CUR 2002 Workshop Report
Getting a Tenure-Track Position at Predominantly Undergraduate Institution
Session II, Thursday, June, 20; Fanning 306
Panel Members:
Mark L. Biermann, Organizer/Recorder
Karen Kolehmainen
Kevin Riggs
Debora Katz
Attendees: 13, plus the panel
Summary:
The session was based on a panel discussion. About half the time was spent as each panel member related personal perspectives on getting a tenure-track positon at a PUI. The second half of the session was dedicated to respnding to questions and comments from attendees. The session concluded with telling the attendees about the CUR "How to" publication about obtaining a position at a PUI, with a recap of the session, and with the sharing of contact information for the panel members.
Key content points covered in the session included:
- get teaching experience: sabbatical replacement, temporary position, etc.
- do your homework about institutions to which you are applying: know what the institution's character is, teaching/research balance, the name of the
instituion, etc.
- prepare a teaching philosophy statement, and a research plan that clearly show how undergraduates will be involved; equipment and space needs could be supplied as well, but only roughly
- clarify what start-up funds are available
- find out about faculty development funds/opportunities
- don't go into a tenure-track position unless the institution and the geographical location are consistent with a long-term commitment on your part
- be clear on salary, benefits, moving expenses, etc.
- try to make personal contact with appropriate people at an insitution in which you are interested; if possible, go to the institution and meet people
- use professional meeting as a way of making contacts concerning post-docs, temporary positions, and tenure-track positions; personal contact is very helpful
- learn about the teaching load and research expectations for tenure
- target every application letter your write directly to the institution of interest
Other points were also made and the discussion was lively.
Submitted by Mark L. Biermann, June 20, 2002.
|
