So, I was offered a job at a LAC and one of the incentives they offered was that they'd count my teaching experience, as a TA and VAP as time towards tenure, so I could go up in 4 or 5 years or something instead of 6. How is this incentive for me? I can anticipate an earlier pay bump + job security? And for them? It costs them nothing now? Reduces their staffing uncertainty? Anyone heard of something like this?
Time towards tenure
-
We offer new hires with experience as instructor of record plus publications the option of negotiating some time toward tenure.
When I accepted my offer there was some suggestion that I might be eligible for up to 2 years.
I opted to say nothing about this and simply go for higher base salary.
I think this is where the incentives line up for virtually everyone (whether or not more salary is possible), for several reasons:
1. You want all your pre-tenure time to build a portable record rather than going up for tenure early at a less demanding place and thus having a record that makes you less portable later.
2. You want all your pre-tenure time to avoid service commitments commensurate with Associate rank.
3. You want all your pre-tenure time as a hedge against time pressure even if you think you're highly likely to be tenurable at your current place and have no intention of trying to move.
-
Not sure why this is being nayed, because it is all spot on.
We offer new hires with experience as instructor of record plus publications the option of negotiating some time toward tenure.
When I accepted my offer there was some suggestion that I might be eligible for up to 2 years.
I opted to say nothing about this and simply go for higher base salary.
I think this is where the incentives line up for virtually everyone (whether or not more salary is possible), for several reasons:
1. You want all your pre-tenure time to build a portable record rather than going up for tenure early at a less demanding place and thus having a record that makes you less portable later.
2. You want all your pre-tenure time to avoid service commitments commensurate with Associate rank.
3. You want all your pre-tenure time as a hedge against time pressure even if you think you're highly likely to be tenurable at your current place and have no intention of trying to move. -
Unless you're desperate for a slightly faster, typically quite small, salary bump, I can't think of a reason to take it.
Because you're contingent until the day you're tenured. If there are budget cuts, you can be laid off. At a place with a low bar, the only reason not to take the time toward tenure is to try and build a record to move.
Reasons to pursue tenure ASAP include security, money, and sleep.
-
Alright, so there's some risk on both sides. Which happens more frequently? Tenure-stream faculty member is fired/let go before tenure, or person going up for tenure is denied tenure?
Unless you're desperate for a slightly faster, typically quite small, salary bump, I can't think of a reason to take it.
Because you're contingent until the day you're tenured. If there are budget cuts, you can be laid off. At a place with a low bar, the only reason not to take the time toward tenure is to try and build a record to move.
Reasons to pursue tenure ASAP include security, money, and sleep. -
I agree with the general advice here--it depends on how far along you are and what the tenure standards are. More time means being a better position to get published what you need to get published. Only if you are at a place with a low bar, as Abraham suggests, should you opt for less time.
Another factor to consider is that some places are ok with people going up early. Others expect more from early folks and others still are very opposed to people going up early. That also shapes the calculus.
-
Clearly a lot of people don't have experience with these things, or at least not much across multiple schools. Typically, when advising my students or junior colleagues, I typically highlight that there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides, and that they can vary from school to school and person to person, and that you need to investigate more.
(1) The financial incentives vary greatly--at some schools there is a big bump associated with tenure and promotion, others not much or in fact none.
(2) Some departments actively 'protect' junior faculty from administrative burdens, and even when they don't, tenured faculty get more pressure to do college/university-wide service. How costly this is varies, and different people treat this differently. Indeed there are some people who actually sort of like service (they're making the college/university better!)
(3) There is also the crucial question of movability. For most people (not research superstars of course) it's easier to move while junior, or later when you are full and have administrative experience you can sell as an advantage. If you get tenured early, you're not seen as credible for taking on a junior position elsewhere. So getting credit for a few years lessens your movable window. Whether this is relevant for you depends in part on your desire to look at outside options, but even if you think the LAC is exactly where you want to be forever, don't completely discount this point, because you might end up unhappy a few years down the line, even if it seems good now.
(4) On the other hand, some people find the uncertainty about tenure and the tenure process really stressful, so they really want to get it over with ASAP. This is not a trivial concern for some people, but depends a lot on your personality.
-
Interesting analysis, especially from Steve and from Laurene.
To be fair, I hadn't genuinely considered the risk of being terminated prior to tenure. I feel fairly secure in that not happening given where I've landed, but agree that in some cases it could be an issue.
Thanks for the good quality discussion, folks.
-
I had a similar offer a few year back and declined to take the time. Now I really wish I had. I'm basically over our tenure bar already and would like the salary bump (it's pretty significant at my institution), but I'm still 3 years away from tenure, and apparently comming up early is not option. Taking the time is the more aggressive approach. I wouldn't take it if you think you need the time to get your pubs in order, but if your research is in good shape, I would strongly consider it.
-
The sweet spot, not open to everybody, is to have a lengthy time to tenure but the option to go up when you want.
In addition to the many good points already raised, I think the uncertainty factor is important, not just in terms of the amount of pre-tenure time in limbo but also in terms of the expectations of the hiring department. For example, say you've been an AP somewhere else for four years and have a very good record already that is tenurable or nearly tenurable at the hiring department for somebody on a standard 6 year clock. If you negotiate to go up in 2-3 years, then (a) the department as currently led and constituted is very likely to want to tenure you at that point, as otherwise hiring you would have been a big waste of time, and (b) the department will often be able to give you fairly clear guidelines about what you need to do in the next year or two to make it an easy case (something like publish another paper and don't be an asshole). If you negotiate to go up in six years, however, then things may change. The department might be led by different people by then who have less investment in adding you as a colleague for the long term, the upper administration might have new faces. Plus, the standards for what constitutes a tenurable record for somebody 10+ years from their PhD may be idiosyncratic and higher than if for somebody who came up 6-7 years after their PhD, so there is additional risk if you don't keep producing.
-
"Some departments actively 'protect' junior faculty from administrative burdens, and even when they don't, tenured faculty get more pressure to do college/university-wide service."
I know some small LACS where the practice is to make a newly tenure person the department chair and keep them in that role until another person is tenured. Considering how small the benefits are at these colleges, I'm not sure I'd be in a rush.
-
Good points overall. Not directly related to OP's case, I was hired with a tenurable record and was told that I could go up any time, but then it turned out there was a university-wide rule that you need to have accumulated three years of teaching evaluations, so effectively I was on a tenure clock for eight years but could have had tenure after six. If you're negotiating to go up early but have flexibility, keep that in mind.
-
My third year review (produced by a committee of tenured colleagues) indicated that there was support for my coming up for tenure one year early. However, my chair then stated that coming up early is understood at our institution as a reward for an extraordinary file -- i.e., you cannot come up early if you've "merely" reached the tenure bar ahead of schedule; you come up early if you've significantly exceeded the tenure bar.
I think this is really messed up, in particular because I've already got more on my CV than a colleague who just got tenure. But the message is really that YMMV and it's important to find out what an early tenure file would need to look like before you make a decision.
-
this may have been said already Marsha, but LAC's like to do this to lock good people down early. Moving good assistant profs to associate level moves them out of the Assistant prof market, giving the LAC greater personnel stability. Not sure which LAC, but generally the pay raise associated with tenure is pretty inconsequential given the costs of losing a year or two as a marketable assistant professor, and the potential gains to your salary from leveraging a position (or going to a higher paid job). So, in your negotiations, politely decline and ask they give you some research funds or course releases instead.