I think it’s so super generous of some departments to be understanding of pre-tenure folks &offer to push the clock back a year to support them but in the spirit of overlooking some (outdated) traditions in the name of the current pandemic, can’t some folks just move forward? 1/3
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Of course I’m not suggesting departments just grant tenure for the sake of granting it, but undoubtedly some folks are actually ready & have proven themselves - this just extends precarity & affects pay increase - for what reason exactly? So they can go to 1 more conference? 2/3
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 12 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
And it will affect faculty of color, women of color the most, no? Can we offer a variety of allowances for folks at different points in their careers given the circumstances? Especially bc the standards are based in systems that tend to exclude the most vulnerable anyway? 3/3
1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 16 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @prof_nmehdiz
Are you thinking it would be awkward to submit a tenure file within the original framework regardless of an extension? Or that an extra year would raise the bar artificially? (Genuine questions).
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
I think both would apply, especially at institutions where overwork is the cultural norm. If I submit on my original timeline it might be held against me as a sign of overconfidence. If I take the year, then the standards might be raised given the “extra” time.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.