Stating the obvious
I thought this was an obvious point. But maybe it is not: A tenure rate of less than 50% is not attractive.
Suppose you are 30-something years old, and have moved all over the country and/or world for your career already, having done undergrad, masters, PhD, and postdoc in different locations. Would you rather go to a university where your colleagues expect you to get tenure and will support you in getting there, and the assumption is that unless something goes pretty wrong, you’ll be able to stick around after the first 5-6 years? Where you could maybe buy a house and expect to keep it for a while? Or would you rather go to a university where on average, only 50% of professors get tenure? That’s a one in two chance of getting kicked out.
Some people will always go for the more prestigious university, even if the tenure rate is low. Those universities can offer concrete (if potentially temporary) advantages. But I think that many (in particular, women and two-career couples) who would rather not be subjected to yet another high-stakes "testing" process at this stage of their lives, with the possible downside being another job search, period of uncertainty, and possible cross-country move five years later.
Spot on!
Comment by sciencegirl — March 16, 2008 @ 6:26 am
50% — no way! The prestige is not worth that much pressure, at least not at that point.
Comment by ecogeofemme — March 16, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
My personal experiences lead me to believe that this rate in part due to some VERY good profs personal perception (which may be true…i don’t know) that it is so hard to get tenure that they shoot for the moon and hold off publishing what they perceive as “lesser” results. This makes it harder to get grants…and without grants it impossible to get tenure.
Perhaps I’m thinking of more isolated incidents, but I can think of at least a few cycles like this at top places. . .
Comment by anon — March 27, 2008 @ 2:00 pm