VI. Tenure and Merit Review

Open-Ended Responses Regarding the Tenure Process (Q 23b)
Click to view snapshot results of (Q 23)

One in three respondents took the opportunity to respond to the following open-ended question: Please add any comments you would like to make about how the tenure process works in your unit. Negative comments outnumbered positive comments four to one.  The specific issues that they mentioned are listed below, in order from the most to least commonly cited negative and then positive comments.   

The process does not work well:

  • The criteria are applied inconsistently
    “Changes from year to year.  Hard to hit a moving target.  Tends to discourage people, not encourage them.  Does not take into account the diversity of abilities, it seems to be only one way to get promoted, but each year the ‘one way’ seems to be different.”
“The decision to promote to full professor is too often influenced by the personal popularity of the candidate.”
  • The criteria are not well understood or are secretive
    “It is the best kept secret on campus.”
“At the beginning, one is told that one should “excel” in 2 of three areas: research, teaching, and service.  However, it is not clear what is meant by excellence in these areas.  As a result, the tenure process is rather obscure.”
  • Research, teaching, and service should all be valued
    “We promote research excellence only.  Service is irrelevant.  Teaching quality is only of little importance.”        

“….We lose those who are excellent in every respect, but not quantity publishers.  That’s unfortunate for the students.” 

“Teaching evaluation by students is a politically correct stupidity: the administration takes them as virtually only criterion of how well one teaches, while students at Purdue (in my area) are heavily under-prepared and totally incompetent to judge the quality of one’s teaching.”
  • The tenure standards are too low
    “There is too little intervention by the school and university administration to ensure that proper professional standards are applied.  It is assumed that assistant professors will receive tenure.  None has been denied tenure since 1982.”

“Faculty who are not worthy of tenure are able to receive tenure by threats to leave.  Dean is very weak and has very low standards.”

“The standards for research productivity are very low.  There are full professors with very poor records and who have very low standards.  I have been a member of the primary committee for the last two years.  Both years, over half of the primary committee members came to vote without having reviewed the candidates’ files.  They had not seen, let alone read the candidates’ publications.  Indices of quality, e.g., journal rankings, number of times cited in the social science citation index are not part of the process.  Low quality, service-type publications are not always differentiated from refereed publications.  Service to the Dean and the school takes precedence over important national service.  This state of affairs should not be acceptable.”

Suggestions for improvement:

·        Institute post-tenure review or abolish tenure

“Post tenure review is very important to enhance the quality of Purdue’s faculty.  A post tenure review process should be initiated and developed by the faculty for the faculty rather than being mandated by the President or the Council on Higher Education or the State Legislature.”

“It is time to either abolish tenure or begin a review process of tenured faculty every 2-5 years with probation and termination as available options for those who do not perform."

“I think the tenure process should be abolished in its current state.  In our unit it has given faculty the opportunity to quit contributing in the capacity for which they were hired.  This means that we often have two people to do one job.  In addition, often tenured faculty do not keep their courses up to date and don’t listen to the students.  There should definitely be some way to hold ALL faculty accountable.  I understand and agree with the spirit of tenure, but feel it is being abused greatly.”

“Tenure is an outmoded concept, and should be replaced by some procedure of review at five year intervals.”

·        Establish a more supportive environment for faculty to understand the process

“A lot of work needs to be done to support and present the work of faculty who do not have traditional teaching and research appointments.  It would help if faculty could have a more active role in presenting themselves rather than the secretive, behind-closed-doors process that is used.”     

“New faculty need to be mentored regularly by the unit head and have yearly review of their progress.  Associate faculty need this as well as they move toward full.  The ground rules for the number of publications and scholarly presentations that are accepted has changed with each new head or Dean.  Somebody needs to be there and be consistent for what is good show for progress.”

The process works well:

  • The process and expectations are clearly defined
    “My unit does an outstanding job of explaining the process and providing constructive criticism.  I was tenured two years ago.”
“I am very satisfied with the tenure process in my unit.  New faculty are made immediately aware of expectations (good teaching, excellent research) and are advised annually of their progress.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 “My department has a very well defined mentoring system which makes tenure a manageable process.  If the candidate follows the suggestions given by the department head and the full professors, establishing a consistent track record for tenure is a relatively painless process.”
  • The process used in my unit is fair
    “The process used in my unit is fair, equitable, transparent, and rigorous.  The discussions at Area Committee are frank but are focused on appropriate considerations relative to performance and NOT on personality or other irrelevant factors.”

Differences by Rank

Associate professors were the most likely to respond to this question and they and assistant professors were more likely to have negative comments regarding the tenure process than were professors. Similarly, assistant and associate professors frequently commented that the process and expectations should be more clearly explained at the beginning of the process, and that generous and accurate feedback should be provided.