Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!wivax!fairley From: fairley@wivax.UUCP (Dr. Richard Fairley) Newsgroups: net.misc,net.college Subject: Re: Proposal to replace academic tenure Message-ID: <19950@wivax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 17:49:55 EDT Article-I.D.: wivax.19950 Posted: Tue Sep 18 17:49:55 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:41:52 EDT References: <166@inteloc.UUCP> Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma. 01879 Lines: 105 > > During my time in college life (student 7 1/2 years, teacher 6 years), I saw > many, many problems with the tenure system. Giving someone almost total job > security as a reward for 6 years of excellence does not work well enough to > provide students with an environment of academic excellence. I have seen far > too many of my colleagues reach the rank of full professor, and then burn out > as teachers, but continue leading classes. I have also watched four different > departments try to fix this problem; none succeeded, as the posession of tenure > protected the offending party all too well. > > I have talked over several possible solutions with both tenured and untenured > faculty, department chairs, and administrators at about a dozen universities and > colleges. Except for a few die-hard pro-tenure people (all tenured), they have > all agreed that the following idea should be workable. > > At the point in a professor's (generic term, not rank) career when the tenure > decision is traditionally made, the prof is instead granted a long-term > contract (say, for ten years, pun intended). Half-way through this contract > (five years), the prof comes up for review again. If the review is favorable, > the old (half-completed) contract is replaced by a new one of the same length. > If the review is unfavorable, the prof comes up for review again in two years. > If this review is favorable, the old contract is replaced with a new one as > above. If this second review is also unfavorable, the prof has the remainder > of the old contract (three years) to find a new job. > > For example, Professor X serves State University faithfully from fall 1984 > through spring 1990. At this point, "X" is eligible for "tenure", and is given > a contract through spring of 2000. In 1995, "X" is reviewed again, found to be > a jolly good person; the old contract is replaced by a new one which runs until > spring 2005. In 2000, "X" comes up for review again, and is found to be a fool. > "X" works diligently on teaching style, and passes the 2002 review with flying > collars (no rings); now "X" is given a contract that runs through spring 2012. > "X"s next review is in 2007. This time, "X" doesn't care anymore, failing this > review and the subsequent one in 2009. "X" now has until spring 2012 to find a > new job. > > Yes, this method allows a doubly-proved ninny to hang around for an extra > three years (or whatever, depending on contract length). However, I believe that > this is far better than allowing a perennially adjudged ninny hang around until > retirement age. It gives the individual a large amount of job security, time to > prove new teaching methods, and an equally fair review process, while allowing > the college to move out "dead wood" in relatively short order. > > My thanks to the people, both students and faculty, who helped me hammer out > the details of this idea. > > Any response from the net? Feasibility at your university, additions, etc > are appreciated. > > -- > T.F.Prune (Bill Wickart) {allegra | ihnp4 | tektronix} !ogcvax!inteloa > > -- "Operator, trace this call and tell me where I am" Wang Institute of Graduate Studies is a non-profit, independent educational institution with degree granting authority. The majority of our financial support comes from the Wang family of Wang Laboratories, but we are not affiliated with Wang Labs. Our initial offering is a Masters degree program in Software Engineering. Other graduate-level programs will be offered in the future. We maintain an academic environment in every regard except for tenure; faculty members are on a contract system that is binding on Wang Institute but non-binding on the faculty member. The following proposal for contract renewal is under consideration by our faculty: New faculty members are given three year contracts. At the end of the second year a renewal decision is made. If the decision is favorable the current contract is replaced with a five year follow-on contract; if the decision is unfavorable, the faculty member has one year to find another job. At the end of the third year in the five year follow-on contract the faculty member is again reviewed. If the review is favorable the current contract is extended to five years from the date of review. If the review is unfavorable the faculty member has one year to correct specific problems and is again reviewed at the end of the year. If the second review is favorable the contract is extended to five years. The five year pattern is then replicated. If the second review is unfavorable the reviewee has one year to find another job. Our proposed policy is similar to the one stated in the referenced article, operating on a five year time frame instead of ten years. The advantage of a five year contract is that unsatisfactory faculty members can be phased out in a shorter time period. The disadvantage is that every faculty member must undergo a "tenure-style" review every three years. Longer contracts (for example, ten years) would decrease the frequency of reviews but would allow a lame duck faculty member up to ten years of guaranteed income. The trade-off is thus between the frequency of comprehensive reviews and the length of the phase-out period for unsatisfactory faculty members. I recently read (can't remember where) that experience with contract systems in academe indicates that the tendency is to award longer and longer contracts to satisfactory faculty members with passing time. This may be in order to reduce the frequency of reviews. On the other hand, if contract length is variable, who makes the recommendation for contract duration? The faculty chair? A faculty committee? The Dean or Academic Vice-President? In each case, there are opportunities for political games and abuses. We would like to hear creative suggestions for academic contracts. Dick Fairley, Faculty Chair School of Information Technology Wang Institute of Graduate Studies Tyngsboro, Massachusetts