Joining the Ranks: Demystifying Harvard's Tenure System

Getting hired into a faculty position (and often getting tenure, like at Harvard) are increasingly becoming more and more like show business... a really high ratio of qualified applicants to (scarce) positions ... and so what ends up being deciding factors are often seemingly arbitrary, subjective, or even unknown. "Fit" with the Department. "Significance" of the work. "General consensus" of the committee.

We can complain and complain but what this means from a practical point of view, for young and aspiring academics, is

1. If you really want it, don't give up. Keep doing good work and keep applying.

2. If you care more about making money, do something else. Like in show business and sports, the vast majority aren't getting super rich, aren't getting famous. They ARE however living their dream, doing exactly what they love to do.

3. You will need to make an impression above and beyond the objective "facts" that you list on your academic cv. You will have to be friendly. You will have to impress on intangibles. Scientists are often not good at this.

4. In today's environment academic Departments care about your potential to bring money into the University (in the form of research grants). You will need to hit this point.

5. Your motivation (and validation) has to come from within. If you depend on external reinforcement you will not succeed.

I see a lot of graduate students complaining about how difficult it is to get hired into a Faculty position these days, how difficult it is to get research grants, how difficult it is to get published in a decent journal. Not to be TOO much of a grumpy old man, but like any highly skilled endeavour, it should be difficult. 10,000 hours and all that.

Many, many young people end up in graduate school not because they are intensely focused on scholarly work, and intend upon one day being a Professor, because that's what they love to do, that's what they've always wanted to do (this however WAS the case for me) ... rather many, many young people end up graduate school because

a. they are in a holding pattern because they haven't yet attained their actual goal, which is getting into a professional school (law, meds, dentistry, mba, etc)

b. their grades are good and they "don't know what they want to do"

As a Professor, case a. doesn't bother me much, as long as they work hard, it can be a win-win for supervisor and student.

Case b. bothers me a lot. Advanced, persistent scholarly work is an intense, difficult, (rewarding) endeavour. If you're bored, or confused, please don't "try" graduate school. It's not a hobby. It's a very specific undertaking that is well suited to only a very small proportion of the population (even the population of "smart people").

Link to single page view:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/4/11/scrutiny-tenure-...

"Does the faculty balance necessitate someone of the candidate’s specific field?" You'd think they could make that decision before they offer a tenure track position.

> Following testimonies, the ad hoc committee deliberates: ... What about the candidate’s teaching? ...

I lol'ed. Then I checked the url and it made total sense. Thanks for the hard-hitting reporting, Harvard Crimson.

> ...Harvard’s ad hoc process remains among the most thorough and fair tenure systems in higher education.