Comments on: How to Get Tenure at Almost Every Other Research University

By: BitterExPhysicist

BitterExPhysicist — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 06:29:50 +0000

I honestly think part of the issue in advice giving/getting is that people dramatically under-emphasize the role of luck. You might take a risk that pans out, but dozens of others take similar risks and it fails them.

There are so many scientists that want so few faculty spots that in the end, the only thing that differentiates them is luck. You HAVE to know the right people, you HAVE to publish regularly, you HAVE to pull in grants, and on top of that you HAVE to be lucky, because far too many people fit the first three. Luck should be at the top of all these lists, but no one wants to admit “there but for the grace of god..”

By: how to get tenure at some university or other | Antipodal Points

how to get tenure at some university or other | Antipodal Points — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:55:35 +0000

[...] Carroll: How to Get Tenure at a Major Research University Julianne Dalcanton: How to Get Tenure at Almost Every Other Research University Sean’s reply: Lifestyle [...]

By: Julianne

Julianne — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:04:32 +0000

a. astronomers –

Thanks for taking this on. I didn’t have the heart, after feeling like I’ve written the same responses over and over again.

For the record, I did go over to the astro Rumour Mill, investigating the claimed over-representation of women. Scanning the list of US offers that have names attached, I’m seeing pretty much the usual. Not sure which “underqualified women” they’re talking about either. The one’s with 8 first author papers in the past 2 years? The one with a couple of Nature papers as a postdoc?

Look, faculty hiring has always been a chaotic process subject to differing opinions, and colleagues have second-guessed hiring decisions for as long as I’ve been in the field (“They hired _him_??? When they could have hired X, Y, or Z?!?!?!”). Only difference is that as the number of women in the field has increased, there are actually enough women that we get to second guess occasional female candidates too. Progress! (But see the classic xkcd on how this usually works differently for women).

The only possible substantive change that might support DKTM’s thesis is the fact that many universities (especially publics) have hiring freezes right now, and will only allow hires that contribute to diversity. So, I could imagine that potentially contributing to an uptick in the proportion of hires that eventually go to women or minorities. But the thought that the number of such positions is soooooooo large that they’ve run out of highly qualified candidates is risible, given the depth of the talent pool and the shortage of positions overall.

The bigger issue is that the job market sucks big time at the faculty level right now, and scarcity rarely brings out the best in people.

By: another astronomer

another astronomer — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:34:33 +0000

@an astronomer

Yeah, it seems that “don’t kill the messenger”‘s whole comment needs a giant [citation needed] added to it.

By: an_astronomer

an_astronomer — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:19:40 +0000

@don’t kill the messenger:
Respectfully, I have to ask for at least a little bit of data about the claim of “reverse sexism” that you are making in the hiring process. There is extensive data to support exactly the opposite claim, that astronomy is still an extremely challenging field in which to be a woman, because their gender alone places women at a disadvantage. In the National Academy of Sciences’ 2007 publication, “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering”, they summarize a number of factors disadvantaging qualified women, including bias in the peer review stage of publication, bias when procuring grants, and bias when reviewing CVs for job applications and promotions. These biases have been quantified in studies, and all work against very qualified women astronomers. The National Academy specifically cites that “a woman, in fact, had to be more than twice as productive as a man to be judged equally competent”, as determined by a study about review for postdoctoral fellowships. I point out that other disadvantaging factors exist for women in astronomy, such as a lack of female mentors in senior positions, a lack of parental leave, and overt harassment. These are also mentioned in the National Academy of Science report, but are understandably more difficult to quantify.

I invite you to read more here- they include references to all the studies that I mentioned above.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9815/

In the absence of any scientific documentation about the “extreme bias” against male astronomers that you claim exists, and the extensive evidence for the continued effects of unconscious bias against female astronomers, I think your claim that men are being “forced out of academia” because of reverse sexism is very likely untrue. It is probably just the opposite: that bias continues to exist against women astronomers. Comments such as yours, in which you provide unsubstantiated claims of many women’s unworthiness to be your academic peers, are actually actively harmful to women scientists, because they are consistent with an overall cultural bias in astronomy that unfairly evaluates and dismisses the efforts of women. So too are comments that you have reported from male faculty that new women hires are “lightweights” and “not to be taken seriously”- I think it is very likely that unconscious (or perhaps not-so-unconscious) bias is operative in comments such as these, and it’s highly unlikely that a scientist who has made it successfully to the faculty stage (man or woman) is worthy of being totally dismissed in this way. I call your attention again to the citation about women needing twice the qualifications to be considered equally competent to their male peers- these new female faculty you mentioned may have an identical number of publications as the professor who calls them “lightweights”, and still they might be perceived disdainfully. So I ask you to carefully consider, in light of these studies: who is being unfairly disadvantaged?

Thank you for the wonderful article, Julianne! I’m sorry to get off-topic with a conversation like this one, but I couldn’t bear to think of the number of young women astronomers following this blog, who would feel very discouraged by a comment such as the one that “don’t kill the messenger” wrote.

By: GamesWithWords

GamesWithWords — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:17:43 +0000

I would be careful about using the NRC results. Perhaps the NRC data are appropriate for physics, — I didn’t check — but when I double-checked their numbers for my field (psychology), I could find no relationship between their raw data and reality. That is, when you look at the raw numbers that go into their rankings (publication rate, grant rate, etc.), they just aren’t true. I don’t know if they simply misunderstood the numbers that they found, reporting number of apples as the number of oranges, or if they just made the numbers up. Either way, the rankings — at least for psychology — are meaningless.

More here: http://gameswithwords.fieldofscience.com/2010/10/new-grad-school-rankings-dont-pass.html

By: Lifestyle Choices | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Lifestyle Choices | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:55:00 +0000

[...] Julianne says, there is a worry that passionate young scientists who read about how hard it is to get jobs or [...]

By: i used to live on mars

i used to live on mars — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 20:56:15 +0000

Every time discussion on tenure arises in this blog, I get kick out of reading the comments from bitter people (i.e., mostly without “permanent” work) as well as those who defend the status quo (i.e., either already tenured and set and done for life for good, or nontenured people just trying to swallow the bitter situation by pretending that everything really is fair).

I understand that without getting to some sort of permanent position those who are deep into their science career may have to waste a couple dozen years of formal education and efforts when they switch careers. But people should realize that tenure is a very strange system (one that serves little purpose in the current climate), and few outside academia enjoy such contract. People get cut all the time if they are not suitable for the job or the business emphasis changes within the industry, for example. People are literally just pieces of puzzle, you know. Basic scientists, given what they do really have little impact on society and it can probably not even sustain itself without subsidy from that powerful something, should know that they are not entitled to anything.

It takes only one student to replace a tenured advisor. How many did yours advise? Reasonably smart scientists should have known better what they were getting into.

By: Ytivarg

Ytivarg — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 04:23:57 +0000

I think Sean’s comment is provocative but I find it very contradictory against all the ideals that is noble and good. Sure one may not get tenure but getting a tenure was not the ideal that most people set out to do when people start doing science. If getting a tenure means sacrificing all my creativity, then when my time will arrive to work for a tenure i will decline this Faustian bargain!

By: réalta fuar

réalta fuar — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 23:17:47 +0000

I would disagree with Ben, a bit: NEGATIVE collegiality does matter. One should never forget that members of tenure committees, at whatever level, do not have to justify their decisions. If they don’t like you for whatever reason, whether it’s the way your part your hair or you choice of significant other or the fact they don’t really want to be around you for thirty years, that works for them. That last point is probably the primary reason people get turned down for tenure, in fact. One should never fool oneself that you have ANY control, because you really don’t. (that’s not to say that not working hard is a good thing, just that doing all the “right” things only gives you the illusion of having control. It’s that illusion that can destroy you when you’re turned down, as most will be).

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:31:35 +0000

Well, so much for the idea that collegiality is considered in tenure decisions.

Write papers, get grants, don’t irritate people unnecessarily. Everything else, and everyone else, is kind of out of your control and you might as well not worry about it or them too much.

By: réalta fuar

réalta fuar — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:18:43 +0000

To put it bluntly, what a load of shite! Lots of colleges, of all stripes, in the states make a point of tenuring half or less of their new hires (and they’re fecking PROUD of it, as many of them will tell you). Liberal arts colleges are often HARDER to get tenure at than research universities (and most are turned down because their research is said to be lacking, NOT their teaching as their faculties aren’t any better at teaching, on average, than anywhere else). Bart Wakker and don’t kill the messenger have it exactly right above. The one thing said by Julianne that IS correct is that you’re NOT going to get your advisor’s job. An inconsequential fraction of people get ph.d’s in physics and astronomy who do not WANT their advisor’s job, so just about everyone is going to be shattered, at some time, by not getting tenure whether they’re turned down by Chicago, Swarthmore, St. Mary’s, or Podunk U.
You can tell your students this from now until the Big Rip and they’re not ever going to believe you, since they all think they’re special enough to be the Exception.
If you ARE the Exception, as all the C.V. bloggers are, rest assured that you’re not a better scientist, a better teacher, a better advisor, a better ANYTHING than those who were turned down. What you most likely are is a) lucky and/or b) a popular person (perhaps a brown-noser) who makes everyone feel better for having chosen you. (and before anyone asks, yes, I have tenure and fit category a) above). If you have tenure and fit b) above, congratulations, you’re well on your way to being a dean or v.p.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:01:08 +0000

There are a lot of good scientists out there right now and while one can second guess a few spots on any department’s short list, in general departments have a surfeit of good choices and in general they hire people who have promise of being talented researchers over a long run. Trash talking recent hires indicates a mis directed focus – spend mental energy on making your own work better, not on the perceived deficiencies of others’ work. You don’t have to be loved to get or keep a job, but if you radiate an attitude that will make other people miserable, there are only a few departments in the country that will want to take you on.

There’s a long and dire history of older men evaluating younger women as lightweight and I wouldn’t rush to take any such comments seriously.

By: don't kill the messenger

don't kill the messenger — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:32:39 +0000

Can we be honest about another major trend in astro hires in the last decade or so, especially in the last few years? As a card-carrying, latte-drinking, NYT-reading liberal, it’s become absurdly obvious even to me that every shortlist seems to have women who are nowhere near as qualified as their male co-candidates. And they are, in fact, hired disproportionately for starting faculty. I accept (and have argued over beers at AAS meetings) that there’s a genuine historical bias that needs to be corrected, but I’ve come to believe that departments are catastrophically over-compensating, hoping to hire “at least one”. It remains to be seen how these women will fare when they come up for tenure. The effect on the postdoc cohort right now is very demoralizing — superior male researchers are facing an extreme bias that didn’t exist when they entered grad school. One might argue this is an overdue swing of the pendulum. But it’s not obvious that it’s even positive for women in science over the long term. I’ve heard many comments from male faculty that new women hires are “lightweights” and “not to be taken seriously”. The really strong women, who would doubtless succeed in a more balanced environment, are cast in with the mediocre new lot. In 20-30 years, when the “grey beards” consist of the women and men who were hired today, the women, on average, will be the do-nothing-dinosaurs. Whereas the men, due to the extreme un-natural selection of today’s environment, will still be going strong. What conclusions will society then draw about the relative research abilities of the sexes? And how will science have been weakened by the loss of those excellent male researchers who will have been forced out of academia? Or do we not even care anymore …

By: Bart Wakker

Bart Wakker — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:16:26 +0000

I find this discussion is missing something very important. The list of items that is given as things one has to do is incomplete. I did all of it. I got an average of 3 grants a year in the 80-300k range. for each of the past 13 years. My citation count is larger than all but 2 to 4 people in my department (depending on how one measures it). I get invited for conference talks. I get invited for writing a chapter in a series of books that will cover all of astronomy. I teach graduate students. I was PI on 9 HST programs, including 90 orbits this year. Yet, I got a job _interview_ for a faculty position just once. My own institution recently rejected me again in favor of a 30-year old with 2 papers, which I judge as nonsensical toy model playing. Nobody tells me to leave, but instead they say they want me around. But, no job is waiting and soft money it remains. From this I learn that the _only_ important thing is to make the right friends at the right time. The quality of one’s work is 100% uncorrelated with whether or not one gets a job offer. Making oneself popular is. Just a warning to everyone reading this and thinking that merit has anything to do with the issue.

By: Ann Onymous

Ann Onymous — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:52:50 +0000

As a postdoc currently looking for a permanent job, the tenure track system in the US totally freaks me out and is the single most important aspect that would make me decline a job in the US if I get another offer elsewhere.
I have had extensive discussions with faculties from various places regarding this. Lately the director of a *small* physics department at a *small* public university I applied to told me they expect their faculty to lead at least 2 papers a year to get tenure (in addition to getting grants regularly, having successful graduate students, etc.). I was told (from a 100% trustable source) that some institutes have the policy of denying tenure to half of the people they hired. I find this whole process extremely disheartening and demotivating. My home country (where I am also applying for jobs) does not have any tenure system (or rather everyone gets tenure after a 1 year trial period but denial has basically never been heard of). Subjectively I do not see any obvious difference in the level between researchers in both systems which makes me wonder if the process is any useful in its current form. I know people in both systems who have published 0 paper in a decade. I think there is a sort of selection effect too in that tenured faculties will have a strong tendancy to defend a system that landed them a tenured job which makes it hard to reform the system to make it more humane. As sad as it is to say that, I do not want to take the “risk” to have children before getting tenure, that is if I manage not to have a heart attack before then because of the stress.

By: Eugene

Eugene — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:59:25 +0000

Thanks for making me feel better!

By: Research Editing

Research Editing — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:43:03 +0000

Great article Julianne.

By: astro

astro — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:39:18 +0000

True to an extent. One caution… don’t assume that doing a little better than the average of the recently tenured faculty is “good enough”. Many institutions are attempting to “improve their ranking”. This translates to having greater expectations for each batch of junior faculty.

Another tip… know who/what committee is the bottle neck at your university. And write your research/teaching/service narratives targeting that level. E.g., if a university is facing budget cuts and faculty denied tenure are unlikely to be replaced, then you’d have to have performed pretty poorly for your department to want to risk trading you for an empty chair. So the bottleneck may be at a higher level, e.g., your college committee or dean. (I haven’t heard of a recent case in astro that sailed through all three and ran into trouble at higher levels, but I suppose it’s possible.)

By: Julianne

Julianne — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:38:43 +0000

Well, I would second Sean’s upfront assertion that one needs to pursue graduate education in the sciences with the realistic expectation that you won’t actually wind up with your advisor’s job. I completely concur that the transition from postdoc to faculty seems to be the hardest step in the chain at the moment, at least in physics and astronomy. Positions at public institutions have dried up with cutbacks at the state level, which has put a serious dent in things. Thankfully, there are a lot of potentially interesting jobs one can do with graduate training in physics/astronomy, many of which could be far more enjoyable than being a faculty member, depending on your personality and interests. So, make sure you do enough self-reflection to figure out exactly what sort of day-to-day job would make you happiest, and don’t simply assume that “running a large research group and grubbing for grant money while writing endless recommendation letters and teaching 100′s of undergraduates” is your dream job, just because it’s the job of “physicists you’ve happened to meet while on a college campus”.