Recent discussions about tenure raised some interesting questions, at least one of which is going to result in a poll:
At your institution, are candidates for early tenure held to a higher standard than those being evaluated at the 'normal' time, or is the standard the same? In the former case, is it official policy that early tenure cases are held to a higher standard or is this just how it works (in your experience/opinion)?
And what about candidates who are evaluated for tenure later than normal (e.g., because their tenure clock was stopped owing to childbirth, illness, or other life-interrupting events)? Clearly they are not supposed to be held to a different standard than those without tenure clock stoppage, but, in your opinion, does it work that way?
What is the basis for your opinion?
Compared to faculty evaluated for tenure at a 'normal' time..
.. at your institution.
11 years ago