COH Promotion/Tenure - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 2, 2005

COH Promotion/Tenure

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Sounds frightening and typical of what this bunch does. I believe that we cal all 1) teach, 2) produce research, 3) be engaged in service. However, do we all have opportunities to achieve outside funding? We might well see the creation of an academic underclass with this type maneuver.

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Stealth_still_healthy_in_COH wrote:

..... a proposed new Tenure and Promotion policy that requires external funding for promotion to Associate and Full Professor. At the rank of full, the external funding must include "salary support." ..... Apparently there is pressure from the Dome to include this provision in all college T&P documents.

I've had grant funding during most of my years in academics, and I firmly believe that all tenure- track faculty members should vigorously try to secure such funding. Nonetheless, I believe the above policy is one of the most absurd academic policies I have ever encountered. Mine is a research- oriented discipline. But if such a policy were implemented, my department would eventually be populated by only a few faculty members at a rank beyond that of Assistant Professor. Whoever designed that proposal must have left their thinking cap at home.

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Shut down the arts.

Date: Nov 2, 2005

Grants 'R Us wrote:

Apparently there is pressure from the Dome to include this provision in all college T&P documents. I've had grant funding during most of my years in academics, and I firmly believe that all tenure- track faculty members should vigorously try to secure such funding. Nonetheless, I believe the above policy is one of the most absurd academic policies I have ever encountered. Mine is a research- oriented discipline. But if such a policy were implemented, my department would eventually be populated by only a few faculty members at a rank beyond that of Assistant Professor. Whoever designed that proposal must have left their thinking cap at home.

Mine is a research- oriented discipline.??? This is, quite frankly, insulting.

Let me guess - you are in the "hard" sciences. Probably have very little respect for those that are in those "soft" science areas, where everything is irrelevant to the science types.

What - because other disciplines do not have the same sources of grant-style funding, they do not have a research oriented discipline? I can tell you that in some disciplines, funded research is nice to see, but academic publications (be they built on grants or not) are the coin of the realm. You can have $millions in grants, but no academic pubs, no chance of tenure.

I can promise you that in many discipline areas - this university's approach to research as being defined as ONLY of the funded persuasion is a sure fire way to guarantee no chance of ever leaving this place. This is (and I know) a clear and unvarnished fact.

This is simply another example of everything being defined by a singular myopic viewpoint.

Still counting

Count

Date: Nov 3, 2005

The Next Stupid Thing has landed!

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Counting the days wrote:

Let me guess - you are in the "hard" sciences.

Let me guess - you are in the administration.

I suspect what you really object to in my post is my statement "I believe the above policy is one of the most absurd academic policies I have ever encountered."

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Grants 'R Us, my favorite statement in your post is "Whoever designed that proposal must have left their thinking cap at home."

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Grants 'R Us wrote in response to Counting the Days:

Let me guess - you are in the administration. I suspect what you really object to in my post is my statement "I believe the above policy is one of the most absurd academic policies I have ever encountered."

So now "The Count" is suspect too?

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Stealth_still_healthy_in_COH wrote:

...This is another case of "stealth" deals - Fos has tried to slide the document past his faculty without discussion and without providing justification. Shared Governance??? Not on his watch....

A stealth move? Maybe. But it's more likely that Fos means only to "tell it like it is" -- in Shelby World you don't get promoted if you don't pull down the dough. Better to put the real criteria in black and white than to have them operating behind the curtain, right? The problem is that after only a year in Stalag Thames, Sub-Commandant Fos has "forgotten" that criteria for promotion should come "up from the disiciplines" instead of "down from the Dome." (How do they do it at Tulane, dean?)

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Ironic, isn't it, that SFT managed to run off one of the few people in the humanities who year after year secured outside funding for his/her project? A person who, if I've been correctly informed, has once again been awarded a sizable grant from the NEH.

In saying "one of the few people." I mean the following: it is great when folks in the humanities secure such funding. But any "wurl class" university is full of folks whose research/scholarship has international recognition but who have never gotten outside funding.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

The Faculty Handbook reads, "Additional guidelines, policies, or criteria governing promotion in rank (beyond those appearing in the Faculty Handbook) within an academic unit must be developed by the academic unit and approved by the college dean and the Provost; ... ."

Although their criteria for promotion and tenure certainly need to be consistent with those that appear in the Faculty Handbook, it is the units within the college who determine the criteria appropriate to them, with approval from the dean and provost.

If the dean did not involve academic units within the college in open and meaningful ways in considering criteria those units will use in promotion cases, then he would be in violation of the Faculty Handbook. A question might be whether or not the dean knows what his prerogatives are in the context of Faculty Handbook policies and procedures. In any case, one would think that any savvy dean would want college faculty to know precisely what the proposed P+T criteria are and how they emerged from each unit before college faculty are asked to vote on the criteria.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Myron Henry wrote:

The Faculty Handbook reads, "Additional guidelines, policies, or criteria governing promotion in rank (beyond those appearing in the Faculty Handbook) within an academic unit must be developed by the academic unit and approved by the college dean and the Provost; ... ." Although their criteria for promotion and tenure certainly need to be consistent with those that appear in the Faculty Handbook, it is the units within the college who determine the criteria appropriate to them, with approval from the dean and provost. If the dean did not involve academic units within the college in open and meaningful ways in considering criteria those units will use in promotion cases, then he would be in violation of the Faculty Handbook. A question might be whether or not the dean knows what his prerogatives are in the context of Faculty Handbook policies and procedures. In any case, one would think that any savvy dean would want college faculty to know precisely what the proposed P+T criteria are and how they emerged from each unit before college faculty are asked to vote on the criteria.

Don't say anything else, let the chips fall. You all have my number. If you don't I'm in the Yellow Pages. I look forward to working with you all in the future. Southern Miss, to the top!

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Board administrator, please change the moniker of my last post to this new one. I used the first one to joke about the bad situation developing in the CoH. If it is inappropriate, please change as per my suggestion, or to something else.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

not the real K. Chaze wrote:

Board administrator, please change the moniker of my last post to this new one. I used the first one to joke about the bad situation developing in the CoH. If it is inappropriate, please change as per my suggestion, or to something else.

You might want to contact the message board's administrator directly with your request. She may not see it embedded among all the others. Her email addess has been made readily available. I don't have it, but I am sure somebody can provide it for you.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

I can't change the name on your post. Sorry.

Web Master

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Grants 'R Us wrote:

Counting the days wrote: Let me guess - you are in the "hard" sciences. Let me guess - you are in the administration. I suspect what you really object to in my post is my statement "I believe the above policy is one of the most absurd academic policies I have ever encountered."

Grant - You are incorrect, sir (ma'am?) H*ll, if I was in administration knocking back the big salaries and raises, I wouldn't be counting (down the days till retirement, that is). Go PERS go!

I guess I jumped too soon on the research - oriented comment. Anyway, I absolutely agree with the "absurd policies" statement.

And I have done my fair share of grants as well. The problem is, all that this administration knows, it has learned HERE. It is as if they believe that what they decide/do here is what all universities do globally. Grants are great, but not all, and to suggest that this become a requirement here, when it is not a requirement for tenure at any other university is a reflection of this viewpoint.

Still counting - when I get down to being a 2-digit midget (less than 100 days left), I'll through a party for the board.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Counting the days wrote:

I guess I jumped too soon on the research - oriented comment. Anyway, I absolutely agree with the "absurd policies" statement.

I think I may be responsible for our misundertanding. Instead of saying "Mine is a research- oriented discipline," I should have said "Mine is a research- oriented department." That one word makes a world of difference.

Date: Nov 3, 2005

"Pulling down the dough" might even be okay if it was equitable with consideration given to the College or Program and its ability to pull in that money, honey. Also, Pork Barrel should not count as "pulling" - it's cronyism. Heck, take the money, but don't consider the recepient of Pork Barrel as someone or ones who actually have any adeptness at attaining competitive grants. One size doesn't fit all at any major university. After all, "If glove don't fit, you must acquit".