The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

Post by tnecniv » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #89

robotresearcher wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were published this year. They'll be cited next year if they are useful. There's a 6-9 month delay between paper submission and publication.

So how does he know they're so great then? In academic career progress contexts, citations are what matters. If your 'great' papers have 2 citations, they're objectively not great - in fact, they're pretty shit even. They might become 'great' next year, time will tell - but making a case of how great a researcher you are with a paper selection like that is, well, not very smart.

Post by adrianratnapala » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

heleph wrote: post #121

nostrademons wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree that the way to appeal to management is to build relationships & grassroots support in the organization. But the way to appeal to the market (which seems to be his current situation now, since he seems to be looking for a new job) is to make a big splash, take credit for all the things you've done, define yourself in terms of what you'd most like to do, and then wait for the calls to come in. The difference…

The group of people you're working with may not be as mutable as you think. I've been working in my programming language community in the city where I live for about ten years. There are people I have worked with before at pretty much all the really attractive places that do the language I have the most expertise with. Probably people who know people I've worked with at many of the others too.

Post by hash-set » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

gsylvie wrote: post #22

mcherm wrote: post #2

This article has a powerful and important point to make. But much of the strength of an argument rests on the author's evaluation of his own contributions which is almost unfailingly positive. The article would be even more effective if accompanied by statement from one or more of the eight department members who voted against granting tenure.

He obviously pissed off his department, and so they voted with an aim to punishing him. He's a fool not to appeal it, though. If he appeals then the decision will be made by people outside of his department who won't have the same emotional stakes in the decision. Rage quit after you win your appeal, if you must! $3,000,000 in funding, most of it still active is astonishing ( https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/proposals/ )…

Post by hash-set » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

dronemallone wrote: post #101

it's such a letdown when one realizes that universities are not this ideal utopia where everyone's a straight talker, where there is zero politics, where the people care about research and not the money it brings etc. Must have been depressing for this guy to realize that universities nowadays are just massive hedge funds that sponsor football programs that are bigger than computer science departments.

Post by adrianratnapala » Sun, Oct 23, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

kevhito wrote: post #26

code_sardaukar wrote: post #14

I read the whole article and it's very hard to judge the correctness of most of the article's claims. Most importantly, it's hard to judge the most important thing: the author's own research. However, I can say that there are different ways to interpret things. The author sees tenure as a way to establish obedience to the unwritten rules of the department. Based on my knowledge of academia, including friends who were…

I agree with this. But research isn't everything. And there are at least some hints and signs that this person doesn't know how to get along with colleagues. > I worked really hard to bring an exciting and rigorous operating systems class to UB. Why did this effort require working "really hard"? Was it because of obstructionist, jealous, or stupid colleagues? Or people who wanted a boring and unrigourous course inste…