Many colleges and universities have established post-tenure review policies. They’re meant to ensure that tenured faculty members don’t just coast on their laurels, but continue to put forth good efforts in teaching and research.
In today’s Martin Center article, Professor Stephen Porter argues that the UNC system is just wasting time and money with its post-tenure review and that proposed improvements won’t make things better.
Porter writes:
Once granted tenure, faculty undergo post-tenure review every five years. The goal of the post-tenure review process is to ensure that faculty are still productive after receiving tenure, and the process is designed to mimic the original tenure process. The major differences are that fewer actors are involved in the post-tenure review process, and, rather than a simple yes-or-no vote, faculty are rated as not meeting expectations (equivalent to a “no” vote) or are awarded one of two possible “yes” votes: meets expectations or exceeds expectations.
The trouble is that this has become toothless. Almost nobody ever gets a no vote.