I find it best to look at this monthly or even less often, and then go through the month's listings to find what's interesting.

As for no more stuff on tenure, promotion, and career. I started out writing about planning, was drawn by my observations into the career stuff, and now it is time to stop. My feeling is that the world is changing, and my own perceptions are perhaps not as acute as they once were. Like Puts, I am committed to craftsmanship and high excellence O(whether or not I achieve it), but most photography and scholarly work these days is rather more corporate, digital, and criterial. It's not that the world has changed so much, so much as that people now believe less in individual performance and more in corporate performance. About that, I am not at all expert. I have said a lot. Now it's someone else's turn.

One other thing, I am still fascinated by Lee Friedlander's work. I wish I understood why. The stuff written about him does not help me, or at least the stuff I have seen does not help me.

Now, all of this is a minimum. Your match to what the department thinks it needs, your performance when you interview (although what I am talking about is what is needed to get that interview), and intangibles you cannot anticipate (Is there a conflict in the department where you are the bargaining chip?) all will affect how things turn out. But at least you will have a chance. I observe that most graduate students do not have such powerful reference letters as the ones of the chosen candidates--

1. Did you deliver on what was expected, indicated in your third-year review, or in conversations with your dean. If you did not deliver, you are already in a weak position.
2. While you might have reason to believe that prejudice was involved (race, gender, field of research, method, ...), if you did not do #1, you are in a weak position.
3. Have standards for performance risen in the last 5-6 years, say by the fact that your department or university has made appointments or promotions that are much stronger in that period.

If you have done what was expected, then you have reason to be concerned. Was the quality high, in terms of venues of publication, reviews, and the letters. Were the letter-writers authoritative--who they are, did they read the work, are they arm's length, giving detailed consideration of your work (which they have read!).

That you are beloved by your students, or valued by other units in the university, or ..., is rarely probative.

Nowadays, most schools and administrations are careful to be sure that matters of bias or unfairness are avoided. I don't know how successful they are.

As I keep saying, Living well is the best revenge. You really don't want to join a club that won't have you as a member.

None of this is new or even peculiar. It applies with minor adaptations to buying a used car or a used home. The University cannot afford a sub-prime crisis or a sequence of lemons. Surely, we will make mistakes, but the above list is meant to decrease their number and likelihood.

Another take:

More than half of the assistant professor to associate prof with tenure, and perhaps the same proportion for promotion to full are not strong. The candidates may be weak, the dossiers may be poorly prepared. Whatever, that makes it much harder for the provost to make decisions that are good for the university's future excellence. Mistakes are made, unfortunate ones. Too many ringers are tenured, and some very good people are let go. Note, this is not because we are unfair or too demanding or too generous. Rather, we are given insufficient information, and then under such unknowns and uncertainties we still have to make decisions. Deans and chairs dump hard cases in our laps, advocating for people who do not fulfil the dean's own stated requirements.

Hence the following checklist, one that might be signed by the dean:

1. Are there, among the letters of reference, at least 4-6 detailed textured letters that consider the work in detail?
2. Are the letters arms-length? Are the letters from peer-or-better institutions? (Collaborators might testify as to the nature of the collaboration, but these do not count for #1 or 2). To get #1, you will have to solicit and include at least ten arms-length letters.
3. Have you briefly explained the candidate's contribution in language that a professor in your general area (humanities, social science, natural science and mathematics, ...) could understand.
4. Explain exceptional circumstances--early consideration, unusual work profile, not delivering on what is normally required in your department for promotion (no book, or book not out, or no second project), Reread the third-year review for context here.


Associate deans may well feel burdened by this advice. But they file their income taxes, they do due diligence when they buy their houses,... What's so distressing is that these multi-million dollar appointment decisions are treated as if documentation and due diligence were not absolutely essential. The IRS does not assume that what you leave out will favor you, the house you buy you are stuck with if the seller has done his work. Perhaps the provost should not always try to figure out the dossier--just send it back or deny in all such cases.

Finally, no letters from advisors or collaborators, except to testify as to the nature of the collaboration. Arms-length "textured' letters are best. Criticisms are fine.

Of course, you want to publish in the most prestigious venue, with the greatest visibility.

Don't tell yourself stories about how there are people with real brains, and then there are the hacks who publish whatever they write. The people with real brains publish even more. More to the point, your reputation and your school's depends on your publications and their quality. Of course, you should be a good teacher, and do your service. But your major competitive job is to make your work part of the community's culture. Being smart and deep is nice, but being well published is better.

Yes, there are people who publish only gems, and they are wonderful. But most of us, all of us, are not so likely lay golden eggs.

By the way, lots of the published literature, even in the strong journals, is not very good. But at least people see if and can assess it. You are not above their judgment, even if they are not so bright.

If you have a bunch of papers sitting in a drawer or a working paper series, first get them all out and published. Then make claims about how the stuff doesn't count. Before that, your claim is unwarranted and seems like special pleading.

In book publishing fields, there are similar questions.

Do NOT compare yourself with people who have been tenured, telling yourself you are as good as they are. Some promotions are under retention pressures.. Others have been promoted, even as early as a few years ago, under a different standard than now prevails. And some people get promoted for reasons having little to do with their research.

Do compare yourself to the strongest promotions.

You are being compared not to people in your department, but to people throughout your university, and of course in so-called peer institutions. The strong professor files answer all the above questions rather strongly. Dean's letters can help, but if they are not supported by the dossier, they in fact prove to be killers.

But you really don't want to be denied, you really don't.

Only you can decide. These demurrers are meant as boilerplate. There are some departments, who if they put up a beagle for full professor, would have the provost wonder but say yes. Is your department one of those?

In general, almost all rave letters, almost all letters from advisors, collaborators (except to attest to who did what in the work), almost all unbalanced assessments hurt the candidate. The strongest recommendations are those that consider the work and the contribution, perhaps even engage it quite seriously and contentiously, and then in the end say, she is terrific.

What always hurts are excuses, such as this second ranked journal is really important. (It's not that the excuse may not be true, but it smacks of special pleading.) If the work is good, that is the main issue, and if it is in a venue that is likely to be seen that matters too.

It's better to tell your true assessment of the candidate, than to wax eloquently but incredibly. If this is the best book on Icelandic dentisty, it won't help to claim that Icelandic dentistry is the major field, but it might help to know that the analysis in the book has deeply influenced how people think of dental health all over. If the Icelandic dentistry book wins an award from the Icelandic dentisty association (or another two modifier association, in which the number of potential awardees is typically 2-4 rather than 20) it's unlikely to impress people to say it is an award-winning book or article.

If the candidate does not get the grants normally required, saying that the standards have gone up is an excuse. Presumably, your university wants to have candidates who have received the grants, not the almosts. Of ocurse if the acceptance cutoff was 9% and this candidate stood at 10% it may be useful to mention that.

Finally, while the number of stars in the sky is very large, on Earth the number of academic stars is rather more limited. The claim should be reserved and used carefully. At least if you want people to believe you when it really matters.

I would never buy a used car from most dossiers, for I can smell a lemon. Now, I might discount the information, and offer to pay less for the car (or the candidate), but is that what you want me to do.

Probably the most vigorous national scholarly effort has been the German reconsideration of the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Germany was the source of the modern notions of objective scholarship, so this is quite interesting. You've got to go to the archives, you've got to be comparative, and you've got to know the languages of the various groups and nations. And rather than defending or condemning the state, you have to understand what happened and why.

What is the distinctive contribution?