Getting tenure standards in writing?

In the comments section responding to Ash's recent query on grappling with tenure denial, Ash writes:

Thanks so much everyone again. I hadn't expected so many people to recommend appealing. I have looked into it and I suppose I will appeal, if only to voice my disappointment with the inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the process...

One final question: did other people *get* their tenure standards in writing? They were shared with me a couple of times during the fly-out--once by another assistant professor at the time, who left for another position before I started--and at a few meetings, two with the Chair, since then. But I never thought to get them in writing. I've asked the three other people who have been assistant professors since I joined here, and they all said they were given the same formula--X number of articles, Y number of articles in top journals--but none of us were given it in writing. And we never thought to get it because... There didn't seem to be any disagreement about what the standards were. And we wouldn't have anticipated this kind of situation.

Amanda added, "I would love to hear people's thoughts about getting tenure in standards in writing. Is it weird to ask for this?" I too am curious to hear from readers on this.

A while back, I suggested trying to get tenure requirements in writing before accepting a job. It was what I was advised to do, and for these very reasons: a written record of expectations may help later on if problems arise, such as denial of tenure. Only two commenters weighed in when I suggested this. However, their comments were revealing. '2nd opinion' wrote:

[I]t is crucial to get a sense of [tenure] requirements...It's also worth saying, though, that 3 out of 4 department heads were explicitly unwilling to commit to tenure standards in writing - although they did all give me off the record senses of what the requirements would be.

'Tenured' then added:

About committing in writing to tenure requirements. Of course it is a reasonable expectation. But not everything can be put in writing. Also, as soon as it is in writing, it is usually binding ON BOTH SIDES. So if it says, for example, three article are required, then one will be denied tenure without three article, even if they want you. The administration will hold the department to what is in writing. They almost have to for legal reason. Not because it will be wrong to make an exception, but because someone in another department who is being denied tenure will use it against the College to overturn their case. Second, someone can meet the formal requirements but still be a complete A@@hole. A department does not want to have to hire such a person. Unfortunately, this can sometimes lead to abuse on the part of departments, denying tenure to people with odd personalities and behaviors, though not A@@holes.

In other words, it seems like departments and institutions have reasons to not want to put requirements in writing. However, this seems problematic. It exploits a hiring institution's bargaining advantage to put the person they hire in a difficult position of not having any written record of what is expected from them to get tenure and promotion--which, obviously, can lead to awful situations like Ash's (situations which I know to be fairly common, as I have a few friends who were denied tenure under similar-sounding circumstances).

Do readers have any thoughts on this? If you got a tenure-track job, did you ask for tenure-standards in writing? Was your request granted? If departments don't provide them in writing, is there anything that can or should be done about it? 

Comments

[Tenured]

I got tenure requirements in writing as part of a standard package of personnel policies.
Three thoughts on this topic. First, even with written standards a department or university can build a case against someone if they want to. But in most cases I would assume that is not desired. Second, Ash should feel free to FIGHT for her tenure. This does not always work, but in one case I know of someone who had all sorts of dirt and stuff in e-mails from colleagues that became a basis for getting tenure. It became a potential law suit. They got tenure (my opinion - they did not deserve it). Ash should leave there on her own terms. Third, people have lost tenure and gone on to great careers. There is a case of someone losing tenure at Stanford and picking up a career at NYU (not bad).

[Pendaran Roberts]

I've left academia. Thank god! It's horrendous hearing that tenure requirements are often not given in writing. I can't believe they offer contracts with no requirements for tenure clearly stated. So, you can work for 7 years and then be denied tenure for whatever reason they feel like essentially. I would have assumed that the requirements would HAVE to be in writing.

[chronos]

I work at an R2 and went through tenure a while back. When I was hired the chair gave me a list of department standards for tenure. It specified what the expectations were in research and service---about how many articles were expected, what quality, how different publication venues were weighed, etc. Not all departments at my school had them but most did. I don't know how actionable they are in the end b/c the provost has sort of final say on these things at my school, but it's possible.

[chronos]

I should add that the list of requirements was something intended to be included in the tenure application as a way to help the review committees understand how the department perceived the requirements. This would help the candidate because it described departmental expectations, so you didn't have review committee members (at the university level) applying some crazy standard from a different field. So strictly this document wasn't legally binding or something but more in the form of department guidelines.

[TT lady]

When I've asked for this, people typically say things like "well, it's not a strict number -- since it's hard to quantify, there's no document that says what the requirements are, but _typically_ a good tenure portfolio would include x number of articles per year ... [ etc.] ... You'll get an idea of how you are doing at your 3-year review." I find this mildly frustrating, but I suppose the idea is that there won't be surprises, since your colleagues and chair and 3-year review committee will let you know how you are doing. I wonder, though, if the motivation for this is that if you define a minimum, people will barely clear that bar, whereas a vague set of requirements leads to people stressing out and doing as much as they possibly can.

I interviewed once at a school that had a number of philosophy articles (anywhere) that would get you tenure. That would have been nice.

[Tenured]

TT Lady and others,
I worked at a place that attempted to quantify things. Such policies cut two ways: they often end up being written in a way that is too tolerant (sometimes of very poor quality journals), which is not good; alternatively they can become the OBJECTIVE basis for denying someone tenure who may deserve it (but did not meet the SPECIFIED demands). If a department is too legalistic, they will slavishly follow the rules all the way to hell. All you need is an @hole or two in the department (surprise ... some depts have them).

[Daniel]

I'm at a pretty fancy R1, and there's nothing like this. There's a document that describes the tenure and promotion process for the university as a whole, but it's nowhere near as concrete and specific as "n articles/books at any of the following x, z, y journals/presses".

Moreover, given the role that outside letters play, there couldn't be. That is, a big part of getting tenure is having outside letter writers say good things about your research. And while one can make predictions about what letter writers will say, given how much and where you've published, that's very different from having an easy-to-state standard that a university could be held to, e.g., in a lawsuit.

[Michael Cholbi]

Perhaps this will strike people as 'hard line', but: *Do not accept a job offer* unless the tenure requirements and procedures are provided to you in writing prior to acceptance. If they are not provided in writing, ask a person in charge (department chair, dean, whomever) what the tenure requirements and procedures are; take careful notes on what they say, write up your notes, and send them back to that person seeking verification that these are in fact the requirements and procedures.

Would you enter into a mortgage, a business partnership, etc., without knowing your rights and obligations? Tenure is a contractual arrangement; there are burdens on both sides. You have every right to be notified of what the candidates' burdens for earning tenure will be. Assert your rights on this front!

[Craig]

I had multiple job offers. All of them refused to give anything other than a "it depends. multiple publications, but obviously quality and quantity both interact." If I had struck the hard line, maybe one of them would have budged. But there were good (great!) philosophers waiting for the offer behind me, so probably I'd just have been SOL. I would have loved explicit and meaningful tenure standards in writing, and I asked for them, but that didn't seem to be in the cards for me.

[Amanda]

I agree with Craig it could be hard to ask for what you might deserve. One problem, of course, is that they might give the offer to another candidate. While this is unlikely, when you have been struggling on the market and are now thrilled to have a job opportunity the amount of risk one is willing to take can be understandably low. When I was offered my TT gig I had this internal sense of anxiety that I would get some email claiming they changed their mind. I wasn't at peace until I signed the documents.

The other issue is that you do not want to appear needy, annoying, demanding, to people you will work with and who may be in a position to deny you tenure. If you push one of your faculty members you might make a bad first impression which can be hard to overcome. Or at least this might be a worry of a job candidate. And lastly, if the department straight out refuses few candidates will be willing to turn down a TT job for that reason.

[Lauren]

On my campus visits this year, I explicitly asked about tenure requirements at each school. Two are notable: one where I got two very different answers (one from the Department and one from the dean), and one where they actually have spelled out and specific research requirements for tenure. The offer I accepted is at the latter school. The requirements do list a minimum quantity expectation (X articles), although they don’t specify the quality of journal and the written standards are careful to note that quantity is not sufficient.