13 ms·

The Best Way to Not Get Tenure

349 points by panic 10y ago

Tinyyy 10y ago
Here’s a (albeit small) sample of his students’ opinion of Geoffery. http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1626392 http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1626392 A common criticism seems to be that he has a huge ego.
- TillE 10y ago
  I've seen so many professors I loved, especially the tougher ones, given crappy ratings by stupid idiots who choose to use that site.
mcherm 10y ago
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.
- obventio56 10y ago
  I can't be the only high school age lurker here that thought your comment came straight out of an AP DBQ.
  - mcherm 10y ago
    What is an "AP DBQ"?
- gsylvie 10y ago
  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/ https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/proposals/), and his DBLP (http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/c/Challen:Geoffrey http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/c/Challen:Geoffrey) is pretty awesome (note: he's in DBLP as Geoffrey Challen, Geoffrey Werner Challen, and Geoffrey Werner-Allen). But he DID keep his dog in his lab, against university policy: https://web.archive.org/web/20151002100639/http://www.buffalonews.com/20130308/Off_Main_Street_The_offbeat_side_of_the_news.html https://web.archive.org/web/20151002100639/http://www.buffal... I hope he changes his mind about not appealing. The grass ain't greener anywhere else. All university departments are filled with miserable gossips.
  - skosuri 10y ago
    It looks like he also flipped classrooms and was active within the department service-wise. That's a pretty crazy decision not to tenure him from the outside.
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      It was really crazy in the department too, at least among undergraduate students. His lab is very well known as a great place to learn about the development of mobile devices, which is basically not offered in any courses and difficult to be formally educated in otherwise.
    - cycomachead 10y ago
      As sad as it is, there are lots of places where these things are met with skepticism and argument. I know people who specifically waited years to redesign courses until they had tenure.
  - kevhito 10y ago
    > All university departments are filled with miserable gossips. They are also filled with people who think their own vision and priorities for the intro programming course, operating systems course, networking course, "entire" undergrad curriculum, department and college resource allocation, and campus dog policy, are obviously the only correct and rational choice, and anyone who disagrees is a miserable gossip.
    - flowereaterz 10y ago
      Sounds like everyone in any career, including the OP or people on Hacker News.
  - kev009 10y ago
    On the other hand, why? The article jives with my own experience and understanding from college and talking to people that went to other not top tier schools. Most schools are not equipped to teach CS, certainly not to increase diversity, and they don't really care. Change is scary, especially if it might work. He can make more money in industry and move around more fluidly to find like minded folks, sounds like a great life decision. Honestly, most people don't know when to cut their losses. I think he does.
partisan 10y ago
Couldn't scroll on the site on my iPhone. I don't think I've seen that before.
- phreack 10y ago
  I've had it happen before, what's likely happening is that you're scrolling an element behind the article due to a bug in safari with z indexes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
muglug 10y ago
Most people, when passed over for promotion, don't write about it publicly. One has to wonder what sort of spirit possessed this author.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  ...And if said spirit was apparent to the people voting, and if they factored that into their decision.
- apathy 10y ago
  That's not how tenure works. Up or out -- you get tenure or you hit the road. So this is actually fairly common in academia. Sort of a parting shot, if you will.
  - joeclark77 10y ago
    Yes, but he's now trying to take his show on the road and get a job at another university. The reason this "parting shot" is risky is that it may get him pre-emptively ruled out by a lot of other hiring committees.
    - fencepost 10y ago
      But speaking out here about the reasons he was denied tenure may be the only chance he gets to present that to some schools that might otherwise say "Buffalo knew this guy and tossed him, they must know something." It may also prompt potential employers to look at the makeup of the department that rejected him - is it full of people who got their initial degrees when 32-bit architectures were theoretical novelties?
      - joeclark77 10y ago
        Good point. In this case I think he's confident that he'll get a job somewhere, and therefore he's willing to do this as a way of eliminating potential employers from contention based on whether they do or don't value the kinds of contributions he's making. It's a good strategy unless he's wrong about how desirable he is.
gregmac 10y ago
Why is Tenure still a thing? It's basically a lifetime employment contract. It seems the only argument for tenure is academic freedom.. a tenured professor can pursue an avenue of research without fear of reprisal for it being controversial or not yielding results (though really, even experiments that 'fail' actually serve to prove that it's not the way to go). It seems to be me like this is a problem that can be solved in many better ways. For example, employees in most (every?) jurisdiction are protected by laws that mean they can't be fired without just cause. Even if the employer tries to find ways around this (making up reasons), the fired employee can generally lodge a complaint/lawsuit to prove otherwise. Can some type of protection of this sort not be written into academic contracts as well?
- detaro 10y ago
  Tenure is just an employment contract that can only be terminated with just cause. (And the number of tenure-track positions is going down as far as I know)
  - dluan 10y ago
    Tenure is shrinking because universities are realizing that the core of their workforce isn't tenured scientists - it's assistants and adjuncts, post-docs, and grad students. In the business model world of big science being publish, get grant funding, take overhead, tenured professors are mainly just project managers. Why make a commitment to support 2x more tenure track positions when you have 1-2 good enough to attract wide-eyed grad students? This is the market correcting itself to shrinking federal budgets and ballooning workforce supply.
- totalZero 10y ago
  Professors are also thinkers and researchers. Thinkers should be free to explore different positions, without fear of being ostracized for their ideas. Researchers should have some sense of longevity, so that they can undertake grand projects that require years of continuity. Your third point is not always applicable, in my understanding. At-will employees in New York can be fired for any non-protected reason, or even without cause. Contracts and unions elevate the burden of the employer to justify a termination, but outside of that, it's not easy to fight a wrongful termination without having hard evidence of some kind of implied contract.
CalChris 10y ago
my department voted against my tenure case earlier this week Since this was posted 2016-10-22, I'm gonna assume the department did this smack in the middle of the semester.
- anonetal 10y ago
  This is in line with the tenure cases that I have seen (across US) -- the department votes tend to be in early Fall, and the case makes its way through the rest of the univ over the next 5-6 months.
  - tnecniv 10y ago
    My school had one in the spring recently. I know because they solicited opinions of the candidate's recent students on his abilities as a teacher. In that case, it was still a mid-semester deal.
- joeclark77 10y ago
  Academic job markets get started around this time of year, depending on the discipline and affected by the dates of their big conferences, for jobs to begin in fall of the following year. So by giving him the decision now, he has enough advance notice to prepare his CV and apply for jobs.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    I guess you're right. I took a class once where the prof was denied tenure about half way through. He was completely deflated and it affected his teaching considerably. He'd expected he'd get tenure.
code_sardaukar 10y ago
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 granted tenure, the process is mostly fair, but of course most people are going to want to do everything they can to maximize their chances. What the author interprets as proving obedience, I interpret as not wasting time on things the committee can't measure objectively, or doing things that might piss off people on the committee. As someone in industry, I see academia as somewhere where people can make immense contributions to human knowledge, that cannot be done elsewhere, but they have to jump through certain hoops to do so. Outside of academia there is very little opportunity to do research. Industry is conservative, and prefers to implement and refine known techniques.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- blazespin 10y ago
  "I interpret as .. doing things that might piss off people on the committee." Sounds like obedience to me. There's a great HBO tv show, "The Wire". It's all about how an institution can consume personalities of those who belong to it. I'm pretty sure tenure is the same way. I see this happening to people who work in corporations for a long time. Their personalities change as they become the sort of person who can succeed in such environments. That being said, I suspect standout researchers get tenure and get to be themselves, just as talented people can succeed in corporations and still be themselves. They are generally the exception rather than the norm, however.
  - kevhito 10y ago
    Hi, although I'm new here and all of you have been teaching here for 20 years on average, let me tell you why everything you have done with the curriculum is terrible and should be completely rewritten in my style. And of course, I'll have to do all of this myself, since you are all incompetent. And I better teach the first round myself too, because I can't trust you with that either. So yes, there is a difference between not pissing off people on the committee and "obedience".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
How come the three papers that the author cites as examples of groundbreaking work have 2 citations between them? Is this the norm in computer systems?
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  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.
  - roel_v 10y ago
    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.
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      If they are new, they are neither proven great or shit. Like a new novel or work of art, or any IP. The author is proposing that people read those papers becaus he is proud of them. Nothing wrong with that.
      - roel_v 10y ago
        No, not true. He's arguing he's an asset to the university, and one of his arguments is his publishing track record. In that context, there are two way papers are 'good': they are published in Nature or The Lancet, or they have high citation counts. Whether a paper has the potential to get lots of citations doesn't count for anything. Likewise, if the content is super out of this world great, but nobody has cited it - the paper is shit. In all sorts of other contexts, obviously there are many ways in which something can be good. In the specific way he used it, there is a very well-defined and objective standard, and he fails it.
psyc 10y ago
Kind of hilarious how many comments in this thread already echo the mentality he's opposing. Get in line. Don't rock the boat. Don't complain about your lot. And you probably deserve what you got, because it's what you got. (Aka Just World Fallacy.)
- kevhito 10y ago
  I think it's mostly just me. It's not so much "get in line", but "before you complain about getting in line, maybe consider why there is a line in the first place". Getting burned by pissing off one or two people in your department is unfortunate. Pissing of more than half the people in your department? Plus lots of people in other departments? And the administration too? And even the local newspaper? Either he is the only good guy in a sea of jerks, or maybe he's not quite the good guy he thinks he is. I don't know the which it is, and the article doesn't tell us either. I'm not sure why this story upset me so much. I think it is because when I started in my department, I saw things I thought were terrible -- courses that hadn't been revised in years, the wrong languages being taught, outdated exercises, poorly-written web pages, cumbersome processes, etc. And I said so, frequently. Thankfully, I had some great mentors to help teach me to slow down and listen to others, and work with others. We've now made lots of changes, updated the curriculum, and done it all together. And some things I thought were terrible I know realize are actually elegant solutions to problems outside of our control (e.g. finite money and time and expertise, and a college administration that needs to think about public perception, alumni, gifting, athletics, other departments, and lots of other things besides "what will make the CS department awesome").
  - dluan 10y ago
    Often feeling that any criticism of your work is unfair can blind you to what the real criticism is. Yeah, there's probably a few folks who you can't win over no matter what. But, there are also valid and real takeaways that colleagues are offering, and holding your hands over your ears saying the system is rigged isn't going to help one to continue to grow.
  - hash-set 10y ago
    That would be super easy to do just about anywhere these days. One doesn't even have to be particularly controversial. One merely has to vehemently and uncompromisingly come out as a supporter of our Bill of Rights and lay shame on those who have rejected our pre-existing "natural" rights. It's a trigger like none other, it seems. Odd, wouldn't you say? Worse still, I come out defending rights that have been incorporated in western legal tradition since the Magna Carta and the hate really shines! Is freedom that dangerous?
sseagull 10y ago
This article is somewhat resonating with me, and where I am in my life right now. After a few years of postdoc, I'm at a crossroads of where I want to go. In some sense, I'm a lot like the author, and I'm not really doing enough of what "they" want. I love research and tackling tough problems. But becoming a full professor just isn't about that. I'd much rather stay in my office and work out a problem than go to a conference and "network". Or waste time writing a paper about my incremental progress (I could just wait and write about the whole thing!) That makes me a terrible "scientist", I guess.
- roel_v 10y ago
  As my gran used to say - "we don't bake 'rather' cookies here". I mean, I'd 'rather' lay in my hammock sipping pina coladas, but here I am on a Sunday afternoon waiting for my project to compile. Every job has aspects to it that aren't much fun, that's why it's a job.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
seibelj 10y ago
I work in industry, but the key to getting stuff done in a hierarchical organization is tact. I think he is a poor politician, and is clearly very unhappy about being denied tenure. I think putting out feelers and going about a new job more quietly would be more effective. Hypothetically, let's say you (the person reading this comment) want to make a big change in your organization. You identified a problem, and honestly think the solution is a fundamental change in direction. The incorrect next step is to bring up your opinion in front of the decision makers! This causes strife, anger, embarrassment, negative attention, etc. The correct plan is to quietly gauge support, get allies, make your case one-on-one, and get things going with multiple stakeholders on board. No one embarrassed, the majority in agreement. Rocking the boat publicly (as this post clearly shows he is OK with) is not the mark of good political skills.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Agree with that. He set out to improve things, which is a good goal. Improving means criticizing the status quo at some level. In case of academia, with tenured people lingering there for life, status quo is probably the result of their work (for better or for worse). Wanting to "improve" that was probably perceived as an insult something like "what you did before sucks, I'll make it better". Unless he was dealing with unusually rational colleagues, that stuff is never forgotten and surfaces at voting times. But also playing devil's advocate here. It could also be that this is a "well the grapes are too sour anyway" type story. That is, maybe his research wasn't seen as very good, innovative or interesting to deserve a tenure. Maybe he knew it too so set out to instead focus on teaching and other aspects. I've seen people do that. Can't code so they become really strong proponents of documenting everything, or they look for other busy work to justify their salary. That is not necessarily all bad or wrong, but it is interesting to consider here. We haven't really heard from other side so to speak.
  - dronemallone 10y ago
    multiple NSF grants and multiple papers in top conferences - his research IS good, innovative and interesting. Also, a majority of the external letter writers had positive things to say.
Hondor 10y ago
From this other page https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/ https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/ , it looks like he can take his grants, research, Phd students and courses with him to a new job! I'm totally amazed at that. Don't they belong to his old university? Is that how it usually works in universities?
- dluan 10y ago
  Most times, grants stay with the department and they have the discretion to use the remainder however they want.
  - clegoues 10y ago
    Not quite; there's a mechanism for this, though the details vary by department/funding source/phase of the moon. Typically one can take at least part of earned grants elsewhere, though sometimes the originating school can still take overhead before transferring the rest (leading to double-overhead, when the new school takes a percentage of the remainder). (The funding system doesn't always make sense, but it REALLY wouldn't make sense to give a grant, especially something like a CAREER, which is given to a single PI based on the work that PI proposes to do, to a department where the PI who proposed to do the work no longer actually works...)
dluan 10y ago
I know this is a rough situation, but perhaps there are real merits to the decision that I wish we could've seen discussed in the post. For example, I went ahead and watched a few of the videos from his internet course and very quickly grokked what kind of professor he might be. On an industry level, yeah he's right. These things are happening throughout academia in departments everywhere. Tenure is a poorly designed system. Most likely, UBuffalo is missing out on a great teacher. On a personal level, it'd be a shame to walk away from an experience like this as being cynical and defensive.
- tschwimmer 10y ago
  What kind of professor is he?
tiatia 10y ago
Well, I guess I am generally one of the worst performing employees. But why would you post such a statement in public? Maybe he is right in everything but in making this public I would never hire this guy. Probably would like to hang out for a beer with him. But hire?
gnipgnip 10y ago
Somehow, everyone thought that putting people in a straight-jacket for 30-35 years is a great way for obtaining "creative individuals".
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Chinjut 10y ago
I don't know and can't speak to the merits of this guy's research, but it distresses me to see so many people here taking him to task merely for daring to publicly voice criticisms of his employer. Not just advising him "This may be tactically suboptimal...", but apparently actually mad at him for saying such things! Are we not to be allowed, as human beings, to speak for ourselves? Are we to always be in our employee role, subservient to the boss, saying outside of hushed whispers only ever what most pleases the boss? Always in costume, any extra personality immoral to wear outside…
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Since hardly anyone has firsthand knowledge of what happened, everyone is extrapolating (it's all anyone can do really). You are extrapolating that this is a case where individuality is getting crushed by The System and this guy's only crime was speaking the truth and not conforming to this or that soul crushing norm of professional life. For the most part the less sympathetic comments I've seen are extrapolating that there may have been issues with maturity, professionalism, self-awareness, "reading the room", etc. Of course those comments also come from people extrapolating about what really happened based on the account of one person. The truth is unknowable to almost everyone here, so all people can do is compare what was written to their own experiences. I don't think you're any more right or wrong than anyone else here, but I think your interpretation is based on a different reading of the situation altogether, rather than everyone reading it the same way but having different notions of what was just or unjust about what happened.
  - Chinjut 10y ago
    I'm not saying he was crushed for his individuality and truth-speaking then. As I said, I have no idea what he was like in the past, or the merits of his tenure case. I'm saying people, in this thread, are taking him to task for criticizing his (soon to be ex-)employer publicly now. That "Don't criticize your employer!" norm, to me, is a bizarre one for strangers to get upset over deviations from.
    - tdb7893 10y ago
ubbu1234 10y ago
I know number of citations is far from perfect, but from a rough look at google scholar his papers (since he started as assistant professor) have been cited <100 times... I am not too familiar with his field but in most CS fields I would assume that hardly counts as groundbreaking research. I am sure there is some kernel of truth in his claim of unfairness, and he seems like a genuinely great teacher, but denial of tenure seems more like a case of promising faculty (his publication record prior to his start at UB seems stellar) not living up to expectations?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jfasi 10y ago
Working in a large organization straight out of college, I've learned the meaning of the phrase 'pay your dues.' When you get hired at a large organization, you're expected to fall in line for a while before you get entrusted with political clout. Many people chafe at this: why is someone of my caliber wasting his time doing low-level work in an obviously broken system when I could be making real change happen? The naive and/or cynical answer is because the organization demands conformity: wouldn't want to hire a fresh thinker to derail our institutional gravy train! Let's burn them out by making them jump through an arbitrary and tedious series of hoops so they come out the other end too limp and tired to overthrow us! This interpretation is nonsense. The informed answer is that this stage is an additional filtering process. Being a leader in a large organization requires politicking: coalition building, patience, tact, etc. Not every junior hire will develop these skills. Organizations that endow too much power in someone lacking such skills will inevitably suffer from unnecessary conflicts and (often) fruitless instability. This post seems like the author is listing his accomplishments while stunned that they alone don't qualify him for tenure. However, I would wager anything that his potential to accomplish these sorts of things was obvious to the department from day one. If so, it likely influenced their decision to hire him in the first place. His achievement of this potential yielded little new information. Meanwhile, his ostentatious conflicts and overly vocal style likely did. My personal assessment is he's clearly a brilliant and hard-working faculty member, but the rock-the-boat actions he boasts and the very fact that he wrote this post suggests that he lacks the soft touch of a leader. Tenure doesn't just mean being un-fireable, it means helping shape your institution, and a brilliant leader without a steady hand is more trouble than he's worth.
pistle 10y ago
Well, that's his side of the story. Burning bridges publicly while signalling that you are difficult to work with is a twofer. Classy. Subtle. There are 8 people who have any second thoughts answered, and likely two others who might not abstain if given a second chance. Life goes on. Pick up your pieces and build a new dream. Don't stand on the bridge you are burning.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dronemallone 10y ago
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.
- hash-set 10y ago
  Couldn't have said it better! They want to place stupid games? Then watch their relevance dissipate into nothingness. Science doesn't need the current research system in order to survive and thrive.
hudibras 10y ago
Here's a similar blog post from 3 years ago, with similar HN comments... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-awesomest-7-year-postdoc-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-tenure-track-faculty-life/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-awesomes... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081501
natch 10y ago
Look at his video on the flipped classroom format. He really draws out the explanation. Very verbose. I'm not impressed. It could have been explained in one sentence. And he loves to say "you know." Way too much. And when he writes names of people on the whiteboard (later in a video on packets) he scribbles them. If it's worth writing down, it's worth writing clearly, especially for something like a person's name where it's not a dictionary word with a known spelling. This is a quality of instruction issue. To be a great teacher, you have to notice these things, care about them, and fix them.
partycoder 10y ago
This resembles the late stages of stack ranking, where in the "endgame", the remaining high ranking contributors try to preserve their ranking by avoiding working with potentially stronger contributors. Stack ranking is a downward spiral.
twblalock 10y ago
Academics realize that when they grant tenure to someone, that person is likely to be their coworker for the next several decades. This guy may very well be brilliant in his field, but he is clearly not a good fit for the department he was in. Quite frankly, he seems to be abrasive and a bit of a dick. He also seems inexcusably naive about how academia works, considering how long he has been an academic. Why would any rational person in his department guarantee him the job security to stick around for the rest of his career? Why would anyone want to hire him after the unprofessional and petulant display he just posted on the web?
- inimino 10y ago
  Assuming he is indeed "brilliant in his field" and simply not very good at politics, there are tons of places who will happily hire that combination.
bluenose69 10y ago
Those who noted his discussion about teaching might want to consult youtube for some examples of how he does that.
cs2818 10y ago
I am surprised by the sentiment of many of the comments here. Perhaps it is from spending so many years in the academic world, but I have repeatedly witnessed how "conforming" or "following protocol" with hopes of tenure has fostered teaching and research deficits within academic communities. I don't know the author of this article or his research, but his story is entirely plausible. Tenured faculty can be brutal to those bidding to join the club, often perceiving the most well-intended actions to be threatening. In the end the consequences most strongly harm the advancement of the field and the education of students.
skywhopper 10y ago
If the author was really "point[ing] out problems with resource allocation, poor distribution of teaching load, lack of diversity among both our faculty and students, terrible graduate admissions systems, looking the other way regrading student plagiarism, and our neglect of our undergraduate programs" from the start, then I'm not surprised at the outcome. While I'm sure most or all of what the author complained about were true problems, the fact is that your colleagues (1) already know; (2) know a lot more than you do about _why_ things are broken (or the reasoning behind what only _appears_ to be broken); (3) might already be working to fix it; (4) might be _responsible_ for what you're ranting about, which may well be a huge improvement over previous iterations of the policy/system; and (5) don't appreciate being lectured about how broken everything is by someone that doesn't realize #1-4. Tenure is a big commitment by the department and the university to your career. No matter how successful you are on the objective criteria behind the selection, you also need to be someone the faculty can envision being glad to work with for the next few decades, and who they think can be effective in improving the department in the future. If we believe the author's own evidence, then I would have been inclined to vote nay as well.
- edtechdev 10y ago
  If any of those items were true (and I highly doubt that), his colleagues should have simply mentioned it rather than stay quiet, passive aggressive, and butthurt.
  - skywhopper 10y ago
    I'm guessing they _were_ trying to mention it and he interpreted it as "don't make waves till you get tenure". And sure, some people explicitly say that, but the fact is, new people in an old organization do not understand the complexities, and telling everyone they're wrong is not going to win friends or influence people.
rustynails 10y ago
I both admire and feel sorry for the author. To pour your heart and soul for so long and not achieve your outcomes can be very hurtful and devastating. The language in this document is telling in a few ways. There is not much about collaboration with peers or superiors other than conflict. The article left me with an impression of conflict and someone who wasn't a team player. I am guessing that cultural compatibility was an issue. It may be possible that the outcome may be for the best because it may help the author grow (although, public accusations will not be seen well by future employees as it's airing many people's dirty laundry). I'm also note that the author raises some issues that I as a boss take exception to. For example, more diversity. I am aware that in today's climate, diversity is a highly charged, politically correct topic. The author talks about diversity by hiring by gender. What diversity is the author seeking? That of genitals? Is there some magic empathy or creativity that females supposedly have? I've always built teams based on needs of skills, personality, cultural fit. As an example, I knocked back a highly qualified, well presented male candidate because he was too ambitious for a maintenance role. This was not because of his gender, but, because he was unlikely to provide a long term ROI and would expect promotion that couldn't be delivered and cause unrest by venting disappointment as a lack of growth. I would most probably be seen by the author as being sexist for not hiring by gender to fill a quota and I would view the author as sexist for hiring by gender and being unable to see that diversity is not a gender, but skills and personality. I would encourage the author to ask themself if they are a team player. I would encourage the author to understand themselves and the sort of culture they want to work in. Maybe, it is a culture of creativity rather than talent that the author craves (as an example). Seeking feedback from peers outside of work may be very helpful and revealing too. I can be confrontational (too many fights over too many years), but I know who I am and I know what I want. I support my organisation above myself (during working hours) and I support and respect juniors, peers and more senior staff. I negotiate my views. I listen carefully. I seek feedback from my peers. I align my views with my peers where it doesn't compromise my principals. As an example, I would never work for a company that hires (or excludes) by gender or race because I want freedom to hire the right staff, not some boxes ticked. I know myself and my employee. I turn down jobs where I don't believe in the company for my own sake and the company's. I wish the author the best of luck and hope they have the courage to ask the tough questions. I think they need to ask some tough questions.
hash-set 10y ago
As a former academic, my advice is that this may hurt in the short term, but staying true to your principles is important in a world where situational ethics rule. I am a lifelong libertarian and made no attempt to hide it. Leftist academics are not interested in diversity of thought, they are not interested in debate. They merely want to rule and have an echo chamber. I found that most of them weren't even very intelligent people--just kind of mediocre, and that most were intimidated by anyone with real gumption, diverse skills, and the bravery to speak against the party line. The world needs you. No matter what your politics are, if you truly are advancing science and doing all the things you wrote about, you will be fine. You just need to take this lesson to heart and understand that the machine is like Skynet in that it protects itself. I further recommend you leave NY State, especially upstate. It's had it. Barring some massive turnaround, there is no future for anyone in Upstate NY.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
I don't know why he has significant supporters here, saying things like "stay true to principles". Principles don't require a person to project bitterness and cynicism. He's indulging his frustrations which may feel satisfying, but does not strengthen his argument. Many organizations would pass him over based on this post alone because they would worry he may be difficult to manage or not a team player. It's true many people don't have political skills but there are workarounds. For example, always get a second opinion before posting something like this.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cowardlydragon 10y ago
Well, everything is negotiable. If he's bringing in money, negotiate with the university about a good salary. It's no more job security than in corporate america.
sunstone 10y ago
As the Japanese say, the nail that's standing up gets pulled out.

349 points by panic 10y ago

Here’s a (albeit small) sample of his students’ opinion of Geoffery. http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1626392 http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1626392 A common criticism seems to be that he has a huge ego.

TillE 10y ago
I've seen so many professors I loved, especially the tougher ones, given crappy ratings by stupid idiots who choose to use that site.

mcherm 10y ago

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.

obventio56 10y ago
I can't be the only high school age lurker here that thought your comment came straight out of an AP DBQ.
- mcherm 10y ago
  What is an "AP DBQ"?
gsylvie 10y ago
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/ https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/proposals/), and his DBLP (http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/c/Challen:Geoffrey http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/c/Challen:Geoffrey) is pretty awesome (note: he's in DBLP as Geoffrey Challen, Geoffrey Werner Challen, and Geoffrey Werner-Allen). But he DID keep his dog in his lab, against university policy: https://web.archive.org/web/20151002100639/http://www.buffalonews.com/20130308/Off_Main_Street_The_offbeat_side_of_the_news.html https://web.archive.org/web/20151002100639/http://www.buffal... I hope he changes his mind about not appealing. The grass ain't greener anywhere else. All university departments are filled with miserable gossips.
- skosuri 10y ago
  It looks like he also flipped classrooms and was active within the department service-wise. That's a pretty crazy decision not to tenure him from the outside.
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    It was really crazy in the department too, at least among undergraduate students. His lab is very well known as a great place to learn about the development of mobile devices, which is basically not offered in any courses and difficult to be formally educated in otherwise.
  - cycomachead 10y ago
    As sad as it is, there are lots of places where these things are met with skepticism and argument. I know people who specifically waited years to redesign courses until they had tenure.
- kevhito 10y ago
  > All university departments are filled with miserable gossips. They are also filled with people who think their own vision and priorities for the intro programming course, operating systems course, networking course, "entire" undergrad curriculum, department and college resource allocation, and campus dog policy, are obviously the only correct and rational choice, and anyone who disagrees is a miserable gossip.
  - flowereaterz 10y ago
    Sounds like everyone in any career, including the OP or people on Hacker News.
- kev009 10y ago
  On the other hand, why? The article jives with my own experience and understanding from college and talking to people that went to other not top tier schools. Most schools are not equipped to teach CS, certainly not to increase diversity, and they don't really care. Change is scary, especially if it might work. He can make more money in industry and move around more fluidly to find like minded folks, sounds like a great life decision. Honestly, most people don't know when to cut their losses. I think he does.

partisan 10y ago

Couldn't scroll on the site on my iPhone. I don't think I've seen that before.

phreack 10y ago
I've had it happen before, what's likely happening is that you're scrolling an element behind the article due to a bug in safari with z indexes.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

muglug 10y ago

Most people, when passed over for promotion, don't write about it publicly. One has to wonder what sort of spirit possessed this author.

M_Grey 10y ago
...And if said spirit was apparent to the people voting, and if they factored that into their decision.
apathy 10y ago
That's not how tenure works. Up or out -- you get tenure or you hit the road. So this is actually fairly common in academia. Sort of a parting shot, if you will.
- joeclark77 10y ago
  Yes, but he's now trying to take his show on the road and get a job at another university. The reason this "parting shot" is risky is that it may get him pre-emptively ruled out by a lot of other hiring committees.
  - fencepost 10y ago
    But speaking out here about the reasons he was denied tenure may be the only chance he gets to present that to some schools that might otherwise say "Buffalo knew this guy and tossed him, they must know something." It may also prompt potential employers to look at the makeup of the department that rejected him - is it full of people who got their initial degrees when 32-bit architectures were theoretical novelties?
    - joeclark77 10y ago
      Good point. In this case I think he's confident that he'll get a job somewhere, and therefore he's willing to do this as a way of eliminating potential employers from contention based on whether they do or don't value the kinds of contributions he's making. It's a good strategy unless he's wrong about how desirable he is.

gregmac 10y ago

Why is Tenure still a thing? It's basically a lifetime employment contract. It seems the only argument for tenure is academic freedom.. a tenured professor can pursue an avenue of research without fear of reprisal for it being controversial or not yielding results (though really, even experiments that 'fail' actually serve to prove that it's not the way to go). It seems to be me like this is a problem that can be solved in many better ways. For example, employees in most (every?) jurisdiction are protected by laws that mean they can't be fired without just cause. Even if the employer tries to find ways around this (making up reasons), the fired employee can generally lodge a complaint/lawsuit to prove otherwise. Can some type of protection of this sort not be written into academic contracts as well?

detaro 10y ago
Tenure is just an employment contract that can only be terminated with just cause. (And the number of tenure-track positions is going down as far as I know)
- dluan 10y ago
  Tenure is shrinking because universities are realizing that the core of their workforce isn't tenured scientists - it's assistants and adjuncts, post-docs, and grad students. In the business model world of big science being publish, get grant funding, take overhead, tenured professors are mainly just project managers. Why make a commitment to support 2x more tenure track positions when you have 1-2 good enough to attract wide-eyed grad students? This is the market correcting itself to shrinking federal budgets and ballooning workforce supply.
totalZero 10y ago
Professors are also thinkers and researchers. Thinkers should be free to explore different positions, without fear of being ostracized for their ideas. Researchers should have some sense of longevity, so that they can undertake grand projects that require years of continuity. Your third point is not always applicable, in my understanding. At-will employees in New York can be fired for any non-protected reason, or even without cause. Contracts and unions elevate the burden of the employer to justify a termination, but outside of that, it's not easy to fight a wrongful termination without having hard evidence of some kind of implied contract.

CalChris 10y ago

my department voted against my tenure case earlier this week Since this was posted 2016-10-22, I'm gonna assume the department did this smack in the middle of the semester.

anonetal 10y ago
This is in line with the tenure cases that I have seen (across US) -- the department votes tend to be in early Fall, and the case makes its way through the rest of the univ over the next 5-6 months.
- tnecniv 10y ago
  My school had one in the spring recently. I know because they solicited opinions of the candidate's recent students on his abilities as a teacher. In that case, it was still a mid-semester deal.
joeclark77 10y ago
Academic job markets get started around this time of year, depending on the discipline and affected by the dates of their big conferences, for jobs to begin in fall of the following year. So by giving him the decision now, he has enough advance notice to prepare his CV and apply for jobs.
- CalChris 10y ago
  I guess you're right. I took a class once where the prof was denied tenure about half way through. He was completely deflated and it affected his teaching considerably. He'd expected he'd get tenure.

code_sardaukar 10y ago

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 granted tenure, the process is mostly fair, but of course most people are going to want to do everything they can to maximize their chances. What the author interprets as proving obedience, I interpret as not wasting time on things the committee can't measure objectively, or doing things that might piss off people on the committee. As someone in industry, I see academia as somewhere where people can make immense contributions to human knowledge, that cannot be done elsewhere, but they have to jump through certain hoops to do so. Outside of academia there is very little opportunity to do research. Industry is conservative, and prefers to implement and refine known techniques.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
blazespin 10y ago
"I interpret as .. doing things that might piss off people on the committee." Sounds like obedience to me. There's a great HBO tv show, "The Wire". It's all about how an institution can consume personalities of those who belong to it. I'm pretty sure tenure is the same way. I see this happening to people who work in corporations for a long time. Their personalities change as they become the sort of person who can succeed in such environments. That being said, I suspect standout researchers get tenure and get to be themselves, just as talented people can succeed in corporations and still be themselves. They are generally the exception rather than the norm, however.
- kevhito 10y ago
  Hi, although I'm new here and all of you have been teaching here for 20 years on average, let me tell you why everything you have done with the curriculum is terrible and should be completely rewritten in my style. And of course, I'll have to do all of this myself, since you are all incompetent. And I better teach the first round myself too, because I can't trust you with that either. So yes, there is a difference between not pissing off people on the committee and "obedience".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

How come the three papers that the author cites as examples of groundbreaking work have 2 citations between them? Is this the norm in computer systems?

robotresearcher 10y ago
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.
- roel_v 10y ago
  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.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    If they are new, they are neither proven great or shit. Like a new novel or work of art, or any IP. The author is proposing that people read those papers becaus he is proud of them. Nothing wrong with that.
    - roel_v 10y ago
      No, not true. He's arguing he's an asset to the university, and one of his arguments is his publishing track record. In that context, there are two way papers are 'good': they are published in Nature or The Lancet, or they have high citation counts. Whether a paper has the potential to get lots of citations doesn't count for anything. Likewise, if the content is super out of this world great, but nobody has cited it - the paper is shit. In all sorts of other contexts, obviously there are many ways in which something can be good. In the specific way he used it, there is a very well-defined and objective standard, and he fails it.

psyc 10y ago

Kind of hilarious how many comments in this thread already echo the mentality he's opposing. Get in line. Don't rock the boat. Don't complain about your lot. And you probably deserve what you got, because it's what you got. (Aka Just World Fallacy.)

kevhito 10y ago
I think it's mostly just me. It's not so much "get in line", but "before you complain about getting in line, maybe consider why there is a line in the first place". Getting burned by pissing off one or two people in your department is unfortunate. Pissing of more than half the people in your department? Plus lots of people in other departments? And the administration too? And even the local newspaper? Either he is the only good guy in a sea of jerks, or maybe he's not quite the good guy he thinks he is. I don't know the which it is, and the article doesn't tell us either. I'm not sure why this story upset me so much. I think it is because when I started in my department, I saw things I thought were terrible -- courses that hadn't been revised in years, the wrong languages being taught, outdated exercises, poorly-written web pages, cumbersome processes, etc. And I said so, frequently. Thankfully, I had some great mentors to help teach me to slow down and listen to others, and work with others. We've now made lots of changes, updated the curriculum, and done it all together. And some things I thought were terrible I know realize are actually elegant solutions to problems outside of our control (e.g. finite money and time and expertise, and a college administration that needs to think about public perception, alumni, gifting, athletics, other departments, and lots of other things besides "what will make the CS department awesome").
- dluan 10y ago
  Often feeling that any criticism of your work is unfair can blind you to what the real criticism is. Yeah, there's probably a few folks who you can't win over no matter what. But, there are also valid and real takeaways that colleagues are offering, and holding your hands over your ears saying the system is rigged isn't going to help one to continue to grow.
- hash-set 10y ago
  That would be super easy to do just about anywhere these days. One doesn't even have to be particularly controversial. One merely has to vehemently and uncompromisingly come out as a supporter of our Bill of Rights and lay shame on those who have rejected our pre-existing "natural" rights. It's a trigger like none other, it seems. Odd, wouldn't you say? Worse still, I come out defending rights that have been incorporated in western legal tradition since the Magna Carta and the hate really shines! Is freedom that dangerous?

sseagull 10y ago

This article is somewhat resonating with me, and where I am in my life right now. After a few years of postdoc, I'm at a crossroads of where I want to go. In some sense, I'm a lot like the author, and I'm not really doing enough of what "they" want. I love research and tackling tough problems. But becoming a full professor just isn't about that. I'd much rather stay in my office and work out a problem than go to a conference and "network". Or waste time writing a paper about my incremental progress (I could just wait and write about the whole thing!) That makes me a terrible "scientist", I guess.

roel_v 10y ago
As my gran used to say - "we don't bake 'rather' cookies here". I mean, I'd 'rather' lay in my hammock sipping pina coladas, but here I am on a Sunday afternoon waiting for my project to compile. Every job has aspects to it that aren't much fun, that's why it's a job.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

seibelj 10y ago

I work in industry, but the key to getting stuff done in a hierarchical organization is tact. I think he is a poor politician, and is clearly very unhappy about being denied tenure. I think putting out feelers and going about a new job more quietly would be more effective. Hypothetically, let's say you (the person reading this comment) want to make a big change in your organization. You identified a problem, and honestly think the solution is a fundamental change in direction. The incorrect next step is to bring up your opinion in front of the decision makers! This causes strife, anger, embarrassment, negative attention, etc. The correct plan is to quietly gauge support, get allies, make your case one-on-one, and get things going with multiple stakeholders on board. No one embarrassed, the majority in agreement. Rocking the boat publicly (as this post clearly shows he is OK with) is not the mark of good political skills.

rdtsc 10y ago
Agree with that. He set out to improve things, which is a good goal. Improving means criticizing the status quo at some level. In case of academia, with tenured people lingering there for life, status quo is probably the result of their work (for better or for worse). Wanting to "improve" that was probably perceived as an insult something like "what you did before sucks, I'll make it better". Unless he was dealing with unusually rational colleagues, that stuff is never forgotten and surfaces at voting times. But also playing devil's advocate here. It could also be that this is a "well the grapes are too sour anyway" type story. That is, maybe his research wasn't seen as very good, innovative or interesting to deserve a tenure. Maybe he knew it too so set out to instead focus on teaching and other aspects. I've seen people do that. Can't code so they become really strong proponents of documenting everything, or they look for other busy work to justify their salary. That is not necessarily all bad or wrong, but it is interesting to consider here. We haven't really heard from other side so to speak.
- dronemallone 10y ago
  multiple NSF grants and multiple papers in top conferences - his research IS good, innovative and interesting. Also, a majority of the external letter writers had positive things to say.

Hondor 10y ago

From this other page https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/ https://blue.cse.buffalo.edu/ , it looks like he can take his grants, research, Phd students and courses with him to a new job! I'm totally amazed at that. Don't they belong to his old university? Is that how it usually works in universities?

dluan 10y ago
Most times, grants stay with the department and they have the discretion to use the remainder however they want.
- clegoues 10y ago
  Not quite; there's a mechanism for this, though the details vary by department/funding source/phase of the moon. Typically one can take at least part of earned grants elsewhere, though sometimes the originating school can still take overhead before transferring the rest (leading to double-overhead, when the new school takes a percentage of the remainder). (The funding system doesn't always make sense, but it REALLY wouldn't make sense to give a grant, especially something like a CAREER, which is given to a single PI based on the work that PI proposes to do, to a department where the PI who proposed to do the work no longer actually works...)

dluan 10y ago

I know this is a rough situation, but perhaps there are real merits to the decision that I wish we could've seen discussed in the post. For example, I went ahead and watched a few of the videos from his internet course and very quickly grokked what kind of professor he might be. On an industry level, yeah he's right. These things are happening throughout academia in departments everywhere. Tenure is a poorly designed system. Most likely, UBuffalo is missing out on a great teacher. On a personal level, it'd be a shame to walk away from an experience like this as being cynical and defensive.

tschwimmer 10y ago
What kind of professor is he?

tiatia 10y ago

Well, I guess I am generally one of the worst performing employees. But why would you post such a statement in public? Maybe he is right in everything but in making this public I would never hire this guy. Probably would like to hang out for a beer with him. But hire?

gnipgnip 10y ago

Somehow, everyone thought that putting people in a straight-jacket for 30-35 years is a great way for obtaining "creative individuals".

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Chinjut 10y ago

I don't know and can't speak to the merits of this guy's research, but it distresses me to see so many people here taking him to task merely for daring to publicly voice criticisms of his employer. Not just advising him "This may be tactically suboptimal...", but apparently actually mad at him for saying such things! Are we not to be allowed, as human beings, to speak for ourselves? Are we to always be in our employee role, subservient to the boss, saying outside of hushed whispers only ever what most pleases the boss? Always in costume, any extra personality immoral to wear outside…

mwfunk 10y ago
Since hardly anyone has firsthand knowledge of what happened, everyone is extrapolating (it's all anyone can do really). You are extrapolating that this is a case where individuality is getting crushed by The System and this guy's only crime was speaking the truth and not conforming to this or that soul crushing norm of professional life. For the most part the less sympathetic comments I've seen are extrapolating that there may have been issues with maturity, professionalism, self-awareness, "reading the room", etc. Of course those comments also come from people extrapolating about what really happened based on the account of one person. The truth is unknowable to almost everyone here, so all people can do is compare what was written to their own experiences. I don't think you're any more right or wrong than anyone else here, but I think your interpretation is based on a different reading of the situation altogether, rather than everyone reading it the same way but having different notions of what was just or unjust about what happened.
- Chinjut 10y ago
  I'm not saying he was crushed for his individuality and truth-speaking then. As I said, I have no idea what he was like in the past, or the merits of his tenure case. I'm saying people, in this thread, are taking him to task for criticizing his (soon to be ex-)employer publicly now. That "Don't criticize your employer!" norm, to me, is a bizarre one for strangers to get upset over deviations from.
  - tdb7893 10y ago

ubbu1234 10y ago

I know number of citations is far from perfect, but from a rough look at google scholar his papers (since he started as assistant professor) have been cited <100 times... I am not too familiar with his field but in most CS fields I would assume that hardly counts as groundbreaking research. I am sure there is some kernel of truth in his claim of unfairness, and he seems like a genuinely great teacher, but denial of tenure seems more like a case of promising faculty (his publication record prior to his start at UB seems stellar) not living up to expectations?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jfasi 10y ago

Working in a large organization straight out of college, I've learned the meaning of the phrase 'pay your dues.' When you get hired at a large organization, you're expected to fall in line for a while before you get entrusted with political clout. Many people chafe at this: why is someone of my caliber wasting his time doing low-level work in an obviously broken system when I could be making real change happen? The naive and/or cynical answer is because the organization demands conformity: wouldn't want to hire a fresh thinker to derail our institutional gravy train! Let's burn them out by making them jump through an arbitrary and tedious series of hoops so they come out the other end too limp and tired to overthrow us! This interpretation is nonsense. The informed answer is that this stage is an additional filtering process. Being a leader in a large organization requires politicking: coalition building, patience, tact, etc. Not every junior hire will develop these skills. Organizations that endow too much power in someone lacking such skills will inevitably suffer from unnecessary conflicts and (often) fruitless instability. This post seems like the author is listing his accomplishments while stunned that they alone don't qualify him for tenure. However, I would wager anything that his potential to accomplish these sorts of things was obvious to the department from day one. If so, it likely influenced their decision to hire him in the first place. His achievement of this potential yielded little new information. Meanwhile, his ostentatious conflicts and overly vocal style likely did. My personal assessment is he's clearly a brilliant and hard-working faculty member, but the rock-the-boat actions he boasts and the very fact that he wrote this post suggests that he lacks the soft touch of a leader. Tenure doesn't just mean being un-fireable, it means helping shape your institution, and a brilliant leader without a steady hand is more trouble than he's worth.

pistle 10y ago

Well, that's his side of the story. Burning bridges publicly while signalling that you are difficult to work with is a twofer. Classy. Subtle. There are 8 people who have any second thoughts answered, and likely two others who might not abstain if given a second chance. Life goes on. Pick up your pieces and build a new dream. Don't stand on the bridge you are burning.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dronemallone 10y ago

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.

hash-set 10y ago
Couldn't have said it better! They want to place stupid games? Then watch their relevance dissipate into nothingness. Science doesn't need the current research system in order to survive and thrive.

hudibras 10y ago

Here's a similar blog post from 3 years ago, with similar HN comments... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-awesomest-7-year-postdoc-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-tenure-track-faculty-life/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-awesomes... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6081501

natch 10y ago

Look at his video on the flipped classroom format. He really draws out the explanation. Very verbose. I'm not impressed. It could have been explained in one sentence. And he loves to say "you know." Way too much. And when he writes names of people on the whiteboard (later in a video on packets) he scribbles them. If it's worth writing down, it's worth writing clearly, especially for something like a person's name where it's not a dictionary word with a known spelling. This is a quality of instruction issue. To be a great teacher, you have to notice these things, care about them, and fix them.

partycoder 10y ago

This resembles the late stages of stack ranking, where in the "endgame", the remaining high ranking contributors try to preserve their ranking by avoiding working with potentially stronger contributors. Stack ranking is a downward spiral.

twblalock 10y ago

Academics realize that when they grant tenure to someone, that person is likely to be their coworker for the next several decades. This guy may very well be brilliant in his field, but he is clearly not a good fit for the department he was in. Quite frankly, he seems to be abrasive and a bit of a dick. He also seems inexcusably naive about how academia works, considering how long he has been an academic. Why would any rational person in his department guarantee him the job security to stick around for the rest of his career? Why would anyone want to hire him after the unprofessional and petulant display he just posted on the web?

inimino 10y ago
Assuming he is indeed "brilliant in his field" and simply not very good at politics, there are tons of places who will happily hire that combination.

bluenose69 10y ago

Those who noted his discussion about teaching might want to consult youtube for some examples of how he does that.

cs2818 10y ago

I am surprised by the sentiment of many of the comments here. Perhaps it is from spending so many years in the academic world, but I have repeatedly witnessed how "conforming" or "following protocol" with hopes of tenure has fostered teaching and research deficits within academic communities. I don't know the author of this article or his research, but his story is entirely plausible. Tenured faculty can be brutal to those bidding to join the club, often perceiving the most well-intended actions to be threatening. In the end the consequences most strongly harm the advancement of the field and the education of students.

skywhopper 10y ago

If the author was really "point[ing] out problems with resource allocation, poor distribution of teaching load, lack of diversity among both our faculty and students, terrible graduate admissions systems, looking the other way regrading student plagiarism, and our neglect of our undergraduate programs" from the start, then I'm not surprised at the outcome. While I'm sure most or all of what the author complained about were true problems, the fact is that your colleagues (1) already know; (2) know a lot more than you do about _why_ things are broken (or the reasoning behind what only _appears_ to be broken); (3) might already be working to fix it; (4) might be _responsible_ for what you're ranting about, which may well be a huge improvement over previous iterations of the policy/system; and (5) don't appreciate being lectured about how broken everything is by someone that doesn't realize #1-4. Tenure is a big commitment by the department and the university to your career. No matter how successful you are on the objective criteria behind the selection, you also need to be someone the faculty can envision being glad to work with for the next few decades, and who they think can be effective in improving the department in the future. If we believe the author's own evidence, then I would have been inclined to vote nay as well.

edtechdev 10y ago
If any of those items were true (and I highly doubt that), his colleagues should have simply mentioned it rather than stay quiet, passive aggressive, and butthurt.
- skywhopper 10y ago
  I'm guessing they _were_ trying to mention it and he interpreted it as "don't make waves till you get tenure". And sure, some people explicitly say that, but the fact is, new people in an old organization do not understand the complexities, and telling everyone they're wrong is not going to win friends or influence people.

rustynails 10y ago

I both admire and feel sorry for the author. To pour your heart and soul for so long and not achieve your outcomes can be very hurtful and devastating. The language in this document is telling in a few ways. There is not much about collaboration with peers or superiors other than conflict. The article left me with an impression of conflict and someone who wasn't a team player. I am guessing that cultural compatibility was an issue. It may be possible that the outcome may be for the best because it may help the author grow (although, public accusations will not be seen well by future employees as it's airing many people's dirty laundry). I'm also note that the author raises some issues that I as a boss take exception to. For example, more diversity. I am aware that in today's climate, diversity is a highly charged, politically correct topic. The author talks about diversity by hiring by gender. What diversity is the author seeking? That of genitals? Is there some magic empathy or creativity that females supposedly have? I've always built teams based on needs of skills, personality, cultural fit. As an example, I knocked back a highly qualified, well presented male candidate because he was too ambitious for a maintenance role. This was not because of his gender, but, because he was unlikely to provide a long term ROI and would expect promotion that couldn't be delivered and cause unrest by venting disappointment as a lack of growth. I would most probably be seen by the author as being sexist for not hiring by gender to fill a quota and I would view the author as sexist for hiring by gender and being unable to see that diversity is not a gender, but skills and personality. I would encourage the author to ask themself if they are a team player. I would encourage the author to understand themselves and the sort of culture they want to work in. Maybe, it is a culture of creativity rather than talent that the author craves (as an example). Seeking feedback from peers outside of work may be very helpful and revealing too. I can be confrontational (too many fights over too many years), but I know who I am and I know what I want. I support my organisation above myself (during working hours) and I support and respect juniors, peers and more senior staff. I negotiate my views. I listen carefully. I seek feedback from my peers. I align my views with my peers where it doesn't compromise my principals. As an example, I would never work for a company that hires (or excludes) by gender or race because I want freedom to hire the right staff, not some boxes ticked. I know myself and my employee. I turn down jobs where I don't believe in the company for my own sake and the company's. I wish the author the best of luck and hope they have the courage to ask the tough questions. I think they need to ask some tough questions.

hash-set 10y ago

As a former academic, my advice is that this may hurt in the short term, but staying true to your principles is important in a world where situational ethics rule. I am a lifelong libertarian and made no attempt to hide it. Leftist academics are not interested in diversity of thought, they are not interested in debate. They merely want to rule and have an echo chamber. I found that most of them weren't even very intelligent people--just kind of mediocre, and that most were intimidated by anyone with real gumption, diverse skills, and the bravery to speak against the party line. The world needs you. No matter what your politics are, if you truly are advancing science and doing all the things you wrote about, you will be fine. You just need to take this lesson to heart and understand that the machine is like Skynet in that it protects itself. I further recommend you leave NY State, especially upstate. It's had it. Barring some massive turnaround, there is no future for anyone in Upstate NY.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

I don't know why he has significant supporters here, saying things like "stay true to principles". Principles don't require a person to project bitterness and cynicism. He's indulging his frustrations which may feel satisfying, but does not strengthen his argument. Many organizations would pass him over based on this post alone because they would worry he may be difficult to manage or not a team player. It's true many people don't have political skills but there are workarounds. For example, always get a second opinion before posting something like this.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

cowardlydragon 10y ago

Well, everything is negotiable. If he's bringing in money, negotiate with the university about a good salary. It's no more job security than in corporate america.

sunstone 10y ago

As the Japanese say, the nail that's standing up gets pulled out.