TubeNet

Tubenet Gurus,

I'm curious about the Tenure Process for both Orchestral players and University Professors. I'm hoping that you may be able to shed some light on the subject of how one goes about getting tenure in either setting. Once obtained, can Tenure be revoked? What kinds of things would a person want to be focusing on to give themselves a better chance of obtaining the coveted luxury?

Thanks for any input.

--Chris

I'm not sure what it's about in this day and time (but I think it's about not having tenure-track positions available, to save money) but back when I knew someone who went through that, it was about being a slave for seven years. Doing anything and everything asked of him, to ridiculous extent. I mean he felt that what was asked of him was beyond ridiculous, and done so only because they knew he wanted to get tenure.

Then the very day after he got tenure, he was requested to do one of those things he thought ridiculous and he said not only no but Hell No. And there was nothing they could do about it because he had tenure. I don't think he did anything at all beyond the bare minimum for the rest of his career.

MA

Would someone educate me as to what tenure means? Thanks...

It is a form of job security that lets faculty take controversial positions without (usually) any fear of being fired.

Please read the wiki article and then post more specific questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure

People with tenure in music departments might be able to tell us how, and if, music departments handle tenure differently.

tubashaman wrote:This also helps protect against freedom of teaching

Ah yes, don't want anyone teaching too freely. Damn them and such.

...

Tenure is essentially a guaranteed position. It has different implementations, and different meanings, depending on the type, and level of institution (for example, there is a kind of tenure for public school teachers which is very different from tenure at colleges and universities). I can only really speak about tenure in universities.

The short version is that universities consider it CRUCIAL to allow professors to profess. That means taking public positions based on independent research and thought. If you are a professor, that's your main job. It's impossible to do that job if you can be dismissed simply because you start disagreeing with the administration.

Note that it's not IMPOSSIBLE to fire a tenured professor - it's just very difficult and involves very visible due process. It usually requires an offense at least as serious as a felony. Inappropriate exploitation of the power relationship between teacher and student is an excellent way to make tenure go away (was that euphemistic enough?) Financial misbehavior is another popular way to end a career.

Of course, you don't just give tenure to any Tom, Dick, or Mary who walks in the door. It's necessary to observe and evaluate their performance on the job. Typically, a new professor is hired at the Assistant Professor level (the lowest rung on the tenure-track ladder) for 3 years. At the end of 2 years, they are either given another 3-year appointment, or not. If not, you don't really need much more of a reason than "it didn't work out". At the end of 6 years, the tenure decision MUST BE made - you either award tenure, or give the Assistant Professor a terminal one-year appointment. Often this is done at the end of 5 years - but sometimes the final decision is not made until the end of the 6th year. Again, if tenure is denied at this point you don't really need much of a reason.

Granting tenure is usually linked with promotion to Associate Professor (the second rung). Promotion to Full Professor is the last rung - it has nothing to do with tenure.

So...from one point of view, Assistant Professors are "slaves" for 6 years (while they can still be denied tenure). Some people look at it that way, and behave one way for 6 years...and then retire. These folk represent a failure of the system. In my department, actual workload goes UP when you achieve tenure (but most of this work is grinding administration work). The main goal of an Assistant Professor is to become well known and respected in the academic community (the size of this community may vary with the level of ambition of the college/university - some folk want to be well known in their state, others want a national reputation, and still others aim for world-wide recognition). That's a tough assignment to carry out in 5-6 years - which is why the workload for an Assistant Professor is very tough. It's also why we try to shield the youngsters from the kind of work that needs to be done...but won't make you well known in Berlin.

Anticipating the usual question: the reason for the tight (and rigid) timetable is that it would be too tempting to hold out the carrot of tenure for 10, 15, 20 years...and then deny tenure. The University would get lots of work out of the tenure-seeking slaves, and the slaves would have jobs for longer than 5 years. But...recall that the point is to identify AND THEN TURN LOOSE independent free-thinking professors. Recall the assumption that you simply can't do the full, real job without the guarantee of tenure. It's probably the case that the tenure system is used in some situations (musical or academic) where these assumptions aren't true. Your milage may vary.

Tenure is necessary in positions where high quality work requires independence OR a very long commitment to risky projects (or both). If the actual work being done by tenured faculty doesn't meet those criteria...then perhaps tenure is not justified. Where it *is* justified, you need an intense probationary period (6 years!) before granting the freedom and security that tenure provides. First, you find out as much as you can about how someone is likely to perform once they have tenure...and then you roll the dice. Sometimes you get it wrong, and that can be costly. But - the received wisdom is that it's even MORE costly to not have tenure at all.

Not going to attempt to add too many things to the great explanation by Prof. Sloan.
Before talking about Schools of Music, etc., I would add one more insight into the "you can get fired after being tenured" thread---at our school, if you're not doing your assigned job well, they'll come after you, too. 2 negative annual reviews and you undergo "mentoring" (which I find a silly step), after which, if things don't improve, you're out. (note: I appreciate keeping folks focused, but sometimes disagree with how folks are treated in the process, at least here)

Now, specifically in the School of Music where I teach, I was expected to do my teaching job (I was hired to teach Mus Ed courses and Tuba/Euphonium lessons), perform (part of the job description was to play in the fac. brass quintet), and do service. I was to do those as well as I could, and perform as a soloist, and do stuff to help out around the school and univ. (this means committee work, mostly) I wasn't treated anything like a slave--just do the job and recruit students. I did that, and at the end of 6th year, was granted tenure. Another expectation is to "play nice with your workmates", although that one is always up for interpretation, it seems. My workload then increased, as did my service activities, and numbers of performances (one would expect this, or at least hope for it, based upon trying to build a 'name') My experience is typical of our school, I think. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but that's how we do it here. Two years ago I was promoted to "fool" professor--and really hadn't done anything different from what I did to get tenure--just kept doing it as I had been. There was a bit more of every facet of the job, and now I'm busier than ever, even after that final promotion. (and no, there was no real bump in salary, at least here, at any promotion level) In music, at our school, there is no requirement for "publish or perish" for the performance faculty. The Mus Ed and CHT areas do have to do writing, but it's not unreasonable, I don't think.

I don't know how it is elsewhere but that's a description of what I did. All that said, I still am not sure I really believe in the tenure system--for all the reasons that others have stated. It has it's issues on many levels, but doing the "hoop jumping" for promotion was what I was expected to do, so I did it. I enjoy my job immensely, and appreciate the safety of my current position, but still know that it can end at any time, and intend to continue doing what I do--it's worked to keep my job thus far, so I might as well.

In my orchestra, which is a regional (2nd tier) group, tenure is granted for a new player after about 6 months on the job. Probation may be extended for a second season. He or she must be approved for tenure by the music director(MD) with input from a panel of other tenured players. To fire a tenured player for musical reasons the MD must follow a procedure of giving warnings to the player in a timely manner and ultimately take the matter before the tenure panel. The panel may over-ride the MD with a majority vote.
Our last MD had huge problems following this procedure, so during his reign no one lost their jobs. We're in a search for a new MD. Things may change. Some people may have their jobs on the line who knew they could game the system with the previous guy.
Now if we just had a procedure for musicians firing MDs!

tubashaman wrote:I know at my school, the entering level of general professors is "instructor of music" or "instructor of english", im sure it varies from place to place.

Actually, I think at many Universities this is just the nomenclature for....


I am educated, but am not currently in a full time position. (adjunct)

or

I am not fully educated to the extent that I could become a part of the full fledged faculty. (masters graduates, in many situations)

Actually, I think at many Universities this is just the nomenclature for....
I am educated, but am not currently in a full time position. (adjunct)
or
I am not fully educated to the extent that I could become a part of the full fledged faculty. (masters graduates, in many situations)

That is really quite inaccurate and devalues the level that most University Instructors provide. More than anything rank at a University is directly tied to salary. Most Universities prefer a terminal degree (most times a PHD or DMA) to be an Instructor. If you are highly educated but not experienced Instructor is usually the entry level appointment.

d

I will add that for most players, orchestral tenure does not mean you get paid if you don't work. With the exception of a handful of jobs which are salaried, by far the major majority of symphony jobs are per service, which means if you don't play you don't get paid.

For symphony players, tenure does not mean you can't be dismissed or demoted. It just means that it is harder to do so, that you can't be fired on a whim. And with so many egos in the music business, whims are flying all over the place. What tenure DOES mean is that in the case of a dismissal or demotion, the musician has the right for that action to be reviewed, or may request an audition. In either case, the review committee is set in advance in the contract. Unlike a vacant position audition where the Music Director has ALL the say, the Music Director has only one vote on this committee. If the musician chooses an audition, material is selected, for example, from the music that the musician is required to perform that season. Non-playing review consists of a hearing including anyone deemed to have information as specified by the Music Director OR musician.

danB wrote: ...devalues the level that most University Instructors provide.

I fail to see how that would devalue any level of instruction at any University. In personal experience, which is really all I have to work with, this title denotes the lack of a full-time position in the faculty or the lack of a DMA/PhD.

Some of the greatest teachers I have had the courtesy to be around were only "instructors". It is in no way a reflection of whether or not I viewed their contribution to the University as valuable or not.

Being offended that this title, as it implies, is the low man out is being offended at the system not me.

How many full time "music instructors", with a PHD/DMA can you present to me? I would venture to say that this is a rarity, and helps convey the point (albeit not verifying it entirely). The instructor status is given frequently to professional musicians without the PHD/DMA, but more often than not they are not full time (as they have playing responsibilities, etc.)


Wes "definitely not trying to step on toes or offend great instructors" pendergrass

If you check the job listings, a doctoral degree is mandatory at most universities for a music faculty position these days. Most will allow ABD ("all but dissertation"). I had a professor when I was in college who still hasn't finished his dissertation and never will, since he'll probably retire by the end of the decade. Fortunately, the university has that ABD policy. Some expect the dissertation to be done. I've tried for certain academic jobs in the States but they want doctoral work. Here in Asia, the undergrad programs are quick and short. The graduate programs are, more or less, the upper level classes of an undergraduate program in Western universities. If you say doctoral programs,they don't understand. Some people do go overseas to earn a Ph.D., but they don't get that the person who earns that is a "doctor."

A "doctor" here is either a physician or a dentist, whose post secondary academic program is spent (from ages 18-24) in a six year "medical university." It combines a pre-med program with some of the lab work involved in medical school. There is no residency or internship involved. It might be hard to believe, but the combination of my Bachelor of Music degree and my Master of Music degree involved more time than what physicians get here when they get a Doctor of Medicine or dentists get when they get a Doctor of Dental Medicine (and they use the English initials M.D. and D.M.D.) If you don't go to a foreign clinic, that 25 year old kid doing your medical exam IS THE DOCTOR.

There is a lot of confused information in this thread. I will address university terminology, someone who is more familiar with the orchestral terminology should join in.

Tenure is status granted a teacher at a university which allows certain privilidges. Tenure grants the instructor (for all practical purposes) immunity from action taken by the administration. Tenured teachers are supposed to have earned the academic freedom to pursue academic goals and, for the most part, they do.

Administraions do not want to grant tenure to a high percentage of the faculty because it makes removing the instructor, for any reason, very difficult. From an administrative point of view, it limits the flexibility of the administration to respond to the changing needs of the university. From the faculty point of view, a non-tenured position is tenuous and may be terminated and therefore BAD.

Openings in faculty are advertised as tenure track or non-tenured track. If you apply for and are offered a tenured track position, you will have a time frame for the determination of tenured status. This time frame is usually 5 to 7 years. If you are denied tenured status you loose your job, so it is a big deal.

Tenure has litle or nothing to do with faculty rank which is extremely important to the faculty members. As a guide only, rank may be generalized in this order:

lecturer
instructor
assistant professor
associate professor
professor

The are various subtlties which may be attached to any of those, but those are the basic faculty titles. For instance, in one of my jobs I was associate director of bands but only an assistant professor of music.

Many universities are hiring tuba instructors as adjunct instructors which means they are part time teachers. Adjunct almost always means "part-time." That takes the position completely out of the tenure track mode. It is also cheaper for the university, short term.

I was at a seminar recently when the speaker was introduced as the adjunct professor at Harvard university as though it was a very special designation. I approached him at a break and told him I was very uncomfortable with the phrase "adjunct professor." He said that the appropriate title was adjunct instructor and was himself distrubed at the faulty use of rank in the introduction.

So, for instance, if you are an adjunct instructor of saxophone, it is misleading (at the least) to say that you are the saxophone professor at your university. I see it all the time and tells me that the person is either ignorant of his true position at the school or trying to deceive others.

If you mis-state your rank in a resume, it can hurt you later. As I said, rank is very important.

Rank and tenure are not related. e.g.:

You could be a full professor and not have tenure, it is not uncommon.
It is possible that you might be an associate professor and have tenure. That is also not uncommon.

There are subtlties to all of this but if you read the literature of the American Association of University Professors, this is what you will learn.

tubashaman wrote: For example, you might teach adjunct at a university as a low brass (tuba euph tbone) professor. Suddenly, there is a surge of low brass members over a couple years, the university's department gets bigger, this means higher work loads. So, they hire a fulltimer who can teach and hold a studio position---well they have an adjunct low brass teacher with a growing studio, who minored in music theory and music history in their latter 2 degrees. Instead of holding interviews, lets promote this guy to Instructor (or lecturer) of music.

I'd say it's rare for any college/university to just promote an adjunct to a full-time appointment (especially tenure-track) without holding a search. In fact, in many cases, the governing body of the college (board of regents, etc) requires that a national advertised search be held for every full-time position, irrespective of the status of the guy/gal currently filling the role.

I came to Wayne State because my predecessor resigned in JULY (or so I was told) and the position needed to be filled by mid August. Obviously, a full search was impossible, so I was hired as an interim for a one-year position. I still had to go through the interview process, but because there was no full search done, I couldn't be granted a tenure-track position.

Near the conclusion of that year (2007-08 academic) a full search was done and I had to interview again, which I did. They did the whole process, including a preliminary phone interview which I did from my office here on campus, while the interviewers were sitting in the next room. When they narrowed the list down to the finalists, I also did a "campus visit," wherein I basically had to pretend I was here from out of town.

Did the whole process make a lot of sense? no comment from me, but the Nebraska State College System Board of Regents have set a strict process for the hiring of new educators that has to be followed to the letter, no matter what the circumstances.

BTW, I never "diss" adjuncts. My first college lecturer o' tuba was an adjunct, and I did it for a while at a small private college while I was getting my master's at a big University.

I should also mention that I'm ABD and tenure-track, provisional on my finishing my Diss(ertation).

Josh "Instructor of Low Brass/Associate Director of Bands" Calkin

djwesp wrote:

tubashaman wrote:I know at my school, the entering level of general professors is "instructor of music" or "instructor of english", im sure it varies from place to place.

Actually, I think at many Universities this is just the nomenclature for....


I am educated, but am not currently in a full time position. (adjunct)

or

I am not fully educated to the extent that I could become a part of the full fledged faculty. (masters graduates, in many situations)

I'm not sure that "fully educated" has as much to do with it as:

"I was hired to do a specific (teaching) job, and all I'm really expected to do is meet my classes."

A full-time Instructor usually has a relatively heavy teaching load, but is not expected to become famous, or to influence the field, or generate new knowledge, or "perform" - all they need to do is teach. For those reasons, "Instructor" is not considered a "tenure-track" position. One could easily remain an Instructor for 30 years, and then not be re-hired the next year. At some institutions there are rules in place that prohibit this - but this is controversial.

Now...an Instructor position can often be filled by someone who lacks a terminal degree ("not fully educated") - but it's also an appropriate position for someone who considers "Ph.D." to be the peak of their career. For an Instructor, getting the Ph.D. may well be the top of the ladder; for a (tenure-track) Assistant Professor, it's the bottom rung of a whole new ladder.

For tenure-track faculty, the tripod is "Teaching, Research, Service". Instructors are usually responsible for only the "Teaching" part.

Alex C wrote:

I was at a seminar recently when the speaker was introduced as the adjunct professor at Harvard university as though it was a very special designation. I approached him at a break and told him I was very uncomfortable with the phrase "adjunct professor." He said that the appropriate title was adjunct instructor and was himself distrubed at the faulty use of rank in the introduction.

This was undoubtedly the incorrect title for this particular person, but "Adjunct Professor" is a perfectly legitimate title. "Adjunct" simply means that this is not the main gig. It often means that the person involved has a real job somewhere else (say, in the local Symphony), but has a part-time association with the university. "Adjunct Professor" is more than possible, although (read my other postings) someone who *only* teaches should generally not have that title; "Professor" implies duties and responsibilities that go beyond teaching. "Adjunct" is also often used for courtesy appointments in other departments in the same university. For example, a physicist interested in the physics of musical instruments might well be offered an adjunct position in the music department - indicating that he interacts with the Music faculty in some way (note that, in this case, this interaction might not involve *teaching* - but something else).

You could be a full professor and not have tenure, it is not uncommon.

I disagree. In my opinion and experience this is nearly a contradiction in terms. You might, however, be an untenured RESEARCH Professor, or Adjunct Professor. But untenured Professor creates cognitive dissonance for me.

It is possible that you might be an associate professor and have tenure. That is also not uncommon.

Reluctantly, I agree with this. But...it is usually recognized as a short term abberation. When I was hired into my current job, I was offered "Associate Professor without tenure". This meant "you have the status of an Associate Professor, but the clock is ticking - we want to see you demonstrate how well you will perform in OUR environment, and we want to see it fast".

There are subtlties to all of this but if you read the literature of the American Association of University Professors, this is what you will learn.

Most Professors will agree that it is always useful to depend on multiple sources. A single source might not be completely accurate...

sloan wrote: This was undoubtedly the incorrect title for this particular person, but "Adjunct Professor" is a perfectly legitimate title. "Adjunct" simply means that this is not the main gig.

Adjunct means part-time virtually every time. I'm sure you can find some exception to this rule but that will not help the BBS member who asked, understand the meaning of tenure.

In this case, the speaker himself agreed with me which is one reason I cited the example; "adjunct professor" was wrong, "adjunct instructor" was correct. Use of the word "professor" indicated status, position and duties that this, apparently, ethical individual did not have.

sloan wrote:

Alex C wrote: You could be a full professor and not have tenure, it is not uncommon.

I disagree. In my opinion and experience this is nearly a contradiction in terms. You might, however, be an untenured RESEARCH Professor, or Adjunct Professor. But untenured Professor creates cognitive dissonance for me.

You are entitled to disagree but you cite exceptions to the rule. Instead of lending clarity, you have obsfucated and therefore.... I find it disagreeable.

sloan wrote:

Alex C wrote: It is possible that you might be an associate professor and have tenure. That is also not uncommon.

Reluctantly, I agree with this. But...it is usually recognized as a short term abberation. When I was hired into my current job, I was offered "Associate Professor without tenure". This meant "you have the status of an Associate Professor, but the clock is ticking - we want to see you demonstrate how well you will perform in OUR environment, and we want to see it fast".

If you agree (albeit "reluctantly") then why muddy up the waters when all the original poster wanted was a simple explanation of tenure?

sloan wrote:

Alex C wrote: There are subtlties to all of this but if you read the literature of the American Association of University Professors, this is what you will learn.

Most Professors will agree that it is always useful to depend on multiple sources. A single source might not be completely accurate...

Then why not cite some other source that would be of help rather than disagree for the sake of disagreement. That's why I said there were subtlties. Again, all the original poster wanted an understanding of tenure.

For all of us: it is easy to parse words and find disagreement. (I do so only in defense and will not engage in it further because it is simply too petty.) Use posts that advance the understanding rather than dig in a spot and reluctantly agree.

I do retract one statement. If you are someone who is familiar with orchestra tenure, DO NOT POST. Send a PM to the original poster so that he can better understand. This day is too long.

Let me preface this by saying I am not nor have I ever been employed by a college or university. I have, however, worked closely with such organizations in the realm of adult education. The single most important thing I have learned when hearing discrepancies in faculty members' descriptions of such things as tenure, state funding, policy, etc. is that rules and regulations vary greatly from one state to another. That being said, each of your descriptions of tenure is probably very correct within the state that you have accrued experience. To the OP, your best bet is to get in touch with a faculty member who works in the state you are curious about. If your inquiry is not state-specific, form a general consensus from the various descriptions posted here.