« Marc Dreier's Sentencing - 20 years | Main | Notes on Teaching in a Overseas Summer LL.M. Program »
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Full Professor, Without Tenure
At the beginning of the upcoming school-year, I become a bit of a strange creature within our profession (if I wasn't already) -- a full professor without tenure. The reason is simple enough to explain -- American University has a rigid and inflexible (six) years-of-academic-service requirement before one becomes eligible for tenure, but the only time requirement for promotion to full professor is (two) years of service at the associate professor level. Because I was already an associate professor when I moved laterally to American two years ago (and wasn't demoted), I satisfied the latter requirement earlier than is typical for folks who start at AU, who usually don't get promoted to associate professor until after their fourth year of teaching.
I raise this, though, because it leads me to wonder about the professional etiquette of being a full professor without tenure. For instance, do I need to note on my cv (and elsewhere) that I don't yet have tenure, since most will naturally assume, based upon the title, that I do? Does that, in turn, send perhaps the opposite message -- that I was denied tenure, and am now effectively "of counsel" at my law school? (A fate which may yet await me...)
More generally, isn't it usually the other way around -- that folks get tenure based upon their professional accomplishments before they are promoted to full professor? That's certainly true in other academic disciplines, isn't it? If so, does that suggest that tenure based on a rigid years-of-service requirement causes more problems than it solves?
I'm torn on the tenure question, because I totally get the egalitarianism of not allowing folks to come up for tenure early, since that would create very strange and informal pressures on both the rank and tenure committee and on the junior deciding whether or not to go up early. But it seems equally strange to have promotions and tenure so thoroughly unrelated to each other. What's the magic bullet, here?
Posted by Steve Vladeck on July 14, 2009 at 01:51 PM in Life of Law Schools, Steve Vladeck, Teaching Law | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0115710f750f970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Full Professor, Without Tenure:
Comments
The most common promotion pattern in academe is for one to be promoted from assistant to associate professor, and to be awarded tenure, simultaneously, and then to be promoted to full professor, if ever, after a number of years of productive service as a tenured associate professor. Full professor rank is typically an incentive to discourage a complete and immediate post-tenure publication slump.
Law professors often spend little or no time as assistant professors, and often advance to full professor more rapidly than in other faculties, and generally speaking aren't quite in lockstep with larger higher ed norms. Academic rank inflation in law faculties is partially a way to make law professor pay, which tends to be high for the university as a norm, seem less high, by inviting comparisons based upon academic rank.
This said, tenure and academic rank are almost always formally, separate decisions that are announced as separate decisions, even if made at the same time. As such, I don't think that omitting tenure or the lack thereof is automatically deceptive. Certainly, it is less deceptive than using the title J.D. to imply that one is an attorney, and more accepted than using the title "Dr." when one has a law degree, even if it is a J.D. rather than an L.L.B. A typical C.V. is so detailed that it might be appropriate to not a lack of tenure (although a cover letter might be a better forum), but I wouldn't consider it something that one must note.
Also, I think that your analogy to the legal world is not quite right. Some "Of Counsel" are comparable to professors emeritus, and some to visiting or ajdunct professors, but a full time, indefinite appoint full professor, who is eligible for tenure consideration in four years is more comparable to a non-equity partner than to an "Of Counsel".
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jul 14, 2009 2:11:31 PM
Why isn't the really easy solution to not promote someone to full professor until they get tenure?
Posted by: anon | Jul 14, 2009 4:13:30 PM
At FIU (and other schools), promotion to full is tied to years with tenure, not years at associate professor.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jul 14, 2009 7:01:57 PM
At Southwestern, entry level tenure-track profs start as associate professors, and are promoted to full professor concurrently with a successful application for tenure. This approach makes the most sense to me, since I've always associated being a full professor with having tenure. I realize other places do it differently (I have a friend on a history faculty who is an associate prof with tenure, and I think that's the norm in faculties of arts and sciences).
It seems a bit strange to hold out full professor status as the last incentive, though, since it seems like nothing more than a title. Tenure comes with obvious substantive advantages, but I can't see why anyone would care whether they're called associate or full professor once tenure has secured their job for life. (Or am I missing some advantage that being a full professor has? Salary perks, perhaps?)
Posted by: Dave | Jul 14, 2009 8:56:23 PM
Usually, full professor status comes with higher salary and some de minimus additional perks (and seniority in rare but serious these days matters like priority in faculty lay offs).
Posted by: ohwilleke | Jul 14, 2009 9:01:10 PM
Dave: It's the money, the prestige that comes with the title, and a full recognition of senior-faculty status--and the money. But your point raises an interesting concern. Everyone looks at tenure as the final hurdle that frees us. But even after we get tenure, we still are not necessarily fully free to say and do whatever we will, because there remains one more round of full review before the P&T Committee (or part of it) and the Dean.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jul 14, 2009 11:08:53 PM
I think full professor without tenure might be the norm for some non-tenure track law folks -- e.g., some legal writers, etc.
The way various schools approach this staging problem continues to baffle me. Duncan Hollis and I put together a list, and I can't say that there are patterns. Temple's process is rigid in a different way: no full before year six, but tenure before, so we end up having three stages of review.
Posted by: dave hoffman | Jul 14, 2009 11:24:43 PM
How about "Professor (pre-tenure)"?
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 17, 2009 9:11:06 AM
