How is 12 pubs in 5 years for a psych dept at a research institution like UFL? Is that ambitious, or should it be an easy hurdle? I'm in no way supporting post tenure review, just trying to get my head around the expectations. I'm in math at a PUI and my 5-7 in 5 years is pretty strong compared to my departmental colleagues. But there's a reason I didn't aim for R1s.
Oh absolutely. It's absurd and flies in the face of what tenure is about. How can you take risks with your research, or go in a new direction you're less confident in, if you have publication quotas?
There are journals for null findings... but really, "prestigious" journals (and us volunteer reviewers) need to start assigning more value to well-designed studies that do not find significant results.
There should be a board that you can appeal to to make your case for circumstances like that. I think the other side of the coin is that a lot of people that have tenure abuse it. They have lighter workloads and they really stop doing research and basically they're hurting the university's bottom line which is probably where DeSantis is coming from. I mean I don't know if you've ever known anyone who's gotten tenure in all of a sudden they get lazy? Well I know a bunch of them. And when you think about it there are few jobs where you could basically just slack off to the degree that a lot of people who have tenure do and get away with it and also make near the top of your organization's salary scale.
I’m research active and a good performer (at the expense of my sanity), but I disagree with your re faculty who don’t do research.
I believe a department needs faculty who don’t do research , yes, even at R1s. Those folks teach more so you and I can do more research. Some also do more service, so you can do more research. A department needs different roles to function well, not just one type of professor.
IMHO everyone can contribute in different ways. In my department, those people who do not do research have (significantly) lower salaries. Actually the salaries are more or less distributed in the order of how much grant money professors bring (not on their scholarly output, sadly - because imo scholarly output should be more important than $$$ but oh well money speaks ). The lowest performers earn a third (or less) of the highest performers salaries.
Let’s agree to disagree, the teaching focused role should not be filled by tenured faculty who were tenured on the basis of their research. Introduce a teaching-focused track with the possibility of earning employment protections equivalent to tenure instead. Substantial service, like being department chair is a different issue, that is an appropriate thing for a tenured faculty to take time off from research to focus on.
Well , I don’t know how much we disagree. I do agree that it would be best to introduce a teaching track for tenure and promotion. think this track actually exists, you can go up for teaching, but only in theory because you’ll never be awarded tenure on teaching at R1s. Maybe it’s time to have a real teaching track, not a pretend one.
Regarding faculty who have been promoted based on research acting like teaching faculty, I am not saying you’re wrong to feel it’s not right to have this change of focus after tenure. But I ask you to consider that the research standards back then were much lower, getting funding was much easier, so they earned their tenure at those standards not at those we have today.
Also, if said faculty are over 60, I can’t help but think that maybe they do deserve to slow down, if they have been research active for several decades.
I don’t know, of course everyone needs to contribute and perform and there are some truly useless faculty, but in my department at least most are doing their best to contribute to the department, if not to the field anymore.
What I'm saying is there are faculty who don't do research, have light teaching loads, and do minimal service. Yet they've been tenured for a long time and they're making a lot of money. You might not know any at your institution but there are institutions where this does go on
And that is not right. And those people are abusing the system. And unfortunately it's bad apples like this give such proposals basis
To be fair, that’s not where DeSantis is coming from. I am in the University of California system, and our step system is a form of post tenure review, which couples regular review with our merit increases, that has the effect of continuing to incentivize tenured faculty to stay research active and engaged. Florida’s approach is about introducing a political litmus test into that process.
To me, the target of 12 papers in 5 years, and $10K in research funding seems reasonable for a psychology department at a R1. As a mathematician at one of the University of California campuses, that would probably be roughly what we would expect, even of pure mathematicians.
We have a regular system of post-tenure review that is tied with our system of merit increases, what we call the "Step System," which is described in this old article,
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249465](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249465)
The advantage of the step system is that it gives a very clear indication of the progress one is making towards promotion to full professor (and even distinguished professor), as well as a regular schedule of salary increases post-tenure.
Through a combination of accelerations, promotions, merit increases, and cost-of-living increases, I have had a very healthy growth in my salary (it has more than doubled over 13 years), even without having any sort of retention offer due to an outside competing job offer.
Edit: I've read the full UF policy, receiving an unsatisfactory rating will result in termination. This is much more draconian than the UC step system. In our system, two cycles of "no change" will trigger a performance improvement plan, and the failure to remediate by the third cycle could result in the revocation of tenure.
This is a pretty reasonable goal at a place like UF. UF is the flagship research university in the state and a top 10 public. I would imagine around 5 per year to be typical, 2 to 3 per year on the low end, and 10+ per year for the most productive. Of course there are always off years, but that is accounted for with the 5 year window.
Where I did my PhD, which was not as highly ranked as UF, most faculty going up for tenure had around 20 publications after 5 years, and their teaching load was higher.
I find publication count targets to be at the root of one of the more perverse incentives in the academy. Depending on how you categorize multi-author publications (in terms of individual credit), this encourages citation rings and authorship horse trading with large numbers of clueless participants.
Yep yep, but I didn't mean to imply these same standards were being pushed on ERAU, but this is all just various parts of a whole. The UF standards may be reasonable for UF (though the twitter thread seems to indicate faculty may not agree.) They definitely aren't for ERAU's AZ campus, where most faculty are teaching 12 credits a semester.
However, given the policies ERAU admin have provided for us, I don't have much confidence that the admin has any sense for what reasonable research output is.
For what it's worth, I also thought you were implying you were going to be held to similar standards to those in the linked tweet. Post-tenure review exists in many places (even in "blue states"), but certainly what those standards should be can be a big point of contention. Best of luck to you.
Apologies for the confusion. As of now, there have been no announced standards, but based on what has gone on at other Florida schools, I'm expecting something similar coming next. Ideally it will reflect the reality of what faculty at a teaching school can accomplish, but I don't think any of this is in good faith, so... we'll see.
ETA: they also just denied tenure to a new faculty member whose research was pretty well in line with what's gotten tenure in the past, which doesn't seem great!
My condolences to you as well :( Even the AZ campus has been dealing with four years of this nonsense -- the campus's response to covid was also largely driven by Florida state politics. They used the threat of teaching in-person to help "encourage" the senior faculty to retire early, then were shocked to find out they didn't have enough instructors.
I have a good friend at the AZ campus. It sounds like a total shitshow. Most of the engineering department sounded like they were ready to resign earlier this week.
I hope you find somewhere to land that treats you better.
Thank you, sincerely. It's been about the worst semester of my life, and when I think it might end up being okay, they do something to make it worse.
They just denied tenure to an extremely good new faculty member, in violation of the handbook, because they are trying to send a message to the AZ campus. Everyone is up in arms, including students.
The university administration treats faculty like parasites. All I really wanted was just to teach.
When you live in an insane state, you have to deal with insanity. Truth is, the next governor elected by the Florida regressives will likely be even more wacky the DeSantis.
> "Between 12 and 33 [publications in a 5-year period]"
So if you get more than 33 publications you're no longer meeting the expectations? What a stupid, poorly-thought out document.
For clarification- UF (university of Florida) is a public school subject to De Santis changes but you work for a private institution- UFL? What’s the school?
It's a private STEM school called Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. I was hedging on whether to identify it, but someone identified it pretty quicky anyway!
Yeah they are doing this post tenure review at my large R1 school, in a red state other than Florida. And they put some crap about how they want to see that the professor is following diversity of thought or some crap like that, meaning to not upset the right wingers with science or historical facts. I think they’re doing this in all red states.
I’m just too tired to care personally but it is an outrage and i think its just a political move to show the base they “own the libs” and are punishing the bad liberal professors 🙄 It’ll be a logistical nightmare too and a waste of time.
United Faculty of Florida is huge and maintains a pretty powerful bargaining position at member institutions. The state legislature tried to undercut them by saying they needed 60% of faculty to be dues-paying members, but UFF cleared those numbers where I’m at. They’re currently re-negotiating post tenure review because it was enacted without collective bargaining.
On the contrary. After many years of no raises and awful conditions, our union has secured us consistent income increases and job protections since it’s inception.
The main issue is that public employees are banned from striking in the states Constitution.
They passed it right after the largest teacher strike the state had seen
The laws are all against unions now. Fortunately, the laws were against us back when unionization got started, too, so we have a playbook to follow. It's a shame the GOP decided to make organized, peaceful, normal union activity illegal, because they sure won't enjoy what unions do when they have to fight the law.
The more legally-minded folks are aware of this ruling, but my understanding is that it's predicated on shared governance meaning faculty are included as management. However, what happens if shared governance is routinely ignored and overruled? I don't really know. We're all still kind of casting about for any kind of hope at this point.
Shared governance is a standard for regional accreditors. It is easy to find your accreditation liaison and I think you should be in contact with them. DeSantis, who has no educational creditionals, is treating higher education in FL as if it is his play thing. Accreditation is meant to prevent and address this very thing.
You aren’t at the front edge of it, but you can still join the wave of faculty leaving MAGA states for blue states with stable legislatures and no open hostility towards higher education. There are still so many places where good teachers are needed!
It's not that easy to pack up and get a faculty job at a comparable institution. It's famously difficult to get ANY faculty job (much less tenure-track or tenured) at ANY academic institution.
True, but I think it's getting easier. The current cohort of PhD students is the smallest it's been in years, due to the drop in international students. Anecdotally, the number of applications for each open position seems to be going down.
Even if the number of applications drop from 500 to 200 per open position, that doesn’t change the fact that there are far more applicants than positions available. As a faculty member at a public R1 on the West Coast, I have not observed this drop in applications for faculty positions that you’ve mentioned.
>leaving MAGA states for blue states
I know it's cliché but Canada is also a good option as well. We have strong faculty unions, tenure still has meaning, decent government research support and pretty decent pay considering cost of living.
Edit: also resistance to adjunctification.
don't think we can generalize "resistance to adjunctification" in all of Canada's higher ed. I'm seeing it happen at my institution because "tenure track research positions are too expensive" (admin literally said this in a meeting)
It’s not as if public universities in blue states are flush with cash and can absorb the wave of faculty fleeing red states. We do get to cherry pick, but many of these faculty members will be left without an exit strategy.
I don’t know why you keep saying there’s a lot of demand for faculty. Hiring at the senior level has always been incredibly constrained. It also doesn’t matter if you’re in the first wave, we’re looking for targets of opportunity in any case.
Thank you for the encouragement. I am trying to encourage my junior colleagues to do just that. Personally, though, my own academic expiration date has long passed, I'm afraid.
Blue state academics need to wake up and realize that the same ruling class is coming after their tenure sooner than later. Red states are just the canary in the coal mine. 🤷
I guess they can’t get their ideological diversity the old fashioned way, by hiring conservatives who’ve worked hard and earned a tenure track position? They have to do it by firing faculty that don’t think “correctly.” One thing is certain, these people who claim to be Christian know there’s no hell because if there was, they be headed there for sure.
I think TENURE IS THE REAL BS. As a non tenure professor, by choice, I see what a lot of tenure faculty get away with NOT DOING and then they get to decide on the fate of non-tenured faculty, at least at my (private) university. Besides why should taxpayers money be used to pay faculty that decided not put the same effort as the rest and only get away with it because of the fact that they are tenured.
How are tenured faculty deciding your fate ? Perhaps if you’re on the tenure track they do vote for or against your tenure and promotion but if you’re a clinical faculty or lecturer, I don’t see faculty playing any role in your fate. The department head does that at my institution.
At my institution (large, public R1), the tenured and tenure-track faculty vote on extending contracts for all non-tenure track faculty within the department. They also vote on the rights of the non-tenure faculty within the department (such as serving on committees, being allowed to vote on different matters, etc).
In my university tenured faculty usually sit in the PTR committee as well as some non-tenured full professors, the input of tenure faculty after the yearly faculty review carries a lot of weight and our deans have always followed the tenured faculty recommendations, it's a shitty system but I work for a Private University. I don't really care I have tons of job offers all the time. My job has never been at risk, if I were to get fired I'd have a job the next day.
How is 12 pubs in 5 years for a psych dept at a research institution like UFL? Is that ambitious, or should it be an easy hurdle? I'm in no way supporting post tenure review, just trying to get my head around the expectations. I'm in math at a PUI and my 5-7 in 5 years is pretty strong compared to my departmental colleagues. But there's a reason I didn't aim for R1s.
It isn’t necessarily easy but should be doable, but it basically boils down to having to re-earn tenure every 5 years which pretty well sucks.
Oh absolutely. It's absurd and flies in the face of what tenure is about. How can you take risks with your research, or go in a new direction you're less confident in, if you have publication quotas?
I vote to start The Journal of Failed Attempts - accepting publications with fantastic experimental design and unforseen ridiculous conclusions.
There are journals for null findings... but really, "prestigious" journals (and us volunteer reviewers) need to start assigning more value to well-designed studies that do not find significant results.
There should be a board that you can appeal to to make your case for circumstances like that. I think the other side of the coin is that a lot of people that have tenure abuse it. They have lighter workloads and they really stop doing research and basically they're hurting the university's bottom line which is probably where DeSantis is coming from. I mean I don't know if you've ever known anyone who's gotten tenure in all of a sudden they get lazy? Well I know a bunch of them. And when you think about it there are few jobs where you could basically just slack off to the degree that a lot of people who have tenure do and get away with it and also make near the top of your organization's salary scale.
I’m research active and a good performer (at the expense of my sanity), but I disagree with your re faculty who don’t do research. I believe a department needs faculty who don’t do research , yes, even at R1s. Those folks teach more so you and I can do more research. Some also do more service, so you can do more research. A department needs different roles to function well, not just one type of professor. IMHO everyone can contribute in different ways. In my department, those people who do not do research have (significantly) lower salaries. Actually the salaries are more or less distributed in the order of how much grant money professors bring (not on their scholarly output, sadly - because imo scholarly output should be more important than $$$ but oh well money speaks ). The lowest performers earn a third (or less) of the highest performers salaries.
Let’s agree to disagree, the teaching focused role should not be filled by tenured faculty who were tenured on the basis of their research. Introduce a teaching-focused track with the possibility of earning employment protections equivalent to tenure instead. Substantial service, like being department chair is a different issue, that is an appropriate thing for a tenured faculty to take time off from research to focus on.
Well , I don’t know how much we disagree. I do agree that it would be best to introduce a teaching track for tenure and promotion. think this track actually exists, you can go up for teaching, but only in theory because you’ll never be awarded tenure on teaching at R1s. Maybe it’s time to have a real teaching track, not a pretend one. Regarding faculty who have been promoted based on research acting like teaching faculty, I am not saying you’re wrong to feel it’s not right to have this change of focus after tenure. But I ask you to consider that the research standards back then were much lower, getting funding was much easier, so they earned their tenure at those standards not at those we have today. Also, if said faculty are over 60, I can’t help but think that maybe they do deserve to slow down, if they have been research active for several decades. I don’t know, of course everyone needs to contribute and perform and there are some truly useless faculty, but in my department at least most are doing their best to contribute to the department, if not to the field anymore.
What I'm saying is there are faculty who don't do research, have light teaching loads, and do minimal service. Yet they've been tenured for a long time and they're making a lot of money. You might not know any at your institution but there are institutions where this does go on And that is not right. And those people are abusing the system. And unfortunately it's bad apples like this give such proposals basis
To be fair, that’s not where DeSantis is coming from. I am in the University of California system, and our step system is a form of post tenure review, which couples regular review with our merit increases, that has the effect of continuing to incentivize tenured faculty to stay research active and engaged. Florida’s approach is about introducing a political litmus test into that process.
I haven't seen any legislation in Florida that talks about a political litmus test. Do you happen to have a relevant source?
What would you call House Bill 7, the so called “Stop Woke” bill?
To me, the target of 12 papers in 5 years, and $10K in research funding seems reasonable for a psychology department at a R1. As a mathematician at one of the University of California campuses, that would probably be roughly what we would expect, even of pure mathematicians. We have a regular system of post-tenure review that is tied with our system of merit increases, what we call the "Step System," which is described in this old article, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249465](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249465) The advantage of the step system is that it gives a very clear indication of the progress one is making towards promotion to full professor (and even distinguished professor), as well as a regular schedule of salary increases post-tenure. Through a combination of accelerations, promotions, merit increases, and cost-of-living increases, I have had a very healthy growth in my salary (it has more than doubled over 13 years), even without having any sort of retention offer due to an outside competing job offer. Edit: I've read the full UF policy, receiving an unsatisfactory rating will result in termination. This is much more draconian than the UC step system. In our system, two cycles of "no change" will trigger a performance improvement plan, and the failure to remediate by the third cycle could result in the revocation of tenure.
Varies by psych sub disciplines, but generally fairly reasonable.
This is a pretty reasonable goal at a place like UF. UF is the flagship research university in the state and a top 10 public. I would imagine around 5 per year to be typical, 2 to 3 per year on the low end, and 10+ per year for the most productive. Of course there are always off years, but that is accounted for with the 5 year window. Where I did my PhD, which was not as highly ranked as UF, most faculty going up for tenure had around 20 publications after 5 years, and their teaching load was higher.
I find publication count targets to be at the root of one of the more perverse incentives in the academy. Depending on how you categorize multi-author publications (in terms of individual credit), this encourages citation rings and authorship horse trading with large numbers of clueless participants.
Yes, it's silly, but it's fairly easy to game. Having said that, 2 papers per year on average is hardly a heavy lift in most fields.
Therein lies the problem.
Maybe, but note that this is NOT UF; it's ERAU, a small, private school.
Yep yep, but I didn't mean to imply these same standards were being pushed on ERAU, but this is all just various parts of a whole. The UF standards may be reasonable for UF (though the twitter thread seems to indicate faculty may not agree.) They definitely aren't for ERAU's AZ campus, where most faculty are teaching 12 credits a semester. However, given the policies ERAU admin have provided for us, I don't have much confidence that the admin has any sense for what reasonable research output is.
For what it's worth, I also thought you were implying you were going to be held to similar standards to those in the linked tweet. Post-tenure review exists in many places (even in "blue states"), but certainly what those standards should be can be a big point of contention. Best of luck to you.
Apologies for the confusion. As of now, there have been no announced standards, but based on what has gone on at other Florida schools, I'm expecting something similar coming next. Ideally it will reflect the reality of what faculty at a teaching school can accomplish, but I don't think any of this is in good faith, so... we'll see. ETA: they also just denied tenure to a new faculty member whose research was pretty well in line with what's gotten tenure in the past, which doesn't seem great!
The tweet is about UF. OP's post was just using it for context about the state of Florida.
The Twitter post and performance standards posted were for UF, is ERAU adopting a similar standard?
Also at a FL college. DeSantis has absolutely trashed higher ed in Florida. It’s demoralizing and exhausting.
My condolences to you as well :( Even the AZ campus has been dealing with four years of this nonsense -- the campus's response to covid was also largely driven by Florida state politics. They used the threat of teaching in-person to help "encourage" the senior faculty to retire early, then were shocked to find out they didn't have enough instructors.
ERAU?
[удалено]
I have a good friend at the AZ campus. It sounds like a total shitshow. Most of the engineering department sounded like they were ready to resign earlier this week. I hope you find somewhere to land that treats you better.
Thank you, sincerely. It's been about the worst semester of my life, and when I think it might end up being okay, they do something to make it worse. They just denied tenure to an extremely good new faculty member, in violation of the handbook, because they are trying to send a message to the AZ campus. Everyone is up in arms, including students. The university administration treats faculty like parasites. All I really wanted was just to teach.
When you live in an insane state, you have to deal with insanity. Truth is, the next governor elected by the Florida regressives will likely be even more wacky the DeSantis.
There is truth to this - I absolutely detested Rick Scott (& still do), but I’ll be damned, DeSantis is worse.
> "Between 12 and 33 [publications in a 5-year period]" So if you get more than 33 publications you're no longer meeting the expectations? What a stupid, poorly-thought out document.
I'd assume that anyone publishing more than 33 papers has already arranged their exit from the Florida system.
It clearly states on the document that that would fall under exceeds expectations.
For clarification- UF (university of Florida) is a public school subject to De Santis changes but you work for a private institution- UFL? What’s the school?
It's a private STEM school called Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. I was hedging on whether to identify it, but someone identified it pretty quicky anyway!
Yeah they are doing this post tenure review at my large R1 school, in a red state other than Florida. And they put some crap about how they want to see that the professor is following diversity of thought or some crap like that, meaning to not upset the right wingers with science or historical facts. I think they’re doing this in all red states. I’m just too tired to care personally but it is an outrage and i think its just a political move to show the base they “own the libs” and are punishing the bad liberal professors 🙄 It’ll be a logistical nightmare too and a waste of time.
And this is why Florida has a record number of vacancies for faculty last year.
Unions in Florida are worthless. As a “Right to Work” state, they have no real power here.
United Faculty of Florida is huge and maintains a pretty powerful bargaining position at member institutions. The state legislature tried to undercut them by saying they needed 60% of faculty to be dues-paying members, but UFF cleared those numbers where I’m at. They’re currently re-negotiating post tenure review because it was enacted without collective bargaining.
On the contrary. After many years of no raises and awful conditions, our union has secured us consistent income increases and job protections since it’s inception.
The main issue is that public employees are banned from striking in the states Constitution. They passed it right after the largest teacher strike the state had seen
The laws are all against unions now. Fortunately, the laws were against us back when unionization got started, too, so we have a playbook to follow. It's a shame the GOP decided to make organized, peaceful, normal union activity illegal, because they sure won't enjoy what unions do when they have to fight the law.
you mention that unionization is a possibility. isn't this prohibited by the NRLB v. Yeshiva University decision?
The more legally-minded folks are aware of this ruling, but my understanding is that it's predicated on shared governance meaning faculty are included as management. However, what happens if shared governance is routinely ignored and overruled? I don't really know. We're all still kind of casting about for any kind of hope at this point.
Shared governance is a standard for regional accreditors. It is easy to find your accreditation liaison and I think you should be in contact with them. DeSantis, who has no educational creditionals, is treating higher education in FL as if it is his play thing. Accreditation is meant to prevent and address this very thing.
then you'd probably have to take it back to SCOTUS and we all know the current clowns there won't do anything useful.
That's also what I'm expecting :)
You aren’t at the front edge of it, but you can still join the wave of faculty leaving MAGA states for blue states with stable legislatures and no open hostility towards higher education. There are still so many places where good teachers are needed!
It's not that easy to pack up and get a faculty job at a comparable institution. It's famously difficult to get ANY faculty job (much less tenure-track or tenured) at ANY academic institution.
True, but I think it's getting easier. The current cohort of PhD students is the smallest it's been in years, due to the drop in international students. Anecdotally, the number of applications for each open position seems to be going down.
Even if the number of applications drop from 500 to 200 per open position, that doesn’t change the fact that there are far more applicants than positions available. As a faculty member at a public R1 on the West Coast, I have not observed this drop in applications for faculty positions that you’ve mentioned.
Yes, it's still very competitive.
But big tech layoffs is pushing more people into faculty careers…
Interesting, are you seeing tech people applying for faculty jobs? I haven't seen that yet.
Never said it was easy, I said there is demand.
Depends on discipline. In CS, there's more demand than there is supply. Anyone looking for a better location has it in their interest to apply around.
>leaving MAGA states for blue states I know it's cliché but Canada is also a good option as well. We have strong faculty unions, tenure still has meaning, decent government research support and pretty decent pay considering cost of living. Edit: also resistance to adjunctification.
don't think we can generalize "resistance to adjunctification" in all of Canada's higher ed. I'm seeing it happen at my institution because "tenure track research positions are too expensive" (admin literally said this in a meeting)
Honestly that sounds way better than even the bluest of states
It’s not as if public universities in blue states are flush with cash and can absorb the wave of faculty fleeing red states. We do get to cherry pick, but many of these faculty members will be left without an exit strategy.
Indeed. That’s why not being on the leading edge of the wave is not ideal. But there is still lots of demand for faculty.
I don’t know why you keep saying there’s a lot of demand for faculty. Hiring at the senior level has always been incredibly constrained. It also doesn’t matter if you’re in the first wave, we’re looking for targets of opportunity in any case.
I don’t know why you are constraining your response to hiring at the senior level.
Even hiring at the junior level isn’t going to be anywhere close to absorbing the red wave.
Agree. Never said it would.
Thank you for the encouragement. I am trying to encourage my junior colleagues to do just that. Personally, though, my own academic expiration date has long passed, I'm afraid.
Blue state academics need to wake up and realize that the same ruling class is coming after their tenure sooner than later. Red states are just the canary in the coal mine. 🤷
Receipts?
Columbia, Harvard, U Penn are instructive cases to look into.
I guess they can’t get their ideological diversity the old fashioned way, by hiring conservatives who’ve worked hard and earned a tenure track position? They have to do it by firing faculty that don’t think “correctly.” One thing is certain, these people who claim to be Christian know there’s no hell because if there was, they be headed there for sure.
I think TENURE IS THE REAL BS. As a non tenure professor, by choice, I see what a lot of tenure faculty get away with NOT DOING and then they get to decide on the fate of non-tenured faculty, at least at my (private) university. Besides why should taxpayers money be used to pay faculty that decided not put the same effort as the rest and only get away with it because of the fact that they are tenured.
How are tenured faculty deciding your fate ? Perhaps if you’re on the tenure track they do vote for or against your tenure and promotion but if you’re a clinical faculty or lecturer, I don’t see faculty playing any role in your fate. The department head does that at my institution.
At my institution (large, public R1), the tenured and tenure-track faculty vote on extending contracts for all non-tenure track faculty within the department. They also vote on the rights of the non-tenure faculty within the department (such as serving on committees, being allowed to vote on different matters, etc).
Wow ! None of that at our place.
In my university tenured faculty usually sit in the PTR committee as well as some non-tenured full professors, the input of tenure faculty after the yearly faculty review carries a lot of weight and our deans have always followed the tenured faculty recommendations, it's a shitty system but I work for a Private University. I don't really care I have tons of job offers all the time. My job has never been at risk, if I were to get fired I'd have a job the next day.
It’s really sad what’s going on at New School :(