the same number and quality of papers without external funding as one with funding should be rewarded for being efficient.
Zen: in the basic biomedical sciences, I think it's fair to say that it is impossible to produce high quality papers (or any papers at all) without external funding. The cost of consumables alone is a major limiting factor. Thus, no external grant support -> no papers -> no chance at tenure.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me when an institution makes a considerable time and financial investment in a young scientist, it would make sense to give them a bit of slack in this horrid economy...maybe lengthen the tenure clock a bit if R01 funding is a must?
ReplyDeleteDespite all my efforts, I'm still on the postdoctoral end of this mess, and I'm hoping against all hope that things get much better before I have a real job! Hang in there - I'm sure it will get better...
Yeah, the investment into a new junior faculty member is considerable, enough that they would rather keep those they have than start over with new startup packages. A startup package plus the ~five years of salary (at a hard money place anyway) can run more than a million dollars altogether for one person. So they're not out to fail people unless they are dumb.
ReplyDeleteOf course, tenured professors and administrators will always tell a tenure-track assistant professor that in order to get tenure one needs to publish a Nature article every year, bring in maybe a trillion dollars worth of funding, supervise at least 15 PhD students, be nominated for a Nobel prize and, oh yes, of course there is always teaching, in fact a 4.9 average in the teaching evaluations and a couple teaching awards are really the bare minimum... oh, but, "it was so much harder 20 years ago, you guys have it easy these days..."
ReplyDeleteNinety percent of those who go up for tenure get it. Ninety.
What is the average $$ range for a "typical" new assistant professor startup package in biomedical research -- to make it general, for a biochemistry department? (yes, i know there is no typical value, just trying to get a ballpark range)
ReplyDeleteBiomedical it can be anywhere from a few hundred thousand to more than a million... I'd guess the average is somewhere around $750K? Not including your own salary portion if you're guaranteed that?
ReplyDeleteDoes that include both direct and indirect costs?
ReplyDeleteI think where I am it's a bit of a mixed bag. The bar is getting higher (not just an R01 + other(s), but an R01 renewal or 2nd R01), but the tenure clock may be getting longer (I've heard rumor of a proposal for 8 years). I don't know what to think of it, but I 110% agree with JD (hard work is the only control I have).
ReplyDeletewithout committing to specifics, yes, tenure should always take into account the current environment, competition, etc
ReplyDeleteMy university is in the state's "teaching-focused" university system, which means that even though we are still expected to do significant research for tenure and promotion (and, you know, because we like building knoweldge and part of how we teach our undergrads and masters students is by getting them involved in research), our situation is likely different from that in the state's "research-focused" system.
ReplyDeleteThat said, our budget is so troubled that the word is that regular faculty (i.e., tenured and tenure track) will be laid off. Not right away, because given our contract, it's pretty much necessary to actually eliminate and/or merge existing departments or programs (thus rendering some faculty members "redundant" in the configuration you end up with) to be able to lay off regular faculty.
The upshot, though, is that there's very little motivation to adjust the retention, tenure, and promotion standards in a direction that results in more retention, tenure, or promotion than would be expected by leaving the existing standards in place (even if those existing standards assume a funding climate that does not match the current reality).
Which, I'm inclined to say, rather sucks.
Ninety percent of those who go up for tenure get it. Ninety
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled. What they didn't tell you is that they keep the tenure success rate artificially elevated by not even putting up for tenure people they don't think can get it (no R01, poor pubs, politically unpopular, whatever). The correct interpretation is that 10% of people they were sure were going to get tenure didn't. What you really need to know is what the percentage of people starting as assistant professors that wound up tenure is. They vastly prefer just sweeping the failures under the rug than dealing with the annoying implications of having hired the wrong person in the first place, or having failed to provide suitable career development/mentoring.
what the percentage of people starting as assistant professors that wound up (with) tenure
ReplyDeleteThat data is in that report from the NIH that came out recently, where as I recall, one of the biggest differences between representation of men and women faculty was in that number.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12062
(see about halfway down the page)
NIH funding has allowed R1s to build faculties much larger than they need for instruction. This is also seen in physics departments where there is significant DOE/DOD/NSF support.
ReplyDeleteThere is a rational argument that universities should support at least 50% of the IBS, if not more. Much of the expansion was leveraged out of rebates from F&A costs under the assumption that the up front costs for set up would be repaid from grants.
Periodically the music stops and people get major hurt, but the reason that they were in a place to get hurt comes from the overpopulation of faculty and graduate students in departments driven by the need to service the university research enterprise.
The situation with the bottom 100/ comprehensives is different. They are attracted by the possibility of glomming onto the F&A costs + other goodies + building a reputation, but they never really calculate the cost of research (starting with lab space, teaching relief, SROs, accounting offices and more. If you add this up it is just about impossible to make money on research if you have less than say 50 million $ per year in grants. The common way this is done is to use the energy and dedication of the faculty to replace needed infrastructure for research which is simply too expensive to provide in a small place.
That being the case, if you are working in one of these small places and have published some, brought in a few small grants, you are exceptional and have friends in the college and enemies in your department. Good luck
That sounds stressful and scary. But I have faith you will be badass enough to succeed in spite of the seemingly f-ed up nature of the current system.
ReplyDeleteIn my university, a private research/teaching university, there has been word about not necessarily requiring NIH funding for tenure, just evidence of productivity, good outside letters, etc. In at least one case someone I know was tenured without an R01. That's was during the funding crunch of the last few years, but before the economic downturn. I don't know what the standard in practice is now. I think what is going to be more common is that universities will begin to extend their tenure clocks. We'll see. Wish me luck - I'm up next year...
ReplyDeleteWhat you really need to know is what the percentage of people starting as assistant professors that wound up tenure is.
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't.
I have heard this argument before, never backed up with anything resembling a datum. It assumes that the majority of those who leave the tenure track do so because they are pessimistic about their tenure prospects. I am sorry, I do not buy this in the least. Unless one can substantiate this contention quantitatively (e.g., with surveys among those who leave the tenure track early), it seems gratuitous and unfounded. There are many, many reasons to switch career path (just like for any other profession) that have nothing to do with tenure.
This is an interesting topic. I currently reside in a department at an R1 that is at the top (or near the top) of the funding list for said type of department. At a recent fac meeting, it was stated that the days of 3 and 4 R01s per investigator are likely over. I am somewhat hopeful that this means that for the few of us assistant profs (only a couple of us) the expectations are not going to be 2 R01s with a renewal. One would think (or hope rather) that if a assistant prof can get even 1 R01 and publish, all while being a good member of the department (teaching, committees, etc) that should be enough to get tenure. Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteThere are many, many reasons to switch career path (just like for any other profession) that have nothing to do with tenure.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I just have a limited imagination, but I’m having trouble coming up with more than a few reasons why a t-t asst prof would want to leave academia that are not related to their ability to get tenure (or their perception thereof). What do we think is happening, that all of a sudden they are realizing that they don’t like teaching, or research?! That they’re shocked at how little money they’re making? For someone who has done multiple potdocs chasing this goal, that seems highly unlikely. So I really would like to see the numbers, because if a significant number of people are dropping out, we should be asking why.
Maybe I just have a limited imagination, but I’m having trouble coming up with more than a few reasons why a t-t asst prof would want to leave academia that are not related to their ability to get tenure (or their perception thereof).
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you have never been a faculty and there are aspects of this profession of which you are not aware. As a postdoc I also thought I knew everything of the academic profession, but I as wrong.
There were many things I did not know.
I have seen colleagues leave to go to industry or a national laboratory, and make more money, for example. There are, of course, the same reasons that lead professionals in all walks of life to switch to another career path -- for example, family reasons force you to relocate and you cannot get another tt position at another university, or you do not like the work environment, run into conflicts with your colleagues, or suddenly you develop a different interest. One does not see why none of this should apply to academics, it is just silly to believe that.
As for "not liking teaching or research" -- absolutely, why not ? Most tenure track assistant professors have never taken on major teaching responsibilities until then, after all, and they may realize that they really do not like dealing with undergraduate students. Or, they may discover that, while they like doing research themselves, they do not really like supervising students or postdocs, or writing proposals. Or, they may simply not like the way the university is run, they may be frustrated with administrators, or departmental politics -- remember, as a graduate student or postdoc you are shielded from all of this.
I have to agree with Hope. While people leave professions for many reasons, it would be remarkable if, for academia in general, the probability of leaving was not related (in any way) to job success. Generally speaking, it seems to me that people who love their work and are highly successful should be lower retention risks than those who do not. If one is making this claim (that leaving acadmics is completely unrelated to the success and happiness of the employee) then the system has desperate need for reform in this aspect.
ReplyDeleteNow I don't have data (as Massimo asked) because it's hard to survey this population. We have testimonals like Rob Knop's "A farewell to Academia" where he lays concerns about tenure as a primary reason to leave.
That being said, I don't think it's fair that say the 10% of people who thought they deserved tenure did not get it. Given the incentives involved, I can easily imagine people who are borderline "rolling the dice" as easily as I can imagine evil tenure committees.
But pre-tenure attrition is likely also part of the failure rate.
PiT
ReplyDeleteWe have to remember that we are GenX.
That means we get fucked three ways from Sunday every time.
-antipodean
My institution typically wants an RO1 plus a renewal OR two RO1s...However, given current funding times, additional funding can take the place of the second RO1 or the renewal. I just got tenure on one RO1, an R21 and about 7 foundation grants and three collaborative grants (at least 50K per collaborative grant). At least they gave me a break on the second RO1 -- but it does seem like it's getting tougher even though they gave me a break. 2 of our faculty who arrived before I did are in danger of being asked to leave....this June, end of fiscal year.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, it seems to me that people who love their work and are highly successful should be lower retention risks than those who do not.
ReplyDeleteWell, sure, but this is a very generic statement, difficult to disagree with precisely because it means so little, concretely.
In practice, people who love their work and are highly successful still have to deal with the same issues as the rest of the population -- the issues that underlie much if not most worker mobility across the whole spectrum.
Successful academics may have spouses, for example, who often times love their work too and may be even more successful -- financially or in other ways. This means that if at some point a relocation is needed and one has to sacrifice, often times it is the academic. A former colleague of mine had to leave his tenured position and take on a tenure-track one at my institution because his wife, a patent attorney, had joined a prestigious firm in another state.
Successful academics have children and extended families too, and often times they may feel that, while the university where they work is perfect for them, the place as a whole does not work well for their family, geographically or otherwise.
It is interesting to look at the stats regarding women retention in academic science (see here, for instance). Twenty-six percent of all tenure-track assistant professors are women, but then we only find fourteen percent of them at the (tenured) associate professor level. One would think that such a large attrition rate should be attributed to tenure problems, but... the percentage drops by six more points (eight percent) from the associate to full professor level, almost as large a fractional drop, and we are talking women who have tenure here.
This seems to suggest that, at least for women, there are good reasons for leaving that have nothing to do with tenure. Is it so inconceivable that there may be good reasons for men too, other than tenure ?
Massimo: I agree that the population that leaves is heterogeneous. However, I think both of the following assumptions are likely to be incorrect:
ReplyDelete1) People never leave tenure track jobs for reasons related to probability of tenure success
2) The only reason people leave the tenure track is because they have reason to beleive that they will be unsuccessful.
Anecdotes, usually not very useful, can falsify both of these stateemnts in my experience.
Wihtout data (which us understandably sensitive), we can't determine what % are leaving for which reason (and thee are likely to be mixed cases -- if a job is marginal then a great opportunity for one's spouse may be even more appealing).
I'm just trying to point out that arguing "without data we can't assume that people who leave tenure track positions are doing so for reasons related to probability of succes with tenure" is reasonable but does not imply that NONE of these people leave for reasons related to tenure. There is a selection process here and it ia very strong assumption that loss to follow-up is completely at random in this population.
This makes the 10% rate of tenure failure the low end of the possible estimates.
your post is very timed!!!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think both of the following assumptions are likely to be incorrect:
ReplyDelete1) People never leave tenure track jobs for reasons related to probability of tenure success
2) The only reason people leave the tenure track is because they have reason to believe that they will be unsuccessful.
Yes, JD, but, let's leave out for a moment words like "never", "only" and straw man arguments.
Fact is, contention 1) has not been suggested by anyone, whereas 2) has been more or less explicitly put forward by a few commenters as the most likely scenario.
My take is simply that, unless one can substantiate it with data, the statement that most, or even a substantial fraction of people who leave the tenure track early, do it for tenure related reasons, is not at all self-evident or obvious. Consequently, to base one's reasoning or advocacy on it seems dubious and scarcely scientific.
I just wanted to say that in a different field (Computer Science), very successful people have left both tenured and pre-tenured professorships simply because there is an opportunity cost of being a professor at all, and it is possible to have a better career outside academia, if there is a great opportunity. One example is Jim Clark, who left his tenured professorship at Stanford to go be a billionaire. There are other less "successful" examples (in the sense that they don't show up in Forbes for having serious money), but it does happen, often they go manage research labs in industry, or serve on company boards, or advise start-up companies in exchange for equity, while moving to a position of adjunct professor, quitting their professorship entirely, or taking a reduced teaching/research load.
ReplyDelete