The Tenure Process

[Alex C]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[steve_decker]

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.

[Sam Gnagey]

I, once again, realize why I'm happy I didn't pursue a career in academia....none of that crap goes with playing in an orchestra. And degree or no, they'll hire you if you can play your ax.

[windshieldbug]

none of that crap goes with playing in an orchestra. And degree or no, they'll hire you if you can play your ax.

And tenure or no, they'll fire you if you can't.

[tubashaman2]

.

[The Big Ben]

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).

A long time family friend has been an adjunct professor at the University of Washington for over 30 years. His B.S, is in civil engineering and he is a partner in a very large general contractor in the Seattle area. He teaches construction management. He does not possess the 'schoolbook' part of construction management but has the practical knowledge of what's happening in the field.

He seems to have learned a lot about how to win contracts with his University because they have kept his firm very busy over the last 30 years. Little benefit, I guess....

[TUBAD83]

Grade inflation got out of control when universities stopped treating students as students and began treating them as "customers/consumers". Customers expect to get good service, (i.e., good grades--whether they actually EARNED them or not) and schools have been more than accommodating. Student evaluations of tenure track faculty now carry more weight, which means a huge decline in the number of students failing courses (when I was in college, it was not unheard of for a prof to fail half of his/her class and the department would support the prof--today that NEVER happens). Schools are under pressure to improve their graduation rates so they offer all these remedial courses (in Texas, every public college/university offers remedial courses--which begs the question why bother taking them in HS at all??) So just about every course is "adjusted" so the largest number of students will be able to pass, of course---get 'em in/get 'em out. "Hard" teachers are pressured to "soften" their courses--meanwhile academic standards spiral downward--with no end in sight.

JJ

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I think as the University grows, which it has, the need to change the honors system with the "dummying down" of classes, which will start for the people who entered in fall 2006.

If I understand your meaning correctly, you are saying something changed for those who entered your university in the fall of 2006. Can you elaborate on what that was?

The meaning you are trying to convey in the above-quoted sentence would be clearer if you would use a verb. Perhaps like this?

I think as the University grows, which it has, there will be a need to change the honors system with the "dummying down" of classes, which will start for the people who entered in fall 2006.

I assume that's what you meant, but without the verb it's difficult to tell. You may have meant this:

I think as the University grows, which it has, there's a general belief that there is a need to change the honors system with the "dummying down" of classes, which will start for the people who entered in fall 2006.

Or even this:

I think as the University grows, which it has, the need to change the honors system with the "dummying down" of classes is absolutely the wrong thing to do, which will start for the people who entered in fall 2006.

There's a little bit of a change-of-tense problem in the sentence, but it doesn't cloud the meaning as much as the lack of a verb. If there's something specific that you are referencing that "changed things" for the fall 2006 entrants (which is, again, what I assumed you meant), I would be interested in hearing about that. Thanks.

[tubashaman2]

.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Sorry that was a rushed post. I am sure too many people were graduating with honors, and they needed to raise the standards, which they did the year after I entered. I agree the standards for college, and honors graduation should be harder.

I think I understand. Are you saying that since the classes are getting easier, the administration has felt the need to raise the GPA standards for graduation with honors to compensate?

If that is what you were saying, I can see why the school would feel the urge to do so. Seems to me, though, it's so darn easy to earn a 4.0 at the undergraduate level these days that the honors distinction means very little. That's a shame for you, James, and students like you...your hard work doesn't stand out like it deserves to in such an environment.

[Matt G]

I just spoke with an acquaintance today who has her B.S. from Brown. She commented on how her classes at the state school were significantly harder than the undergrad classes had prepared her for. I noted, however, that PhD level coursework in specific departments (Applied Mathematics) is far harder than what many Master's programs will prepare you for.

Most schools have become a process (as noted above) with products being delivered to an end consumer. Most four year schools have become greatly compromised, offering watered down coursework for certain degree disciplines, and creating more loopholes for student graduation.

The one bright spot it, IMO, the community college system. Many of these schools have very good faculty (also not encumbered by "research") who are willing to make students work. I took a Java programming course that was probably harder in regards to meeting criteria and objective standards than most of my MBA courses. Many students take the Calculus series at the local CC because they can get the same professor the entire series, and are better prepared for additional math-based coursework afterward. It seems as though many of the "good" college students are aware of this (probably through their parents) and get through the two years at a good CC, and enter a 4 year program.

Overall the grade dilution hurts everyone. Employers no longer have a reasonable scale to use objectively, students really don't know where they stand, and schools are proven to not understand basic English and Statistics. I mean if a "C" is "Average" then why aren't 50% of the students above and 50% below? While my time as a teacher, I got much closer to a "bell" curve (Gaussian distribution) than my peers. Getting a "B" in my class was a big deal. An "A" meant something. Unfortunately, I did hear occasional "whispers" about "helping" some students out.

[Rick Denney]

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.

Gee, whiz, Alex, Dr. Sloan's post didn't seem threatening enough to evoke this response. I read "reluctantly agree" as no slam on you but rather as a slam on the the system which forces agreement; in other words, "I wish I didn't have to agree."

In fact, his description fits with my own understanding, which is based on a fairly broad perspective of the academic world which which I interact routinely. I've also never heard of a regular "professor" who did not have tenure.

I have many colleagues who have served a adjunct professors. They are granted the "professor" title because of their rank in the industry, and universities can grant such titles without really having to justify it. It is unrelated to tenure. Every adjunct professor I know is elsewhere employed, and it's not their main gig. I was once considered for such a position but decided against it because of the time commitment involved. Both you and Dr. Sloan have said the same thing there.

Colleges must conform to academic requirements before granting tenure as a part of keeping their accreditation, which is done by an outside group. Universities have may have limited openings (based on budgetary concerns) for tenure-track professors, but it's not because they are afraid of being saddled with them. As I recall, accreditation organizations insist on a certain percentage of tenured professors that have met their rigorous academic qualifications. For a college to offer an accredited engineering program, for example, they must have professors sufficient to cover the list of subjects required by ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), and a certain percentage of those must have full academic qualifications. If the state legislature is unwilling to fund the slots, then they are free to close down the engineering program at that university, but they have no influence of ABET's standards.

Instructors and lecturers are non-tenured, usually full-time positions offered to those who have outstanding teaching credentials but who do not have the academic background necessary to achieve tenure. ABET limits the percentage of faculty in these positions. In engineering, these positions are usually reserved for pure researchers who also teach. For example, Texas A&M and its research arm Texas Transportation Institute have positions called "Research Engineer" which is at the same salary as "Professor". But a research engineer may also have an academic appointment to teach, and will be called a "Lecturer". Their title will be "Research Engineer and Lecturer in Engineering". They often have the same academic credentials as the professor, but haven't gone through the process. ABET considers that, too, from what I've heard.

Professors are expected to do research, teach, and perform service. For peformance musicians, I suspect "research" = "recitals", but I am just guessing. Service includes working with student groups and professional societies in the relevant field, as a means of being a positive force for good. Tenure applications that I've seen included demonstrations in all three of these areas.

Tenure in academia is becoming more tenuous in a lot of places. In Texas state-funded universities, for example, tenured professors now undergo a review of their performance every five years that they must pass to keep their tenure.

Rick "not seeing anything here worthy of fraying tempers" Denney

[dwaskew]

Tenure in academia is becoming more tenuous in a lot of places. In Texas state-funded universities, for example, tenured professors now undergo a review of their performance every five years that they must pass to keep their tenure.

Same in NC. Yearly reviews of everything we do, tenured or not, and then a 5 year intensive post-tenure review done by department chairs council.

dwa