Well, I feel better now knowing that my desk is a complex ecosystem.
4:15:44 PM    

So...

I'm about at the bottom of the spiritual pit of the quest for tenure. The two denied faculty in my department received feedback that, when combined with the data for the one that was granted, results in about the most non-linear model I've ever seen.

If I may digress into the relm of the statistics professor, there most certainly is a nominal model... it even has well defined parameters (service, scholarship, and teaching). The problem is that, using the data above, it would appear that despite having well defined paremters in this case, they combine to account for a very very small amount of the variance in granting. I'd go for a r^2 close to 0.01 based on what I've seen.

I really hope they will both appeal. I feel like they have good grounds in both cases. In both cases the feedback they received (admittedly third hand now coming from my mouth) seemed to not gel with the facts at all as I and the rest of the department saw them. However- if they are eventually granted tenure, what does that mean about next year (my turn)? Next year there are two more of us, me and another neuro/bio person.

I pointed out the structure of the committees in the last entry. As I understand it the original reason of having a college-wide tenure committee was to act as a sort of safety valve, lest the deparment decide for unfair reasons that they do not want someone. This is rather common incidentally... say you're an outspoken critic of department policies or even other faculty in your department. Say your criticisms are justified (not always the case of course). But say you publish like a fiend, bring in a big ol' grant, get 4.5 out of 5 teaching scores and have served on every committee known- maybe your fellow faculty are a bit jealous, maybe you're an asshole, whatever.

They turn you down because they don't like you.

Now, granted, it is nice when we all, in the words of Sir Rodney, `just get along' but this isn't always possible. I'd even contend that there is a bit of `social diversity' that is needed in a healthy department. Who wants to work with, debate with, folks that are just like themselves? I don't, no Stepford faculty for me...

So, the college-wide tenure committee is supposed to look past the local level and go to the global on this person. A sort of sanity check for potentially pathological conditions.

In this case, the decision has been the opposite...

The denied faculty were judged by their direct peers (our department) and decided to have adequate or exceptional performance on the criteria that, I believe, we are in the position to know best- that is, scholarship and to a lesser extent teaching. As part of the procedure fellow department faculty `sit in' on the tenure candidate's classes to observe their teaching. Members of the tenure committee don't. We all get to read teaching evaluations and, in that case, I'd say we're equally able to measure the teaching efficacy. However- when was the last time a music professor had a really good idea how hard it is to teach statistics, or a statitician understand how music theory is best taught?

In this case, the seriouslness and the `domain of ownership' of the department's assessment of the scholarship seems like a no-brainer. We are their most direct peers on campus. Although I don't research in personality psychology I do have a pretty good idea what it takes and what justifies itself as a good program of research, what a `prestigious journal' is, etc. I'm not totally confident farming this stuff out to others. In fact, in the case of a personality psychologist, I'm not even comfortable making a direct assessment of their work. I have to leave it to other personality psychologists to clue me in on the fine points.

Still...

I'd think the department has a better idea of what is appropriate here than outside observers.

So, today, for the first time since I started graduate school 10+ years ago, I am questioning why I am doing this.
3:33:28 PM